1 conceptualising deep integration michael gasiorek peter holmes

30
1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

Upload: cooper-flagg

Post on 30-Mar-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

1

Conceptualising Deep Integration

Michael Gasiorek

Peter Holmes

Page 2: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

2

Outline• Deep Integration: market and institutional • Nature of gains

– Fuller market access– Domestic impact– Competitive effects

• Winners and losers• Private vs public dimensions• Examples: few outside EU accession• Conclusions: DI can work only if partner

economy ready

Page 3: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

3

RZ Lawrence (1996) on Deep Integration

• “Shallow integration” when “border measures” essentially tariffs and quotas, eliminated

• “Deep integration” defined by RZL as process whereby domestic economic (regulatory) policies/measures, are approximated in order to remove barriers to trade behind the border. Whole economy affected.

• Lawrence surmised DI easier in a smaller group than WTO, tho’ cautious on benefits

Page 4: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

4

Deep Market Integration

• Trade investment & business practices take on characteristics of internal trade

• intensity of interaction• willingness to sign long term contracts• ability to switch partner if contracts go

wrong

Page 5: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

5

New features of Supply chains• Trade in tasks, ie intermediates not final

commodities• Trade more in services• Relational trading and networks replace

ship and forget• Quality and compatibility standards matter

more than post shipment inspection• Agriculture becoming like industry eg with

Quality Assurance, Eurepgap etc

Page 6: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

6

Markets and Institutions

· a very comprehensive certification or standardisation regime can permit

· trade between anonymous partners

or

• networks of repeat business

• can institutional integration create more competitive thickly integrated markets?

Page 7: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

7

Deep Institutional Integration

• No value in reducing tariffs if regulatory incompatibilities bar all scope for trade expansion eg:– Service regulation– SPS & TBT measures– Competition rules and market conditions– (IPR??)

• Shallow integration leaves most of non trading economy untouched (contrast EU Accession)

Page 8: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

8

Border barrier aspects Behind the border dimension

Infrastructure Institutional / regulatory /

policy

Infrastructure Institutional / regulatory / policy

Tariffs / quotas Customs clearance Actual measures Domestic implementation of applications for clearances etc especially for quotas

Standards: (SPS, TBT) Warehouse facilities Inspection processes Labs Standards, regulations etc

Investment n/a n/a Access to facilities Investment rules

IPR Checks to secure compliance

Patent office IPR legislation and rules

Trade defence(AD, CVDs Safeguards)

Customs clearance Actual measures n/a Bureaucratic procedures for imposing duties and appealing etc

Services: e.g. financial, insurance, transport, telecoms)

Internet Possible blockages on internet

Core network for peripheral services

Regulations

Govt procurement X Purchasing system Legislation and rules

Comp. policy – private firms

Any marketing obstacles by incumbents Courts Legislation and rules

Comp policy- state aids Aids regime and ways to challenge

Page 9: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

9

Can DII help DMI?

• RTAs follow trade – suggesting a revealed preference exists.

• We conjecture that:– Private actors can only address some of the

market failures– Public action is likely to make Deep MI more

contestable– If there are again they are economy wide not

just for market access

Page 10: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

10

Types of trade and RTAs

Classical Horizontal IIT Vertical IITType of trade Homogeneous, ship

and forget, commodityMostly final,differentiated by varietyand by quality

Includes more agriculturalniche products

Trade growth is in qualityneeds monitoring anddifferentiation alongproduction chain; mostlyindustrial but not only.Services outsourcing

Type of firms Any may be internationallyintegrated orsubcontracting

More likely to beintegrated; long termaffiliation orsubcontracting likely

Possible market failure Any Reputation, health,learning effects,

lack of quality assurancesystems, standardisation,general issues of businessenvironment

Role for RTA Eliminate border barriersand equivalent

quality standards ensuringprotection of consumerand environment

As above all quality andcompatibility forprocesses

Gains if successful traditional higher profitability fromniche products pluslearning about value chain+ economies of scope

economies of scale andtechnology transfer; morecompetition

Page 11: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

11

Types of approximation

• National Treatment - NAFTA• Mutual Recognition of

– Standards– Conformity assessment

• Harmonisation - EU approach in pre-accession and some ENP

In reality very limited steps

Page 12: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

12

Regulatory approximation

• Standards codified specifications of process or product

• Regulations - mandatory specifications• Conformity assessment - how to check if

standards or regs complied with• Accreditation-verification of reliability of CA• Mutual recognition of standards does not

imply MR of conformity assessement

Page 13: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

13

TBT & SPS in RTAs

Pre-accession FTAs create implied obligation to harmonise rules, but accession negotiations drove this

EU-Turkey CU (1996) did not have MR of conformity assessment till 2006

EU FTAs with non candidates generally aspire to lower barriers but little harmonisation agreed by partners and no MR by EU

Page 14: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

14

Competition Provisions in RTAs

• Strong in pre-accession agreements• EU seeks to ensure that FTA partners

adopt competition policies that will reduce trade barriers but provisions rather weak

• US FTAs limited provisions• But countries ready to discuss this in RTA

context that not at WTO – maybe even India

Page 15: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

15

Deep Integration: tighter networks or more competition? Deep market integration can take 2 forms:• Tight networks of firms with long term

subcontracting but little scope for alternative partners

• Open competitive markets where long term contracting occurs by choice

Page 16: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

16

Potential gains from DI• Regulatory certainty• more niche market specialisation and the creation of more stable

value chains. • technology transfer and diffusion both through trade and FDI, • pro-competitive gains from increasing import competition in an

environment of imperfect competition, • greater exploitation of economies of scale in production• the greater use of intermediate inputs; • the increased geographical dispersion of production through trade

that supports the exploitation of different factor proportions for different parts of the production process

• local economies of scale through finer specialization and division of labour in production;

• externalities arising from institutional changes that lead to a wide increases in productivity.

Page 17: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

17

Ways to address market failures

– A multilateral agreement, e.g. by ISO norms supported by the WTO

– A regional/bilateral agreement, e.g. RTA– Autonomous government decisions of the

individual countries, eg S.Africa, Switzerland adopt EU regs

– The market, e.g. through FDI, detailed sub-contracting arrangements through the value chain, or by purely voluntary standards.

Page 18: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

18

Private vs public

• Regulations are mandatory• Standards often private, eg ANSI or

Eurepgap• Conformity assessment usually private

firms or ISO members as consultancies• Accreditation (IAF) must confirm state

system

Page 19: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

19

Eurepgap private standards• EU supermarkets have own standards body for

verification of production processes that if followed will assure conformity to EU product standards

• Eurepgap is not regulated and conformity to Eurepgap norms is undertaken by a small number of private firms (SGS etc)

• National standards offices in sub-saharan Africa are rarely accredited for this

• Supermarkets often alleged to be forcing poor farmers to take unfair share of burden

Page 20: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

20

Why might DI not be achieved by solely by the market?

• Asymmetric information• Learning spillovers• Reputational spillovers• Environmental spillovers• Economies of scale in testing & certification etc• Compatibility externalities• Collective actions, coordination failure, network

externalities• Private contracting and governance may not

foster competition

Page 21: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

21

“Upgrading quality” vs risk of wrong standards

• Import of EU standards can provide a chance to adopt a standard that can deal with a market failure – and impact on whole economy - CEEC case

• OR it can impose a costly and unnecessary set of inappropriate regulations for domestic markets driven by external trade considerations – limited examples

Page 22: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

22

Likely winners and losers• Winners

– consumers who value export quality– exporters who get easier market access– new exporters– foreign firms– Domestic markets functioning better due to new

norms• Losers

– consumers who don’t want to pay more– firms unable to compete– excluded 3rd country suppliers (discrimination vs erga

omnes)– Markets which don’t need trade driven rules

Page 23: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

23

Quantifying effect of DI

• Models extrapolate trends and assume RCA indicates direction of change

• Most EU FTAs suggest very little gain from removing shallow barriers

• Sussex framework suggests looking for rising IIT indicators where DI could impact: India but less Egypt so far

• CGE work with CASE by M.Maliszewska assumes DI improves business climate and raises regulatory certainty and lowers risk premium across whole economy - investment and output increase sharply

Page 24: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

24

EU Accession

• Some fears before accession that EU norms inappropriate and costly, eg for Poland, eg domestic food industry

• Deep Inst integration very hard (Turkey MR of conformity assessment not till 2006 10 years after CU)

• But growth of partners suggests positive effects going beyond traded sector

Page 25: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

25

ESA EPA

Rwanda and Ethiopia • coffee major export

– no tariffs. – Core barrier are capacity and SPS regs on ochratoxin

(and on some spices for Ethiopia). – EU can give aid for trade but can only offer MR when

this is successful

Mauritius – seeks to be financial services exporter– says “What rules do you want? We’ll comply.”

Page 26: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

26

South African Water

• SA imposing EU water quality rules on for all food production and distribution in SA

• This will – raise quality across whole economy– raise costs– Open export markets– Exclude some farmers

Page 27: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

27

EU seeks Deep EU-India FTA • Little or no gain likely from shallow

integration• Rising IIT suggests deep market

integration emerging• Some improvement in Market access to

EU possible (SPS?) but main gains to domestic economy if:– Further improvement in services reg (lock-in?)– Better standards regime

Page 28: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

28

Egyptian potatoes and “Brown Rot”

• EU exports seed potatoes; Egypt exports new potatoes (deep market int?)

• EU requires clean water to be used for irrigation

• If one consignment found contaminated all crop may be banned – externality

• Egypt keen to adopt necessary rules but hesitant about comprehensive post FTA commitment to all EU norms

Page 29: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

29

SPS in possible EU Central America FTA?

• EU unlikely to impose additional requirements• But also unlikely to guarantee MR, so CA will be

subject to same rules• So tariff removal will not increase market access

unless – non animal reg. regime deemed equivalent– Animal suppliers approved– Suppliers can meet additional private (and MS) rules

Page 30: 1 Conceptualising Deep Integration Michael Gasiorek Peter Holmes

30

Conclusions

• With low tariffs shallow integration has little to offer – with high we risk trade diversion

• So we must look to gains from Deep Int for the whole economy

• We need to explore nature of externalities/coordination failures that allow RTA to be instrument for more efficient economy wide and competitive integration

• Limited luck so far outside EU itself