IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331796.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unravelling the textiles trade: How accurate were GTAP models in predicting the impact of the end of the MFA?

Author

Listed:
  • Curran, Louise

Abstract

World textiles trade has long been distorted by a series of quota limitations on market access institutionalised in the Multi Fibres Agreement (MFA). One of the key achievements of the Uruguay Round was the liberalisation of the sector through the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). This liberalisation process was a key source of the welfare gains which most models forecast to result from the Round. However, it was never evident that the impact of this liberalisation would be positive for all clothing suppliers. The quotas that had existed in the large industrialised country markets had multiple effects. In particular, they both limited the exports of the most competitive suppliers and encouraged importers in restricted markets to source their goods in a wide range of countries which were not subject to extensive quota restraints. In 2005 the sector was finally fully liberalised. This paper will look at the impacts of that liberalisation on the basis of actual trade figures. It will then compare these flows with the changes forecast by various researchers. These forecasts, mostly based on GTAP analysis, generally indicated gains for many developing country suppliers and losses for preferential suppliers and the EU. In reality, gains have been quite heavily concentrated in a few key suppliers, while many have seen limited increases in trade and a few key exporters have experienced significant losses. This effect is particularly striking in Taiwan and Korea, which were not universally forecast by the models to lose out from the liberalisation. This analysis indicates that, although the GTAP-based models forecast several outcomes accurately – in particular the gains experienced by China and India – for other sources they were less accurate. This paper will explore the reasons behind the difficulties in modelling the sector and its trade policy context and draw some conclusions for future GTAP modelling of quantitative limits on trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Curran, Louise, 2008. "Unravelling the textiles trade: How accurate were GTAP models in predicting the impact of the end of the MFA?," Conference papers 331796, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331796/files/3981.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemfert, Claudia, 1998. "Estimated substitution elasticities of a nested CES production function approach for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 249-264, June.
    2. Wissema, Wiepke & Dellink, Rob, 2007. "AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 671-683, March.
    3. van der Werf, Edwin, 2007. "Production Functions for Climate Policy Modeling: An Empirical Analysis," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 9549, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. van der Werf, Edwin, 2008. "Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2964-2979, November.
    5. John Hutton & Anna Ruocco, 1999. "Tax Reform and Employment in Europe," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 6(3), pages 263-287, August.
    6. van der Werf, Edwin, 2007. "Production Functions for Climate Policy Modeling: An Empirical Analysis," Kiel Working Papers 1316, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruslana Palatnik & Mordechai Shechter, 2008. "Can Climate Change Mitigation Policy Benefit the Israeli Economy? A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," Working Papers 2008.2, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Lucas Bretschger & Roger Ramer, 2012. "Sectoral Growth Effects of Energy Policies in an Increasing-Varieties Model of the Swiss Economy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 148(II), pages 137-166, June.
    3. Schubert, Stefan F., 2014. "Dynamic Effects Of Oil Price Shocks And Their Impact On The Current Account," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 316-337, March.
    4. Emanuele Massetti & Lea Nicita, 2010. "The Optimal Climate Policy Portfolio when Knowledge Spills across Sectors," CESifo Working Paper Series 2988, CESifo.
    5. Dean M. Hanink, 2010. "Perspectives on Regional Change: A Review Essay on Handbook of Regional Growth and Development Theories," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 3-27, March.
    6. Hübler, Michael, 2011. "Technology diffusion under contraction and convergence: A CGE analysis of China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 131-142, January.
    7. Lecca, Patrizio & Swales, Kim & Turner, Karen, 2011. "An investigation of issues relating to where energy should enter the production function," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2832-2841.
    8. Hübler, Michael, 2009. "Energy saving technology diffusion via FDI and trade: a CGE model of China," Kiel Working Papers 1479, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. M. Chepeliev, 2015. "Econometric estimation of capital-labor substitution elasticities for Ukrainian CGE model," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 2, pages 33-46.
    10. Lucas Bretschger & Lin Zhang, 2014. "Going beyond tradition: Carbon policy in a high-growth economy: The case of China," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 14/201, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    11. Bretschger, Lucas & Zhang, Lin, 2017. "Carbon policy in a high-growth economy: The case of China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-19.
    12. Eisenack, Klaus & Edenhofer, Ottmar & Kalkuhl, Matthias, 2012. "Resource rents: The effects of energy taxes and quantity instruments for climate protection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 159-166.
    13. CARRARO Carlo & MASSETTI Emanuele & NICITA Lea, 2010. "How Does Climate Policy Affect Technical Change? ?An Analysis of the Direction and Pace of Technical Progress in a Climate-Economy Model (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)," ESRI Discussion paper series 229, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    14. Adriana Marcucci & Lin Zhang, 2019. "Growth impacts of Swiss steering-based climate policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 155(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Ramón López & Sang Won Yoon, 2013. "Sustainable Economic Growth: Structural Transformation with Consumption Flexibility," Working Papers wp375, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    16. Maciej Bukowski & Pawel Kowal, 2010. "Large scale, multi-sector DSGE model as a climate policy assessment tool - Macroeconomic Mitigation Options (MEMO) model for Poland," IBS Working Papers 3/2010, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    17. Henningsen, Arne & Henningsen, Geraldine & van der Werf, Edwin, 2019. "Capital-labour-energy substitution in a nested CES framework: A replication and update of Kemfert (1998)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 16-25.
    18. Bretschger, Lucas & Ramer, Roger & Schwark, Florentine, 2011. "Growth effects of carbon policies: Applying a fully dynamic CGE model with heterogeneous capital," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 963-980.
    19. Roolfs, Christina & Gaitan, Beatriz & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2021. "Make or brake — Rich states in voluntary federal emission pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.