关税当量放弃有关禁止技术性贸易壁垒的贸易影响外文原文

1、关税当量放弃有关禁止技术性贸易壁垒的贸易影响外文原文 TARIFF EQUIVALENT AND FORGONE TRADE EFFECTSOF PROHIBITIVE TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADECHENGYAN YUE AND JOHN C. BEGHINWe derive a method to econometrically estimate the tariff equivalent and forgone trade effects of aprohibitive technical barrier to trade TBT based on Wales

2、and Woodlands Kuhn?Tucker approach tocorner solutions in consumer choice. The method overcomes the lack of observed data on bilateral trade?ows and accounts for differentiated goods by place of origin. We apply the derived random utilitymodel to international trade in apples to identify the tariff e

3、quivalent of prohibitive phytosanitarybarriers imposed by Australia on potential imports of New Zealand apples. We estimate the forgoneapple trade between the two countries, the implied trade injury imposed by Australia on New Zealand,and the welfare loss to Australia. The removal of the Australian

4、policy would induce net welfare gainsaround US$50 million annually for Australia.Key words: corner solution, Kuhn?Tucker model, New Zealand apples, phytosanitary, prohibitivebarrier, technical barrier to trade.Many countries implement drastic measures to the possibility of a disease or pest transmis

5、-restrict trade in a product associated with a sion is very low or threat to food safety isperceived or actual risk of transferring a pest negligible, these trade impediments cause wel-or disease into their geography. These occur- fare losses for importing countries and mer-rences of nontariff trade

6、 barriers for human cantilist losses “injury in WTO language foror plant health have increased as tariffs have exporting countries due to reduced exports.been falling worldwide Beghin 2021. Trade These strict production, storage, and inspec-agreements recognize countries right to set tion requiremen

7、ts induce a higher unit cost,their own standards and regulations on trade and higher price of the imported goods, and inin order to protect human, animal, or plant some extreme cases, trade vanishes with pro-health or life. For example, two World Trade hibitive requirements. When trade ?ows do notOr

8、ganization WTO agreements, the Sani- exist, estimation of the tariff equivalent of SPStary and Phytosanitary SPS Measures Agree- regulation or TBT is a challenging task be-ment, and the Technical Barriers to Trade cause no reference imports exist and because1TBT Agreement, allow countries to set the

9、ir part of the tariff equivalent will be redundantown standards to protect plant and human when the policy is strictly prohibitive. Quan-health. These agreements, however, require tifying the impact of the removal of the SPSthat the standards adopted not to be discrimi- regulation or TBT is also dif

10、?cult for the samenatory or protectionist. In practice, some coun- reasons.tries impose stricter-than-necessary conditions In this paper, we derive a new way to es-on imported goods to isolate domestic pro- timate the tariff equivalent and trade effectsducers from international competition James of

11、a prohibitive TBT or SPS measure basedand Anderson 1998. In addition to the exist- on Wales and Woodlands Kuhn?Tucker ap-ing tariff barriers, the stricter regulations may proach to corner solutions in consumer choice.lead to questionable impediments to imports This approach has been successfully app

12、liedthat compete with domestic products. When to a random utility model of recreation de-mand in environmental economics e.g., Pha-Chengyan Yue is assistant professor in the Departments ofneuf, Kling, and Herriges 2000. Phaneuf et al.Horticultural Science and Applied Economics, University ofMinnesot

13、a?Twin Cities. John Beghin is professor of economicsat Iowa State University and chercheur?associewith the PublicEconomics Unit of Inra?AgroParistech, France.1The authors thank two referees, Jeff Dorfman, Joe Herriges,Just binding corners in consumption imply a marginal rate ofCathy Kling, and parti

14、cipants at the 2007 American Agriculturalsubstitution just equal to relative prices inclusive of the trade costEconomics Association Annual Meetings, and the 2007 Australianand the TBT, hence an exactly prohibitive tariff. Strictly bindingConference of Economists for discussions and comments. Yue ac

15、-corners marginal rate of substitution not equal to relative prices,knowledges support from the Bachman Chair Endowment andimply a strictly prohibitive tariff equivalent, hence a redundantBeghin from the Marlin Cole Pponent in the tariff equivalent.Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 914 November 20

16、21: 930?941Copyright 2021 Agricultural and Applied Economics Associationapply the Kuhn?Tucker approach to recreation using corresponding own-price elasticities ofdemand for ?shing sites. The random utility import demand generated separately. Disdier,model accounts for the fact that consumers Fontagn

17、eand Mimouni 2021 use the lat-do not ?sh at all the recreation sites. The de- ter estimates in an investigation of the effectsmands for some sites for some particular con- of TBTs in global agricultural trade. Andria-sumers are systematically zero because of the mananjara et al. 2004 also provide a

18、tariffhigher transportation cost or personal pref- equivalent of NTBs by regressing observed re-erences. Our approach to zero trade is sim- tail price gaps between major cities on NTB,ilar in spirit. Because of trade costs TBT, using a simple “average quality approachdistance, and tariffs and/or pre

19、ferences, some to product differentiation. Again, trade ?owsconsumers in a given country never consume a have to be observed to compute these prices,subset of the importable goods. Our contribu- which are biased downward because they ex-tion is to coherently integrate trade cost in the clude the pri

20、ce of goods facing prohibitivepricing of goods across borders into the ran- barriers.dom utility framework of Wales and Woodland Some literature shows how to predict trade1983, which predicts when corner solutions volume using the Tobit model when manyare likely to emerge in an internally consistent

21、 trade observations contain zero values. Forutility imization framework. The frame- example, Eaton and Tamura 1994 recom-work incorporates the restrictions of utility mend adopting the threshold Tobit model intheory and the behavioral implications of cor- which trade volume appears to be positivener

22、 solutions. It allows recovery of the implicit only when desired trade exceeds some mini-prices inclusive of trade costs at which trade mum threshold. However, most investigationshas vanished. The forgone trade and associ- of trade costs, which attempt to explain tradeated welfare losses can also be

23、 derivedows, use the gravity equation approach withA large empirical literature exists on how log1 + trade as the dependent variable toto measure technical barriers and their effects overcome the problem of zero trade ?ow, in-when imports are positive. The price-wedge stead of using the Tobit model

24、e.g., Disdier,approach is often used to estimate the tariff Fontagne,and Mimouni 2021; see also Feen-equivalent and trade impact of a technical bar- stra 2004, Chapter 5. More recently, Ranjanrier. Most applications of the tariff equivalent and Tobias 2007 propose a Bayesian proce-assume perfect sub

25、stitution of domestic and dure for estimating a generalized threshold To-imported goods and measure the tariff equiv- bit model to avoid adding unity arbitrarily toalent as the difference between the domestic the dependent variable to circumvent takingprotected price and the world price Calvin the l

26、og of zero. Ranjan and Tobias do not con-and Krissoff 1998; Deardorff and Stern 1998; sider price or TBTs as determinants of trade2James and Anderson 1998. Yue, Beghin, and ?ows. The mentioned literature used differentJensen 2006 have extended that approach of ways to deal with zero trade volume, ye

27、t noneestimating the tariff equivalent of TBTs by of them is related to the estimation of the tar-accounting for imperfect substitution of do- iff equivalent and trade effect of a TBT whenmestic and imported goods, consumers home trade volume is systematically zero for all ob-good preference, and tr

28、ade costs. Their method servations of bilateral trade between two coun-still relies on positive trade ?ows to identify tries. This problem is likely to arise in the casethe tariff equivalent of the TBT or SPS mea- of bilateral trade data for disaggregated sectorssure. Despite these improvements and

29、its use- or a single commodity. The problem is policyfulness, the price wedge approach has some relevant as disaggregated products are at thecaveats. It can overstate the cost of incrimi- heart of many trade disputes e.g., apples, cot-nated technical barriers by potentially omit- ton, computer chips

30、, speci?c meat products.ting some other sources of trade costs or other Our approach to address the prohibitivevariables that may contribute to the price TBT accounts for consumers heterogeneouswedge. preferences for substitute goods by place ofKee, Nicita, and Olarreaga 2006 econo- origin. We do so

31、 to avoid problems aris-metrically estimate the impacts of numerous ing from assuming homogeneous goods innontariff barriers NTB on trade ?ows for alarge number of commodities and countriesbut without accounting for prices. Then they2See also Martin and Pham 2021 for an extensive coverage ofrecover

32、the tariff equivalent of these NTBstreatments of zeros in gravity equations.932 November 2021 Amer. J. Agr. Econ.the computation of the tariff equivalent of Conceptual Model for the Econometrica policy and its effects Salerian, Davis, and Estimation of a Prohibitive Technical BarrierJomini 1999; Yue

33、, Beghin, and Jensen 2006.Imperfect substitution tends to increase theSuppose the typical consumer in a given coun-size of the tariff equivalent but decreases thetry imizes utility of consuming marketimport expansion following the policy elimina-goods x, AOG subject to a budget constraint,tion. Exte

34、nsive applied literature since Arm-oringtons seminal paper shows that consumers Ux, AOG | y, , , , have different preferences for close substi- 1x,AOGtute disaggregated food goods from differentM countries. y, , , lnx + j j j j jUsing recent data and the proposed new ap- jj1proach, we provide a poli

35、cy-relevant investi-gation of Australian phytosanitary regulations+ vAOGimposed on imports of New Zealand apples s.t. p x + AOG Ibecause of the alleged risk of introducing ?reblight in Australian orchards. We compute theAOG 0tariff equivalent of this Australian SPS regu-lation impeding bilateral app

36、le trade between x 0Australia and New Zealand and quantify the impact of removing this regulation policy on where x x , , x is the vector of con-1 Mapple trade ?ows and welfare. The removal sumer goods of interest in the analysis andof the barriers would induce net welfare gains AOG is an aggregate

37、all other goods assumedaround US$50 million annually for Australia; to be the numeraire;y is a vector of socio-forgone apple trade amounts to about 50 mil- demographic information of consumers in thelion metric tons valued at around US$35 to importing country impacting preferences forUS$40 million.

38、x through parameters ; is vector of pref-This application has much policy relevance erences for attributes of x not based on socio-as the New Zealand?Australia apple dispute demographics country of origin, for example. has lasted for more than eighty years with- Vector , , is a vector of random1 Mou

39、t being effectively resolved. As further ex- components capturing preference variationplained later, prohibitive SPS requirements known to the consumer but not to the re-make it impossible to export apples from New searcher; is the vector of taste parametersZealand to Australia. A related apple trad

40、e expressing minimum consumption thresholds; dispute between Japan and the United States weights y, , , exp y + + j j j j j j jwas resolved in the summer of 2005 through a represent consumers preference in the im-WTO dispute settlement body. The WTO rul- porting country for heterogeneous product x ;

41、jings required Japan to remove its ?re blight function v expresses how AOG relates to util- regulations because they were not science ity. Finally, p p , , p is the vector1 Mbased and constituted protectionism WTOof associated consumer prices including trade2005. These rulings have great potential t

42、ocosts transportation, and trade barriers; I isboost the case of New Zealand against the Aus- the normalized income of the representativetralian ?re blight regulations, which in essence consumer.are also protectionist. Mature fruit that are Consumer prices in the given country areshown to be free of

43、 symptoms are not effec- further decomposed into an export unit costtive carriers of ?re blight and do not require component and trade costs arising from dis-the extensive procedure dictated by the Aus- tance transportation cost, tariffs, and techni-tralian SPS regulations WTO 2005. cal barriers to

44、trade. For good j, this consumerThe next section introduces the Kuhn? price is p wp + d 1 + t + TBT , wherej j j j j Tucker model and the derivation of the sys- wp wp , , wp is the vector of world1 Mtem of equations to be empirical estimated prices/export unit costs for goods x; d rep-jto recover pr

45、eference parameters and the tar- resents the transportation cost to bring good jiff equivalent of technical measures on prices. i.e., produced in country j to the importing Then data and estimation results are pre- country. Vector d d , , d represents1 Msented, followed by the welfare computations.

46、distances between the product sources and thePolicy implications are discussed in the conclu- importing country under consideration, andsion section. is the unit rate of transportation cost andYue and Beghin Prohibitive Technical Barriers to Trade 933associated fees. For simplicity, we assume the wi

47、th being the marginal utility of income.unit rate to be the same per unit of distance. For simplicity, we assume the consumption ofThe latter is acceptable as we have in mind the numerairegood is positive, or AOG 0.applications to single commodities, which are Therefore, substituting from equation 4

48、 intosimilar in terms of transportation characteris- equation 2 and 3 yieldstics. Transportation cost enters price as per unit exp y + + cost component given the recent evidence in j jj6U . xjfavor of the latter formulation Hummels andx + j jSkiba 2004. Hummels and Skiba 2004 found v AOGwp + d j jth

49、at a speci?c dollars per unit speci?cationof shipping cost was econometrically superior× 1 + t + TBT when x 0j j jto an ad-valorem percent of unit price onein applied trade analysis. Shipping cost shiftsandthe supply faced by consumers in a parallel exp y + + manner rather than proportionally.

50、Vector t j j j7U . xjt , , t is the vector of ad valorem tariff1 Mx + j jimposed by the importing country on foreign v AOGwp + d j jgoods x; vector TBT TBT , , TBT 1 Mrepresents the ad-valorem tariff equivalent of× 1 + t + TBT when x 0.j j jTBTs and SPS measures increasing the cost ofproducts i

51、n that importing country. TBT is setjUsing a simple rearrangement of terms inequal to zero for domestic and imported prod-equation 6 and equation 7, we de?neucts in countries without technical barriers to3trade.8The corresponding ?rst-order necessary and g x | y, wp, d, t, TBT, , , , jjsuf?cient Kuh

52、n?Tucker conditions are lnv AOGwp + d 1 + t + TBT j j j jU x, AOG | y, , , , 2 x j× x + y.j j jj?U. wp + d j jThen, conditions 6 and 7 are expressed?xjas× 1 + t + TBT , x 0j j j g x | y, wp, d, t, TBT, , , , 9 j jjwhen x 0j3x U . wp + d 1 + t + TBT j x j j j j andj0, j 1, M g x | y, wp, d, t, TBT, , , , 10 j