Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism

Much of the debate over whether or not developing countries gain from regional trade agreements (RTA's) has focused on two characteristics that are common to developing countries: their relatively high tariffs and their high trade dependencies on one or a few developed trade partners. In this paper,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burfisher, Mary E., Robinson, Sherman, Thierfelder, Karen
Formato: Artículo preliminar
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: International Food Policy Research Institute 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/156489
_version_ 1855523879612579840
author Burfisher, Mary E.
Robinson, Sherman
Thierfelder, Karen
author_browse Burfisher, Mary E.
Robinson, Sherman
Thierfelder, Karen
author_facet Burfisher, Mary E.
Robinson, Sherman
Thierfelder, Karen
author_sort Burfisher, Mary E.
collection Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace)
description Much of the debate over whether or not developing countries gain from regional trade agreements (RTA's) has focused on two characteristics that are common to developing countries: their relatively high tariffs and their high trade dependencies on one or a few developed trade partners. In this paper, we address a third common characteristic: their use of distorting domestic policies that are closely linked to trade restrictions. We argue that participation in an RTA can create pressures for domestic policy reforms. We analyze the case of a small country, Mexico, forming an RTA with two larger countries, the U.S. and Canada, in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico exhibits all three characteristics of a developing country: relatively high tariffs, a high trade dependency on the U.S., and an extensive and pervasive system of farm support that was linked to the restriction of trade. For the analysis, we use a 26- sector, multi-country, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in which the three single- country models are linked through trade flows, and farm programs are modeled in detail. We find that there are welfare gains from trade liberalization in all three countries only when domestic reforms are in place. Mexico gains from NAFTA only when it also removes domestic distortions in agriculture. Then, agriculture can generate allocative efficiency gains that are large enough to offset the terms of trade losses which arise because Mexico has higher initial tariffs than other RTA members.
format Artículo preliminar
id CGSpace156489
institution CGIAR Consortium
language Inglés
publishDate 2000
publishDateRange 2000
publishDateSort 2000
publisher International Food Policy Research Institute
publisherStr International Food Policy Research Institute
record_format dspace
spelling CGSpace1564892025-11-06T06:05:15Z Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism Burfisher, Mary E. Robinson, Sherman Thierfelder, Karen trade policies econometrics equilibrium theory trade liberalization computable general equilibrium models Much of the debate over whether or not developing countries gain from regional trade agreements (RTA's) has focused on two characteristics that are common to developing countries: their relatively high tariffs and their high trade dependencies on one or a few developed trade partners. In this paper, we address a third common characteristic: their use of distorting domestic policies that are closely linked to trade restrictions. We argue that participation in an RTA can create pressures for domestic policy reforms. We analyze the case of a small country, Mexico, forming an RTA with two larger countries, the U.S. and Canada, in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico exhibits all three characteristics of a developing country: relatively high tariffs, a high trade dependency on the U.S., and an extensive and pervasive system of farm support that was linked to the restriction of trade. For the analysis, we use a 26- sector, multi-country, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in which the three single- country models are linked through trade flows, and farm programs are modeled in detail. We find that there are welfare gains from trade liberalization in all three countries only when domestic reforms are in place. Mexico gains from NAFTA only when it also removes domestic distortions in agriculture. Then, agriculture can generate allocative efficiency gains that are large enough to offset the terms of trade losses which arise because Mexico has higher initial tariffs than other RTA members. 2000 2024-10-24T12:44:20Z 2024-10-24T12:44:20Z Working Paper https://hdl.handle.net/10568/156489 en Open Access application/pdf International Food Policy Research Institute Burfisher, Mary E.; Robinson, Sherman; Thierfelder, Karen. 2000. Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism. TMD Discussion Paper 54. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/156489
spellingShingle trade policies
econometrics
equilibrium theory
trade liberalization
computable general equilibrium models
Burfisher, Mary E.
Robinson, Sherman
Thierfelder, Karen
Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title_full Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title_fullStr Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title_full_unstemmed Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title_short Small countries and the case for regionalism vs. multilateralism
title_sort small countries and the case for regionalism vs multilateralism
topic trade policies
econometrics
equilibrium theory
trade liberalization
computable general equilibrium models
url https://hdl.handle.net/10568/156489
work_keys_str_mv AT burfishermarye smallcountriesandthecaseforregionalismvsmultilateralism
AT robinsonsherman smallcountriesandthecaseforregionalismvsmultilateralism
AT thierfelderkaren smallcountriesandthecaseforregionalismvsmultilateralism