Implications of the Doha Round negotiations in services for Poland

• Autorzy: Jan Hagemejer , Jan Jakub Michałek , Tomasz Michałek
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Using a computable general equilibrium model we assess the effects of services trade liberalization in Poland and its major trading partners in the context of the WTO Doha Round negotiations and the ongoing process of trade liberalization within the enlarged European Union. The paper provides a thorough descriptive analysis of the data on trade in services. It gives a complete picture of the sectoral and geographical structure of Poland's trade in services in 2007. We also provide an analysis of revealed comparative advantage indices based on sectoral data. The review of literature is focused on a discussion of the methodology for assessing the barriers to trade in services. The core of the paper consists of a CGE simulation using the GTAP model. We employ the Hoekman (1995) tariff equivalents as a proxy for the initial level of trade barriers. Our four scenarios include those of complete liberalization, EU-only liberalization and two intermediate scenarios. The most optimistic scenario is expected to bring a 0.9% increase in Polish GDP and welfare improvement of close to 0.8% of GDP value. However, more than half of this gain is attributed to the liberalization within the EU that is bound to happen independently from the Doha process. (original abstract)

W artykule korzystając z modelu równowagi ogólnej oceniono skutki liberalizacji handlu usługami w Polsce i u jej głównych partnerów handlowych w konteście negocjacji Rundy Doha i trwającego procesu liberalizacji handlu w ramach rozszerzonej Unii Europejskiej. Dokonano gruntownej analizy opisowej danych dotyczących handlu usługami. Dało to pełny obraz sektorowej i geograficznej struktury polskiego handlu w sektorze usług w 2007 r. W przeglądzie literatury skoncentrowano się na dyskusji na temat metodologii oceny barier w handlu usługami. Do oceny potencjalnych efektów liberalizacji handlu usługami zastosowano model GTAP.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Global Trade Analysis Project model (GTAP); International trade; Computable General Equilibrium model (CGE); Doha round; Services trade

PL

Model GTAP; Handel międzynarodowy; Obliczeniowy model równowagi ogólnej; Runda Doha; Handel usługami

• Czasopismo: Bank i Kredyt
• Rocznik: 2010
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 5--30

Twórcy

autor

Jan Hagemejer

autor

Jan Jakub Michałek

autor

Tomasz Michałek

Bibliografia

• Arnold J., Javorcik B.S., Mattoo A. (2006), Does Services Liberalization Benefit Manufacturing Firms? Evidence from the Czech Republic, CEPR Discussion Paper, 5902, London.
• Copenhagen Economics (2005), Economic Assessment of the Barriers to the International Market for Services, Final report, Copenhagen, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/services-dir/ studies/2005-01-cph-study_en.pdf.
• De Bruin R., Kox H., Lejour A. (2006), The Trade-Induced Effects of the Services Directive and the Country-of-Origin Principle, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes Working Paper, 44, April, Brussels.
• Decreaux Y., Fonagne L. (2006), Quantitative assessment of the Outcome of the Doha Agenda, Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Info. Internationales, Paris, http://www.cepii.fr anglaisgraph/ workpap/summaries/2006/wp06-10.htm.
• Dimaranan B.V., ed. (2006), Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 6 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, https://www.gtap.agecon. purdue.edu/databases/v6/v6_doco.asp.
• Egger P., Lanz R. (2008), The Determinants of GATS Commitment Coverage, World Economy, 31 (12), 1666-1694.
• Findlay C., Warren T., eds. (2000), Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications, Routledge, Sydney.
• Francois J. (1999), Estimates of Barriers to Trade in Services, mimeo.
• Hagemejer J., McDougall R.A. (2006), Services Trade Data, in: B.V. Dimaranan (ed.), Global Trade, Assistance, and Production, The GTAP 6 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Pudue University, West Lafayette, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/2865.pdf.
• Hertel T., McDougall R.A., Itakura K. (2001), GTAP Model version 6, https://www.gtap.agecon. purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=576.
• Hertel T., Tsigas M. (1997), Structure of GTAP, in: T. Hertel (ed.), Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, 133-147.
• Hoekman B. (1995), Assessing the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in: W. Martin, L.A. Winters (eds), The Uruguay Round and the Developing Economies, World Bank Discussion Paper, 307, Washington D.C., 327-364.
• Hoekman B. (2006), Trade in Services, Trade Agreements and Economic Development: A Survey of the Literature, CEPR Discussion Paper, 5760, London.
• Hoekman B. (2007), Regionalism and Development: The European Neighborhood Policy and Integration à la Carte, Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, 1, 7-50.
• Horn H., Shy O. (1996) Bundling and International Market Segmentation, International Economic Review, 37 (1), 51-69.
• Jara A., Domínguez M. del C. (2006), Liberalization of Trade in Services and Trade Negotiations, Journal of World Trade, 40 (1), 113-127.
• Kalirajan K., McGuire G., Nguyen-Hong D., Schuele M. (2000), The Price Impact of Restrictions on Banking Services, in: C. Findlay, T. Warren (eds), Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications, Routledge, London.
• Mattoo A. (2005), Services in a Development Round: Three Goals and Three Proposal, Journal of World Trade, 39 (6), 1223-1238.
• McDougall R. (2002), A New Regional Household Demand System for GTAP, GTAP Technical Papers, 942, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
• McGuire G. (2000), Measuring and Modelling Restrictions on Trade in Services, note for the OECD Trade Committee Working Party meeting held at the OECD, Paris, 18-19 September.
• Park S. (2002), Measuring Tariff Equivalents in Cross-Border Trade in Services, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy Working Paper, 02-15, Seoul.
• Walsh K. (2006), Trade in Services: Does Gravity Hold? Gravity Model Approach to Estimating Barriers to Services Trade, Discussion Paper, 183, Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College, Dublin.
• Warren T. (2001), The identification of impediments to trade and investment in telecommunications services, in: C. Findlay, T. Warren (eds), Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications, Routledge, New York.
• Whalley J. (2003), Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries of Liberalization in Services Trade, NBER Working Papers, 10181.