Trade Agreements Global Value Chain

Johnson, R.C., Noguera, G. (2017). A four-decade portrait of the value trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 99 (5), 896-911. Piermartini, R., Yotov, Y. V. (2016). Assessing the commercial impact with structural gravity. School of Economics Working Paper Series 2016-10, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University.

Boffa, M., Jansen, M., Solleder, O. (2019). Do we need more in-depth trade agreements for the CMO or a single ILO? The world economy, 42 (6), 1713-1739. Baier, S. L., Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements really strengthen international trade among members? Journal of the International Economy, 71(1), 72-95.

The wto more provisions fall within the current WTO mandate (for example. (B) tariffs and tariffs) and are already subject to some sort of obligation in WTO agreements. On the contrary, the « extra » WTO provisions relate to political commitments outside the current WTO mandate (for example. B investment, competition). It is estimated that additional WTO provisions are particularly important for CPC-related trade between the countries of the North and the South. On the other hand, the provisions of the WTO more remain relevant for trade between developing countries (South-South Agreement). Horn, H., Mavroidis, P.C., Sapir, A. (2010).

Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of preferential trade agreements of the EU and the United States. The World Economy, 33 (11), 1565-1588. Hofmann, C., Osnago, A., Michele, R. (2019). Content of preferential trade agreements. World Trade Review, 18 (3), 365-398. Rubanova, p. (2017).

The impact of the new regionalism on the participation of global value chains. CTEI Working Paper, Graduate Institute, Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, Geneva. Baldwin, R. (2011). 21st Century Regionalism: Bridging the gap between 21st century trade and 20th century trade rules. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO), Department of Economic Research and Statistics. Table 13 of the appendix contains a list of destinations. For more details on the methodology and data on deep trade agreements, see Hofmann et al. (2019). The data is available free of charge on the following website: datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/content-deep-trade-agreements. Limo, N.

(2016). Preferential trade agreements. In K. Bagwell – R. W. Staiger (Eds.), Trade Policy Manual (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier. We tested our work on two additional sets of trade-in-value data based on the Eora and GTAP Inter-Country input-exit tables. Although these two data sets offer broad coverage by country (189 for Eora and 121 for GTAP), they do not fully fit our empirical context, resulting in insignificant or weak results.

The Eora dataset uses several assumptions to generate the underlying time series for developing countries, which could distort our variables. Since GTAP data are only available for selected years (2004, 2007 and 2011), the large discrepancies in our sample are silent. Perhaps this is why we find that our main outcome in terms of the relationship between deep agreements and GVC is supported only with little importance if we use the GTAP database. The results are available on request. An important question is how these agreements, which are concluded and disgraced, will shape future trade and economic relations. Recent studies have examined the impact of trade agreements on trade flows (Baier et al. 2017, Mattoo et al. 2017). In our research (Laget et al. 2018), we use new data on the content of trade agreements to assess their impact on countries` participation in global value chains1 The Smile Curve concept, introduced by Acer founder Stan Shih in the early 1990s, argues that value-added is increasingly focused on the upstream and downstream ends of the chain.

For 184 countries, regressions using raw trading data are estimated between 1995 and 2014.