Abstract:
The stumbling-block argument asserts that regionalism hinders MFN tariff cutting. If this was of first-order importance over previous decades, we should see a negative relationship between the level of MFN and preferential tariffs, i.e. MFN and PTA tariffs should be substitutes. Using tariff line data for 23 large trading nations (over one million observations) we find exactly the opposite. MFN and PTA tariffs are complements, not substitutes since margins of preferences tend to be low or zero for products where nations apply high MFN tariffs. One interpretation is that regionalism is neither a building nor a stumbling block. Sectoral vested interests are a ‘third factor’ that generates the positive correlation between MFN and PTA tariff levels.
Downloads: (external link) http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP6599.asp (application/pdf)
CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
Related works: This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
More papers in CEPR Discussion Papers from C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers Address: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 53--56 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DG Series data maintained by ().
This site is part of RePEc
and all the data displayed here is part of the RePEc data set.
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to
contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .