Regleringar i Till

1
Henrik Isakson, Economist at the National Board
of Trade in Stockholm, Sweden Editor - but not
sole author of the report The board is an
independent government agency Not official
Swedish or EU-policy
2
A comparative analysis of the trade policies of
the EU, the US, Canada and Japan Main
focus openness for all imports. Secondary
objective Developing countries Why? Do we live
in Fortress Europe? Or are we a role model? Does
it matter? 51 of all merchandise imports How?
Not ideological (Fraser), diplomatic (TPR) or
econometric (OTRI) Our study is a compilation of
statistics use as a source of reference
3
The study covers Industrial goods (tariffs,
trade defence, NTBs, subsidies) Agricultural
goods (tariffs, safeguards, support, export
subsidies) Services (impact of regulations) Free
Trade Areas and GSP All in all 70
indicators We do not look at Singapore issues,
TRIPS, flow of capital, corruption, social and
environmental aspects, taxes, trade boycotts, SPS
4

• Industrial goods tariffs
• Based on TRAINS data (UNCTAD) from 2002
• Reliable figures, produce clear results
• Large number of indicators
• Extent of bound tariff lines (positive)
• Trade weighted averages bound tariffs,
  MFN-tariffs, effectively applied tariffs
• Tariff peaks proportion of tariff lines and
  maximum levels of tariffs
• Duty free tariff lines and nuisance tariffs
• Degree of non ad valorem tariffs (negative)
• Effectively applied trade weighted tariffs toward
  country groups
• Special look at textiles, foot wear and fish/fish
  products
• Tariff escalation tariffs at different stages of
  production

5
Overall differences relatively small Canada
lowest tariffs due to NAFTA. Without preferences
Japan lowest tariffs EU lower effectively
applied rates than US due to more FTAs and
better preferences.
6
Miscallenous about industrial tariffs Canada
most tariff peaks (4.4 ) but the US the highest
(48 ) Japan and the US more duty free tariff
lines (50 ) than the EU (33 ) The US much more
non ad valorem tariffs (6.5 ) We regard Japan
as being most open and Canada as least open. The
EU and US falls in between.
7

• Trade defence measures
• Antidumping
• Countervailing
• Safeguards (GATT XIX, ATC, China safeguards)
• Basic assumption all trade defence regarded as
  protectionism
• Source WTO statistics. Indicators
• Initiated anti-dumping and counter vailing
  investigations
• Average imposed anti-dumping duty
• Average duration of anti-dumping measures
• Countervailing measures in force
• Intensity of use of anti-dumping and
  countervailing measures
• Safeguard measures imposed
• Qualitative analysis of anti-dumping in the WTO
  dispute settlement mechanism

8
A very clear pattern emerges Japan bascially
never use trade defence The US use trade defence
measures by far the most. In AD the US also has
the longest duration and highest duties
EU US Canada Japan
AD (investigations)
CVD (Investigations) Imposed safeguards
9

• Non tariff barriers (NTBs)
• Probably the most important area
• Hard to define, measure and compare less
  reliable results
• Sources Calculations based on data from UNCTAD,
  literature study (World Bank, OECD, IIE
  etc)
• We look at
• NTBs overall. Indicators frequency and import
  coverage of affected tariff lines, price
  comparisons
• Quotas. Indicators same as above.
• Technical barriers to trade. Indicators
  interview, business survey and econometric
  calculations of relationship between tehcnical
  standards and imports.

10
NTBs overall and quotas (based on inconclusive
and old evidence) The US has more NTBs than the
EU (tariff lines and imports) The EU has more
than Canada and Japan but an analysis of price
differentials due to NTBs indicates that US and
Canadian NTBs are softer, i.e. create smaller
price hikes Japanese NTBs appear very hard
very costly European (five countries) prices are
in the middle. Quotas Japan has more than the
others and they are costlier
11
Technical barriers to trade (TBT) US and Canadian
multitude of regulations constitute a problem
each state (province) and city have their own
requirements In Japan the opposite is true lack
of formal regulations. Only 15 of what
comparable countries have. A 10 increase in
international standards in Japan would lead to an
increase in imports with 7.4 . EU technical
regulations attract imports from developing
world. In the US the oposite is true. Could hold
for developed countries as well? Hypothesis The
EU internal market contributes to external
openness.
12

We regard Japan as least open in NTBs. Perhaps
Canada is the most open?
13
Our analysis on subsidies to industry is too weak
to be presented. Lack of reliable data (does not
include sub federal level, tax breaks) (Official
data states that the EU subsidises the most)
14
?
Overall conclusion industrial goods EU moderate
middle of the road position in all areas US uses
most trade defence, moderate on tariffs and
NTBs Canada highest tariffs but perhaps least
NTBs Japan lowest tariffs and no trade
defence, but big NTB problems
15

• Agricultural goods tariffs
• Level Transparency Structure
• Sources Customs schedules, WTO (TPR), UNCTAD
• Very precise but mostly MFN figures
• Only simple averages, but good reason for that.
  Downward biased.
• 17 indicators
• Average applied MFN-tariff and bound average
  tariff
• Duty free tariff lines, peak and mega tariffs
• Seasonal tariffs (tariff lines, import coverage)
• Tariff rate quotas (TRQ) tariff lines and fill
  rate
• Tariff escalation
• Tariff dispersion
• Non ad valorem (tariff lines and import coverage)

16
The average applied MFN-rates and the bound
rates The US not always most open - severly
protected market for tobacco and cotton. Canada
dairy 202 !

17
Miscallenous about agricultural tariffs Canada by
far most duty free tariff lines...but Canada also
most mega tariffs (100 ) EU and Japan more
tariff peaks ( 15 ) than the US and Canada
Japan use seasonal tariffs much less than the
others . Small differences concerning TRQs.
Canada more restrictive higher fill rate Tariff
escalation massive in Canada, negative in
Japan. Dispersion (standard deviation) large in
Canada and Japan, medium in the EU and relatively
small in the US Transparency EU and US use
more non ad valorem than Canada/Japan
18
Conclusion regarding agricultural tariffs We
regard the US to be the most open market. This
holds for both tariff levels and least distorting
tariff structure. It is not possible to say which
country is least open. Perhaps Canada would be
most open if it were not for dairy and poultry?
19
The Special Safeguard (SSG) The trade defence
option used in agriculture (WTO AoA) An insurance
that facilitates tariff cuts? Nevertheless, the
direct impact is to close markets. Sources WTO,
UNCTAD, UN. Reliable figures, but not always easy
to interpret. Potential application EU (31 of
tariff lines and 21 of imports). Many times
more than the others. Actual application (until
2002) EU and US around 40 tariff lines annually.
Japan use it less than half as often as the EU
and US. Canada has never used SSG.
20

• Domestic support
• Both budgetary support and market price support
• Used OECD data (more recent and comprehensive
  than WTO)
• Weakness figures cover 2001-2003, does not
  capture CAP reform and US Farm Act. Otherwise
  very reliable and valid data.
• Indicators
• Producer Support Estimate (PSE), and PSE per
  capita and related to GDP
• Percentage PSE (share of farm income attributable
  to support)
• Share of trade distorting support (market price,
  input and output based support)

21
Domestic support EU by far largest supporter of
agriculture (43 of all OECD support, more than
rest of QUAD combined). Japan spend more per
capita (348 USD) than the EU (268). The EU and
Japan spend 1 of GDP in agricultural
support The US and Canada only spend 0.4 0.5
of GDP Japanese farmers most dependent on support
(58 of incomes) EU farmers depends less on
support (35 ), and US and Canadian farmers even
less so (19-20 ). Almost only trade distorting
support in Japan (98 ). The EU has decreased
trade distortive support drastically to 68 .
Canada has also cut sharply and is today below
the US at only 60 . We regard Canada as most
open, closely followed by the US. Then the EU and
finally Japan.
22
Export subsidies Linked to border protection
(protects farmers incomes) Depressing world
market prices Also include officially supported
export credits and food aid. Hard to compare.
Source WTO notifications. The EU is the main
subsidiser (more products and larger
subsidies) The US comes second, mostly via food
aid (own production) Canada uses some indirect
form of export subsidies. Japan hardly use any
export subsidies (not a sign of openness though)
23
This figure says it all The price gap between
domestic and international prices boils down all
the policies to a figure. Based on pNPC.
US tariffs lower but Canada no SSG, less
subsidies.
24
Trade in services

• Hard to measure openness for services
• No traditional trade barriers, instead domestic
  regulations. Service trade usually takes place
  within countries
• Mode 1 cross border supply (not consumed within
  a country)
• Mode 2 consumption abroad (hard to regulate)
• Mode 3 commercial presence (in focus)
• Mode 4 temporary movement of physical persons
  (still rather small)
• Method/indicators
• GATS committments (formal openness, minimum level
  MFN)
• Restriction index 0 (open) 1 (closed).
  Subjective valuation and weighting of
  regulations. Calculated weighted EU average based
  on share of EU service imports.
• Also some price gap data included.

25

• Source WTO (GATS committments). Literature
  review (OECD, Australian Productivity Commission,
  World Bank)
• Weak data due to
• Only studied 7 out of 12 service sectors
• Subjective exercise
• Different data sources - hard to compare
  (different modes, domestic/foregin? Etc)
• Old data
• Only some data on FTAs
• Interpret results with
  caution

All four countries relatively open formally.
26
Actual openness our overall assessment
Actual import of services much larger in the EU
than in the US but US more open for services
liberalisation in their FTAs However does not
include mode 3 (investment)
27

• Overall conclusion services trade
• Ranking
• EU
• US
• Canada
• Japan
• but the EU/US ranking is weak. Could be altered
  if we had
• information on all sectors

28
EU most open towards LDCs, due to EBA LDCs may
also gain from holes in the EU agricultural
tariff wall (preferences) as well as export
subsidies
29
Developing country aspects We regard the EU and
Canada more open to the developing world than the
US and Japan. More generous preferences (except
for US AGOA) EU more open for industrial goods
(low textile and shoe tariffs). Much more imports
than Canada but Canada more open in agriculture
and more liberal rules of origin. Indications
in NTBs and services also favourable to the EU
Not all is well EU target developing countries
in trade defence more than the others. And then
of course agriculture Japan clearly least open
agriculture and poor preferences
30
Our overall conclusion and rankings
31
(No Transcript)
32
Higher tariffs for low income than high income
countries UMIC oil, FTAs and Eastern/Central
Europe New Canadian EBA changes the picture The
US least open towards poor countries