EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Do countries free ride on MFN?

Rodney Ludema and Anna Maria Mayda

Journal of International Economics, 2009, vol. 77, issue 2, 137-150

Abstract: The Most-Favored Nation (MFN) clause has long been suspected of creating a free rider problem in multilateral trade negotiations. To address this issue, we model multilateral negotiations as a mechanism design problem with voluntary participation. We show that an optimal mechanism induces only the largest exporters to participate in negotiations over any product, thus providing a rationalization for the Principal supplier rule. We also show that, through this channel, equilibrium tariffs vary according to the Herfindahl-Hirschman index of export shares: higher concentration in a sector reduces free riding and thus causes a lower tariff. Estimation of our model using sector-level tariff data for the U.S. provides strong support for this relationship.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (40)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-1996(08)00107-4
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: Do Countries Free Ride on MFN? (2008) Downloads
Working Paper: Do Countries Free Ride on MFN? (2008) Downloads
Working Paper: Do Countries Free Ride on MFN? (2005) Downloads
Working Paper: Do Countries Free Ride on MFN? (2005) Downloads
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:inecon:v:77:y:2009:i:2:p:137-150

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of International Economics is currently edited by Martin Uribe and Costas Arkolakis

More articles in Journal of International Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().

 
Page updated 2025-11-20
Handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:77:y:2009:i:2:p:137-150