下载文档原格式
文献出处
Dee, Philippa and Hanslow, Kevin, Multilateral Liberalization of Services Trade (March 16, 2012). Productivity Commission Working Paper No.1619. Available at SSRN: /abstract=323743 or /10.2139/ssrn.323743
原文
Trade in Services
Philippa Dee
1 Why worry?
Why should trade theorists and trade policy practitioners worry about services?
First, 60 per cent of the world’s GDP is earned there (World Bank 2001). This is not just a rich country phenomenon —119 of the 132 countries listed in the World Development Report have a services share of GDP that exceeds their industry share. And 81 have a services share of GDP that exceeds 50 per cent — from Bangladesh and Botswana to Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Second, close to a third of world trade is generated there (Karsenty 2000). It is no longer tenable, if it ever was, to regard services as non-traded. Nor is it correct to say that most services trade is via commercial presence and hence not comparable to merchandise trade. Karsenty sho ws that on the basis of available statistics,’ traditional’ trade in services — defined to measure cross-border transactions — is today larger in absolute size than establishment-related trade in services. And some of the economies most dependent (in relative terms) on services trade are also some of the poorest (e.g. Armenia, Lesotho and Kiribati).
Third, barriers to services trade are significant. Because they are primarily regulatory,
and differ substantially from traditional tariffs or quotas, there is no simple ‘tariff equivalent’ with which to compare to merchandise trade barriers. But the effects of removing them can be substantial. For example, Dee and Hanslow
(2001) suggest that the global gains from eliminating barriers to trade in services, based on preliminary estimates of those barriers, could be about the same as those from eliminating all remaining barriers to trade in agriculture and industrials. And significant gains would accrue to developing economies.
Fourth, services trade barriers are currently subject to negotiation in both multilateral and regional forums. The multilateral services trade negotiations currently under way as part of the ‘built-in’ agenda of the WTO have moved beyond the stage of establishing negotiating guidelines, to t he stage of ‘talking turkey’ —services trade liberalization proposals have already hit the negotiating table. Of the 20 extant Regional Trading Agreements (RTAs) currently being examined at the Australian Productivity Commission, 14 have significant coverage of services and foreign direct investment —issues that extend beyond the boundaries of merchandise trade. And the coverage of non-merchandise trade issues increases, the more recent the agreement.
So it is incumbent on both trade theorists and trade policy practitioners to understand the nature of services, trade in services and services trade barriers. The aim should not just be to identify theoretical possibilities. It should also be to identify negotiating priorities, so as to maximize net benefits and reduce unintended consequences in a policy area that is still, sadly, largely uncarpeted territory empirically. With services sectors being large in most economies, the downside risk from getting it wrong is significant, and the risk is certainly there (e.g. Dee, Hardin and Holmes 2000, Francois and Wooten 2001).
What follows is a discussion of these issues from the perspective of an empirical trade policy modeler who works in a policy advisory organization and who
