Bereits im Jahr 2016 habe ich damit begonnen an "Importnachfrageelastizitäten" und nicht-tarifären Handelsmaßnahmen zu arbeiten. Eine meiner ersten Arbeiten ist nun nach mehrmaliger Überarbeitung im Journal of International Trade and Economic Development veröffentlicht! https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2021.1951820 Warum interessieren mich (bzw HandelsökonomInnen allgemein) diese Elastizitäten? Weil sie eine Antwort geben auf die Frage: "Wie würden sich Importmengen ändern, wenn der Preis des Importgutes um 1% anstiege?" Wenn man diese Info für viele Länder und Produkte zur Hand hat, ist es möglich sogenannte Wertzolläquivalente zu berechnen, die nicht-tarifäre Handelspolitiken (zB Standards, Inspektionen, Verpackungsvorschriften etc) mit Zöllen und untereinander hinsichtlich des Effekts für den internationalen Handel vergleichbar machen. |
0 Comments
Ich habe mich in den letzten Jahren immer wieder mit nicht-tarifären Handelsbarrieren beschäftigt. Womit...?!? Mit jeglicher Form von Maßnahmen, die keine klassischen Zölle darstellen und den Handel zwischen Ländern erschweren. In einem zweistündigen Seminar durfte ich am 1. Dezember 2020 mit Oliver Reiter (wiiw) im Rahmen des AW-Curriculums des Bundesministeriums für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort (BMDW) über das Kompetenzzentrum Forschungsschwerpunkt Internationale Wirtschaft (FIW) verschiedenste Typen von nicht-tarifären Maßnahmen vorstellen. Viele davon erschweren zwar den Handel, haben aber eigentlich wichtigere Ziele, etwa den Schutz der Gesundheit über entsprechende Produktstandards. Anders verhält es sich mit handelspolitischen Schutzmaßnahmen, die explizit gesetzt werden, um den negativen Effekten stark steigender Importe entgegenzuwirken. Hierzu durfte ich am 26. Mai 2021 in einer halben Stunde im Rahmen einer Außenwirtschaftsvorlesung meinen FIW Policy Brief vorstellen. Ich freue mich sehr, dass zwei Expertinnen des BMDW ein Koreferat dazu gehalten haben..
Anlässlich des ersten Jahrestages der Unterzeichnung des EU-Japan Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommens habe ich einen wiiw-News-Artikel auf Englisch verfasst: July 2019 marks the first anniversary of the EU-Japan trade agreement. Initial effects are already observable. However, its full implementation still lies 20 years ahead of us.
The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the EU and Japan was signed one year ago – on 17 July 2018 at the EU-Japan summit in Tokyo. It entered into force on 1 February 2019, surprisingly quickly for an agreement of this type. It is considered the most ambitious EU trade agreement with any Asian economy. EU exports to Japan picked up already last year, while imports have soared during the first months of 2019, suggesting that the EPA may have already had an impact. The increase in trade flows with Japan indeed appears more pronounced compared to trade with other economies outside of the EU28, particularly on the import side (see chart below). Reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers over two decades Many products entered the Japanese and EU markets duty-free already prior to the establishment of the EPA. 36% of all agricultural products and 55% of industrial products faced no duty when exported to Japan from another WTO member, such as the EU. Likewise, a zero-tariff applied to 32% of agricultural and 26% of industrial goods exported to the EU from other WTO members, such as Japan. Shares of duty-free imports were even higher. Since the agreement came into force, 90% of the EU’s exports to Japan are no longer subject to duties. Although tariffs between the EU and Japan are already at a comparatively low level, the schedule for further tariff reductions to cover 99% of EU tariff lines and 97% of Japanese tariff lines is quite comprehensive (Annex 2-A on tariff elimination and reduction is a document of 236 pages; the agreement itself counts 562 pages). Table: Tariff profiles of Japan and the EU prior to the EPA Shares of tariff lines and shares of imports for different tariff rates The tariff reductions are likely to have a significant impact on the EU’s agricultural sector. The Commission mentions products for which it assumes the biggest gains for Europe. In the agricultural and food sectors a boost in exports of pork, beef, wine, cheese and processed products such as pasta, chocolate, candies or tomato sauce are expected. However, the speed at which tariffs and non-tariff barriers are reduced by both parties varies by product. Schedules are outlined for a period of 20 years after the agreement’s entry into force. Although many trade liberalisation steps are taken during the first years of its application, the full potential of the EPA will only materialise after two decades. Furthermore, tariff cuts are more complex than is often assumed. For example, glucose and glucose syrup containing added sugar are targeted with a tariff of 85.7% or 60.90 yen/kg (whichever is greater). For this product a tariff rate quota was agreed upon (TRQ-13 scheme), increasing the aggregate quota quantity which can enter the Japanese market without duty from 1,780 metric tonnes in the first year to 5,340 metric tonnes for the 12th year and thereafter. Imports exceeding the quota are subject to customs duties unaffected by the EPA. In general, stepwise reductions, mixed tariffs and safeguard clauses arise in more sensitive sectors, e.g. agriculture, which are given more time to adapt to trade liberalisation. Setting a “global gold-standard” Roughly 40% of EU exports and more than 60% of EU imports are machinery, electronic equipment and goods related to the transport sector. For these, an agreement on applying the same international standards – regarding product safety, environmental protection and quality management systems – play a more crucial role than tariff cuts. This is because they make double testing and certification unnecessary, thereby reducing non-tariff barriers to bilateral trade. For example, Japan is aligning its standards for cars and car parts to vehicle regulations laid out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which also form the basis for EU standards. The EPA with Japan also covers sensitive topics so far underrepresented in trade agreements. Out of 296 agreements covered by the Trade Agreement Heterogeneity Database (TAHD), only 86 include trade in services, 85 cover investments, 66 address environmental topics and 43 agreements tackle labour issues.
The rise of protectionism and non-tariff measures (NTM) accelerated by the US should not only bother China or Mexico. Austria will also have to deal with its effects. A FIW Policy Brief (in German) summarises research results on trade effects of NTMs for the most important Austrian export markets outside of the EU. It concludes that the reduction or harmonisation of technical barriers to trade (TBT) is essential. Though small in export shares, the potential for trade increases in the agricultural sector - where a substitution between tariffs and NTMs can be suspected - should not be neglected. It seems reasonable to conclude that it is worth actively engaging in shaping future trade relationships, in particular with the Southern Common Market MERCOSUR (including Brazil) and Japan - two major trading partners of Austria currently negotiating free trade agreements with the EU.
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) are at the heart of the ongoing negotiations of mega-regional trade agreements such as TTIP between the US and the EU. Recent literature has started to acknowledge that non-tariff measures need not necessarily be non-tariff barriers. Especially SPS measures (e.g. regulations on the use of pesticides) and TBTs (e.g. label requirements regarding the energy efficiency of electrical devices) bear the potential to increase trade. Furthermore, these measures aim at the protection of human, animal and plant life and therefore have implications which are reaching far beyond the impact on international trade but are even more difficult to quantify.
|