IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdi/wpaper/168.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

« Dé-privatisation » de la politique commerciale ? La mise en place du tarif extérieur commun de l’UEMOA

Author

Listed:
  • Bertrand LAPORTE

    (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur le Développement International(CERDI))

Abstract

Industrial lobbying has long been important in West African countries to induce government import-substitution policy. The objectives of governments were to defend infant industries and mobilise fiscal revenue. The doctrine, at a moment conflicting between World Bank and IMF, stopped the liberalisation included in the first structural adjustment programs. But during the 1990s, a consensus was born between the two institutions to support WAEMU regional integration. Although the WAEMU institutional organisation was unfavorable to decreasing protection, the support of the Washington Consensus and of the European Union has permitted trade policy de-privatisation through the application of Common External Tariff (CET). But the maintaining of different fiscal incentive systems in each country reduces the effectiveness of this new trade instrument (CET). The WAEMU Commission credibility depends on the fiscal incentive reforms which would allow an effective trade policy de-privatisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertrand LAPORTE, 2002. "« Dé-privatisation » de la politique commerciale ? La mise en place du tarif extérieur commun de l’UEMOA," Working Papers 200203, CERDI.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdi:wpaper:168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://publi.cerdi.org/ed/2002/2002.03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanoussi Bilal, 1998. "Political Economy Considerations on the Supply of Trade Protection in Regional Integration Agreements," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Jaime MELO DE & Olivier CADOT & OLARREAGA, 1996. "Lobbying and the Structure of Protection," Working Papers 199634, CERDI.
    3. Jaime De Melo & Arvind Panagariya & Dani Rodrik, 2015. "The New Regionalism: A Country Perspective," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Developing Countries in the World Economy, chapter 14, pages 323-357, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-160, February.
    5. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    6. Yves Guillotin & Patrick Sevestre, 1994. "Estimations de fonctions de gains sur données de panel : endogéneité du capital humain et effets de la sélection," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 116(5), pages 119-135.
    7. Bilal, Sanoussi, 1998. "Why Regionalism May Increase the Demand for Trade Protection," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 13, pages 30-61.
    8. Cooter, Robert & Drexl, Josef, 1994. "The logic of power in the emerging European constitution: Game theory and the division of powers," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 307-326, September.
    9. Anne O. Krueger & Sarath Rajapatirana, 1999. "The World Bank Policies Towards Trade and Trade Policy Reform," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6), pages 717-740, August.
    10. Patrick Messerlin, 1981. "The political economy of protectionism : The bureaucratic case," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 117(3), pages 469-496, September.
    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. de Melo, Jaime & Cadot, Olivier & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2000. "The Protectionist Bias of Duty Drawbacks and the New Regionalism," CEPR Discussion Papers 2559, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Grether, Jean-Marie & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Who determines Mexican trade policy?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 343-370, April.
    3. Cadot, Olivier & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Can duty-drawbacks have a protectionist bias? Evidence from MERCOSUR," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2523, The World Bank.
    4. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    5. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Gordon H. Hanson & Antonio Spilimbergo, 2001. "Political economy, sectoral shocks, and border enforcement," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 612-638, August.
    7. Kishore Gawande, 1997. "A Test of a Theory of Strategically Retaliatory Trade Barriers," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 425-449, October.
    8. Bohara, Alok K. & Camargo, Alejandro Islas & Grijalva, Therese & Gawande, Kishore, 2005. "Fundamental dimensions of U.S. trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 93-125, January.
    9. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
    10. Giovanni Facchini & Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Gerald Willmann, 2006. "Protection for sale with imperfect rent capturing," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 845-873, August.
    11. Sanchita Basu Das & Rahul Sen & Sadhana Srivastava, 2017. "A Partial Asean Customs Union Post 2015?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(03), pages 593-617, June.
    12. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    13. Feeney, JoAnne & Hillman, Arye L., 1995. "Asset markets and individual trade policy preferences," Discussion Papers, Series II 282, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    14. Cadot, Olivier & de Melo, Jaime & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Can bilateralism ease the pains of multilateral trade liberalization?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-44, January.
    15. Juliette Milgram, 2003. "Quantitative Restrictions on Clothing Imports: Impact and Determinants of the Common Trade Policy Towards Developing Countries," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    16. Madani, Dorsati & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2002. "Politically optimal tariffs : an application to Egypt," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2882, The World Bank.
    17. Wendkouni Jean‐Baptiste Zongo & Bruno Larue & Carl Gaigné, 2023. "On export duration puzzles," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(2), pages 453-478, March.
    18. Fredriksson, Per G. & Vollebergh, Herman R. J. & Dijkgraaf, Elbert, 2004. "Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: theory and evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 207-231, March.
    19. repec:cte:whrepe:wp08-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Richard Damania & Per G. Fredriksson & Thomas Osang, 2005. "Polluters and Collective Action: Theory and Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 167-185, July.
    21. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2013. "A quantile-based test of protection for sale model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 40-52.

    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:cdi:wpaper:168. 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: Vincent Mazenod (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceauvfr.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.