Law and Regulation
The EU-Turkey customs union (CU) has been a key catalyst in the economic transformation of Turkey over the past two decades and an effective mechanism for deeper integration between the two parties, according to a new World Bank evaluation of the CU.
While its supporters and critics may continue to debate in the political arena, this much is now clear: the CU has brought enormous benefits to Turkey and has done more to facilitate trade than a free trade agreement (FTA) would have. But more can still be done to both modernize the agreement and deepen trade integration between the parties.
Empirical literature confirms the significant contribution that services trade can play in developing economies. High-quality and low-cost services can enhance competitiveness, connect countries to the global economy, and help diversify their exports.
The question is how to foster the development of the services trade in these countries. Research shows that the liberalization of services barriers can increase the performance of manufacturing and agricultural exports, for example, and help boost quality and cut costs, as well as increase service exports.
But liberalization alone is insufficient for successful reform. Services liberalization requires that a country design a careful liberalization process that takes into account its specific conditions. Many countries which have acceded to the WTO and have adopted significant liberalization commitments have not fully reaped the benefits of those reforms. One of the explanations is probably that their process was incomplete. In general, liberalization needs to be complemented by strong and solid regulatory frameworks. Without these conditions in place--- contestable markets, strong regulatory governance, and enforcement capacity--- liberalization will not provide the expected benefits.
Why is it so difficult to create the necessary conditions for successful services trade reforms?
If you follow trade negotiations, then you know there are few more contentious than those for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
On February 4, the World Bank’s International Trade Unit hosted Phil Levy, a senior fellow on the global economy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, who has been following both negotiations closely. Levy spoke with World Bank staff about the potential implications for developing countries as negotiations move forward in what he calls “bargaining among behemoths.”
At this point in the negotiations, one thing is clear: there are still more questions than answers.
Editor's Note: This blog draws on the forthcoming article “New Trade Regionalism in Asia: Looking Past the Sino-American Great Game," written by Swarnim Wagle, to be published in the Global Emerging Voices 2013 Working Papers.
Negotiations over one of history’s most ambitious trade deals have taken another step towards defining the future of Trans-Pacific trade.
The latest round of discussions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) wrapped up this past weekend in Salt Lake City, Utah. Negotiators are believed to have made headway on a number of thorny issues, clearing the way for ministerial talks to be held in Singapore, Dec. 7-10.
The TPP will draw together 12 countries dotting the perimeter of the Pacific—Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But it’s the United States’ efforts to spearhead the talks that have attracted the most attention. Concerns over a lack of transparency and the intrusive scope of the agreements’ provisions into national policymaking have led many to question its objective.
- Brunei Darussalam
- New Zealand
- United States
- East Asia and Pacific
- Europe and Central Asia
- Latin America & Caribbean
- The World Region
- Global Economy
- Information and Communication Technologies
- Law and Regulation
- TTIP. Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Agricultural Subsidies
- Free Trade
More than 95 percent of goods traded between Europe and Asia are transported via deep sea. All of this happens through two primary routes-- some serious traffic. But it's far from stop-and-go. In fact, most doesn’t stop at all.
Large container ships leave ports in Asia and proceed directly to Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Many choose to get there by passing through the Suez Canal, entering the Mediterranean, and bypassing its bygone empires.
One of these ancient powers, Greece, now finds itself in a marginal position on the logistical map of Europe. Despite being geographically and economically well located, it’s far from being the hub it once was. The World Bank’s International Trade Unit and the Transport Unit of the World Bank’s Vice Presidency for the Europe and Central Asia Region recently teamed up with the government of Greece to find out how the country can capture a share of the world’s growing East-West trade and kick-start an economy that has been struggling to maintain GDP growth after the global economic crisis.
About "Notes From the Field": With this occasional feature, we let World Bank professionals who are conducting interesting trade-related projects around the globe explain some of the challenges and triumphs of their day-to-day work. The views expressed here are personal and should not be attributed to the World Bank. All interviews have been edited for clarity.
The interview below was conducted with Gohar Gyulumyan, a Senior Economist in the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia regional division of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) network. Her work has been strongly centered on economic development in Armenia, where she is now based in the country office. She spoke with us about her most recent work on trade facilitation and the removal of trade barriers, including what the recent government announcement to join the Eurasian Customs Union may mean for the Bank's work in the country in the future.
It is July 2012 and cattle farmers in Nicaragua are worried because Guatemala has enacted a series of laws that restrict beef trade. These so-called “non-tariff measures,” or NTMs, require that beef crossing the Guatemalan border meet stricter safety and labeling standards. The Guatemalan government argues that these measures protect the country’s consumers from health hazards. But the Nicaraguan farmers say they hurt business and unfairly shelter Guatemalan producers from competition.
This is just one example of the debates that arise in the food industry in Central America and elsewhere. While it is laudable and good policy for a government to use legitimate, non-trade related legislation to protect its citizens from certain risks, governments can also use these measures to protect domestic industry. Regardless of their intention, in an increasingly globalized, competitive world, non-tariff measures increase the cost of doing business, impact prices, affect the competitiveness of the private sector, and impact the overall welfare of the economy.