IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5624.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Services Policies in Transition Economies: On the EU and WTO as Commitment Mechanisms

Author

Abstract

We analyze the extent to which the EU-15 and 16 transition economies used the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to commit to service sector policy reforms. GATS commitments are compared with the evolution of actual policy stances over time. While there is substantial variance across transition economies on both actual policies and GATS commitments, we find an inverse relationship between the depth of GATS commitments and the 'quality' of actual services policies as assessed by the private sector. In part this can be explained by the fact that the prospect of EU accession makes GATS less relevant as a commitment device for a subset of transition economies. However, for many of the non-EU accession candidates the WTO seems to be a weak commitment device. One explanation is that the small size of the markets concerned generates weak external enforcement incentives. Our findings suggest greater collective investment by WTO members in monitoring and transparency is needed to increase the benefits of WTO membership to small countries.

Suggested Citation

  • ,, 2006. "Services Policies in Transition Economies: On the EU and WTO as Commitment Mechanisms," CEPR Discussion Papers 5624, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP5624
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rolf J. Langhammer, 2005. "The EU Offer of Service Trade Liberalization in the Doha Round: Evidence of a Not‐Yet‐Perfect Customs Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 311-325, June.
    2. Martin,Will & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1996. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521586016, October.
    3. Felix Eschenbach & Bernard Hoekman, 2006. "Services Policy Reform and Economic Growth in Transition Economies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(4), pages 746-764, December.
    4. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2004. "The Economics of the World Trading System," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262524341, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isabelle Rabaud & Thierry Montalieu, 2006. "Trade in Services : how does it Work for MENA Countries?," Post-Print halshs-00204977, HAL.
    2. Bown, Chad, 2007. "Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough," CEPR Discussion Papers 6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    5. Hoekman, Bernard & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2008. "Services trade and growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4461, The World Bank.
    6. Massimo Armenise & Giorgia Giovannetti & Gianluca Santoni, 2011. "FDI in Business Services has general TFP effects : evidence from Italy," Working Papers - Economics wp2011_12.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    7. Manders, Ton & Bollen, Johannes & Dave, Rutu, 2007. "Trade sanctions and Climate Policy," Conference papers 331617, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Brian Tavonga Mazorodze & Devi Datt Tewari, 2018. "Impact of Chinese, Korean and Japanese Innovation Spillover on Labour Productivity in South African Manufacturing," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(5), pages 16-28.
    9. Ivana Prica & Jelica Petrović Vujačić, 2010. "Financial Services Liberalisation in Transition Countries and the Role of the WTO," Panoeconomicus, Savez ekonomista Vojvodine, Novi Sad, Serbia, vol. 57(4), pages 487-501, December.
    10. Adlung, Rudolf, 2009. "Trade in healthcare and health insurance services: The GATS as a supporting actor (?)," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2009-15, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    11. Quamrul Alam & Mohammad Abu Yusuf & Ken Coghill, 2010. "Unilateral liberalisation and WTO GATS commitments: the telecommunications sector in selected countries," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 24(1), pages 43-64, May.

    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. Eschenbach, Felix & Hoekman, Bernard, 2006. "Services policies in transition economies : on the European Union and the World Trade Organization as commitment mechanisms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3951, The World Bank.
    2. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    3. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, 2010. "Services Trade and Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(3), pages 642-692, September.
    4. Bernard Hoekman & Aaditya Mattoo & André Sapir, 2007. "The political economy of services trade liberalization: a case for international regulatory cooperation?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 367-391, Autumn.
    5. Elisabeth M. Christen & Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, 2012. "CGE Modeling of Market Access in Services," Economics working papers 2012-08, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    6. Christen, Elisabeth & Francois, Joseph & Hoekman, Bernard, 2013. "Computable General Equilibrium Modeling of Market Access in Services," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1601-1643, Elsevier.
    7. Bernard Hoekman, 2008. "The General Agreement on Trade in Services: Doomed to Fail? Does it Matter?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 295-318, December.
    8. Tarr, David G., 2013. "Putting Services and Foreign Direct Investment with Endogenous Productivity Effects in Computable General Equilibrium Models," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 303-377, Elsevier.
    9. Bianka Dettmer, 2012. "Business services outsourcing and economic growth: Evidence from a dynamic panel data approach," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-049, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Siebert, Horst, 2005. "TAFTA - a dead horse or an attractive open club?," Kiel Working Papers 1240, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    12. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    13. Ingo Borchert & Batshur Gootiiz & Aaditya Mattoo, 2014. "Policy Barriers to International Trade in Services: Evidence from a New Database," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 162-188.
    14. Marcelo de Paiva Abreu, 2005. "The FTAA and the political economy of protection in Brazil and the US," Textos para discussão 494, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
    15. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "How Important are Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in the Doha Agenda?," International Trade 0302004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    17. Daniel Alonso-Martínez & Nuria González-Álvarez & Mariano Nieto, 2021. "Does international patent collaboration have an effect on entrepreneurship?," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 539-559, December.
    18. Kempf, Hubert & Rossignol, Stéphane, 2013. "National politics and international agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-105.
    19. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Jan Babecky & Tomas Havranek, 2013. "Structural Reforms and Growth in Transition: A Meta-Analysis," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1057, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trade agreements; Services liberalization; Eu; Wto transition economies; Accession;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cpr:ceprdp:5624. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.