Syndicate content


Why agricultural product standards matter for small traders in developing countries

Ana Fernandes's picture

The successful conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations has generated a lot of interest. While much of the discussion has focused on what the mega-regional trade agreement – the largest in a generation – means for environmental or labor standards, equally important are the regulatory standards on agricultural and food products known as Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which are addressed in Chapter 7 of the agreement.  
But how much do SPS standards really matter for trade?
Countries impose food safety standards for good reason, namely to protect the health of domestic consumers. However, domestic food safety standards often deviate from international ones. From an exporter’s point of view, such standards are likely to be seen as barriers to entry. Producers must modify production processes in order to meet each individual market’s product regulations, which raises the cost of the product for consumers. Economists and policy-makers are hungry for micro-level evidence on the effects of such standards on trade.
New World Bank Group research (Fernandes, Ferro, Wilson 2015) offers a first look at how a specific set of mandatory product standards—in this case, the maximum pesticide residue permitted on unprocessed food—impacts exporters. Novel firm-level data for exporters from 42 developing countries from 2006-2012 were analyzed along with data on pesticide standards for 243 agricultural and food products in 63 importing countries. We found that pesticide standards differ greatly across countries.

Growth and development: Why openness to trade is necessary but not sufficient

Selina Jackson's picture
Photo © Dominic Chavez/World Bank

We are experiencing a battle of ideas regarding the state of the global economy and prospects for growth. Larry Summers has been leading the group of economists proclaiming that the world entered an era of secular stagnation since the global financial crisis. On the other end, Standard Chartered Bank and other players have been arguing that we are experiencing an economic super cycle—defined as average growth of around 3.5 percent from 2000-2030—due to strong growth in emerging markets and fueled by a global demographic dividend.

There is not even agreement on the factors that drive global growth and development. While parts of the Americas and Asia just concluded the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and recent World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements on trade facilitation and information technology products show progress is possible, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the U.S. and the EU remain highly controversial and the upcoming WTO Ministerial in Nairobi will likely underwhelm. 

However, if you look at the facts, the situation is very clear:

Trade Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific: New Game, Old Rules?

Swarnim Wagle's picture

What's the next move in the major economies' Great Game? Source - wonderkris.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.