|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
140724
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper I examine the extent to which preferential trade agreements (PTAs) limit the Australian government's ability to use public procurement for local industry development ends. I do so not only by examining Australia's PTA obligations, but also by examining how other governments with similar obligations—such as Korea—are using public purchasing policies to promote local industrial advancement. I find that the PTA obligations of the Australian and Korean governments leave them both significant scope to use public purchasing strategically. Interestingly, however, Australian policymakers have been standing still in the room that remains, and even abandoning PTA-compliant procurement-linked development policies. South Korean policymakers on the other hand have been capitalising on every inch of space left open to them—and even experimenting with new forms of strategic public purchasing that nonetheless comply with their international obligations. I conclude by offering some suggestions as to how we might explain these countries’ radically different approaches to procurement policy, despite their very similar international obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131492
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Among scholars, delegation of power to the US president in 1934 is widely believed to have been a necessary requisite for tariff reductions in ensuing years. According to conventional wisdom, delegation to the president sheltered Congress from constituent pressure thereby facilitating the opening of the US economy and the emergence of the United States as a world power. This article suggests a revision to our understanding of just how that occurred. Through a close study of the US tariff schedule between 1928 and 1964, focusing on highly protected products, we examine which products were subject to liberalization and at what time. After 1934, delegation led to a change in trade policy, not because Congress gave up their constitutional prerogative in this domain but because presidents were able to target the potential economic dislocation that derives from import competition to avoid the creation of a congressional majority willing to halt the trade agreements program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
046703
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.
|
| Description |
xiv, 225p.
|
| Standard Number |
0195937015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 045746 | 332.1505/ASI 045746 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140722
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) required extensive changes to Australian copyright law. This paper assesses the impact of these changes one decade on. It considers, first, whether the costs and/or benefits predicted in 2004 have eventuated, finding clear evidence that AUSFTA has undesirably constrained domestic copyright policy, but no clear evidence either of the feared financial costs to society, or, importantly, the touted benefits to copyright owners. The most significant impact of AUSFTA’s copyright provisions, however, appears to have been on Australia’s copyright trade policy. Pre-AUSFTA, Australia promoted multilateral standards and mostly sought to comply with, but not exceed, international IP standards. Post-AUSFTA, Australia has pursued an approach akin to that of the US: endorsing international copyright rules that are significantly stronger, and more detailed. The paper queries whether this shift has been in Australia’s national interest, and raises interesting questions of path-dependence in policymaking and trade negotiations that warrant more, and broader attention in the literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
103949
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article investigates new opportunities that are emerging for Bangladesh with regard to her trade with India. In spite of the growing bilateral trade deficit, value of Bangladesh’s exports to India increased by about three times over the last five years. Examination of the dynamics of Bangladesh–India bilateral trade reveals that the number of products in Bangladesh’s export basket has registered significant increase, while at the same time, composition of the country’s exports to India has also shifted towards newer and non-traditional products. RCA analysis shows that export items with RCA > 1 in India, which include raw jute, chemical fertilizer, cement, RMG, leather, battery, textile fabrics and some other items, have significant export opportunities and have a combined potential market of US$ 2 billion in India. On the basis of examination of various tariff and nontariff barriers to trade with India, the article attempts to assess the economic implications of India’s sensitive list as it applies to Bangladesh, and argues that elimination of this list is not likely to have an adverse impact on India’s revenue earnings. The article also comes up with a number of recommendations to deal with the NTBs faced by Bangladesh in her trade with India, particularly in areas related to constraints arising from lack of trade facilitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
128265
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The regime for international investment is extraordinary in public international law and controversial in many regions of the world. This article explores two aspects of this set of rules: its decentralization and the unusual powers it gives to private actors to invoke dispute settlement. Decentralization has contributed to a competitive environment for ratification of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and has elevated the importance of dyadic bargaining power in the formation of the regime. Governments of developing countries are more likely to enter into BITs and tie their hands more tightly when they are in a weak bargaining position, which in turn is associated with economic downturns of the domestic economy. Once committed, investors have sued governments with surprising regularity, arguably contributing disproportionately to legal awards that favor the private corporate actors who have the power to convene the dispute settlement system. States have begun to push back, revising their obligations and attempting to annul arbitral awards. One of the conclusions is that it is important not only to consider whether BITs attract capital-which has been the focus of nearly all the empirical research on BIT effects-but also to investigate the governance consequences of the international investment regime generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
117054
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
I show that the process of democratization in developing countries constitutes an important factor in the formation of preferential trade agreements. Specifically, democratizing developing countries are more likely to form a preferential trade agreement with richer countries, whereas there is little evidence that democratic transition affects the probability of a developing country joining a preferential trade agreement with other developing countries. This result follows naturally from median voter preferences and the Heckscher-Ohlin and Stolper-Samuelson theorems. Put simply, the median voter gains from trading with the richer states and loses from trading with the other poor states. Since preferential trade agreements allow countries to waive the most-favored nation principle, the need for both trade openness and protectionism against competitors might explain why preferential trade agreements constitute one of the main features of the current wave of globalization. I quantitatively test this hypothesis using a newly compiled dataset that covers 135 developing countries from 1990 to 2007. An important implication of this article is that it could be more challenging than expected to combine domestic political equality with international economic equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
131396
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
East Asia is regarded in Chile as an opportunity to achieve economic development, because economic integration would place it in East Asia's value chains. This article suggests that the results of Chile's economic strategy toward East Asia, based on trade agreements, have had a predominantly quantitative success. The value of exports toward East Asia has indeed increased impressively. However, the qualitative results are less impressive. These agreements are not adequate to achieve structural change, which would enable the Chilean economy to move along East Asia's value chains. Statistical evidence confirms that Chile is still reduced to a commodity supplier and at the periphery of the chain. To change this situation, Chile has to design first a strategy of how to offer East Asia goods and services beyond commodities. This means looking beyond trade agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
128266
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although many features of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are consistent from one agreement to the next, a closer look reveals that the treaties exhibit considerable variation in terms of their enforcement provisions, which legal scholars have singled out as the central component of the treaties. An original data set is compiled that captures three important treaty-design differences: whether the parties consent in advance to international arbitration, whether they allow treaty obligations to be enforced before an institutionalized arbitration body, and how many arbitration options are specified for enforcement. Drawing upon several relevant literatures on international institutions, three potentially generalizable explanations for this important treaty variation are articulated and tested. The strongest support is found for the theoretical perspective that emphasizes the bargaining power and preferences of capital-exporting states, which use the treaties to codify strong, credible investor protections in all their treaties. Empirical tests consistently reveal that treaties contain strong enforcement provisions-in which the parties preconsent to multiple, often institutionalized arbitration options-when the capital-exporting treaty partner has considerable bargaining power and contains domestic actors that prefer such arrangements, such as large multinational corporations or right-wing governments. In contrast, there is no evidence to support the popular hands-tying explanation, which predicts that investment-seeking states with the most severe credibility problems, due to poor reputations or weak domestic institutions, will bind themselves to treaties with stronger investment protections. likewise, little support is found for explanations derived from the project on the rational design of international institutions, which discounts the identities and preferences of the treaty partners and instead emphasizes the structural conditions they jointly face. In sum, this foundational study of differences across investment treaties suggests that the design of treaties is driven by powerful states, which include elements in the treaties that serve their interests, regardless of the treaty partner or the current strategic setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
128267
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International trade agreements lead to more foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries. This article examines the causal mechanisms underpinning this trade-investment linkage by asking whether institutional features of preferential trade agreements (PTAs), which allow governments to make more credible commitments to protect foreign investments, indeed result in greater FDI. The authors explore three institutional differences. First, they examine whether PTAs that have entered into force lead to greater FDI than PTAs that have merely been negotiated and signed, since only the former constitute a binding commitment under international law. Second, they ask whether trade agreements that have investment clauses lead to greater FDI. Third, they consider whether PTAs with dispute-settlement mechanisms lead to greater FDI. Analyses of FDI flows into 122 developing countries from 1971 to 2007 show that trade agreements that include stronger mechanisms for credible commitment induce more FDI. Institutional diversity in international agreements matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
115204
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Bilateral trade agreements have proliferated rapidly within the last two decades, growing into a dense network of multiple ties between countries. The spread of preferential trade agreements (PTAs), however, is not uniform: some countries have signed a multitude of deals, while others remain much less involved. This article presents a longitudinal network analysis method to analyze the patterns of the formation of trade agreements, based on the mutual codetermination of network structure and agreement formation. The findings suggest that PTAs spread endogenously because of structural arbitrage effects in the network, and that they establish a hierarchy among countries. Rich countries form ties with each other and middle-income countries, who themselves create a horizontal layer of PTAs, but least-developed countries are left behind and do not form many ties. Supplanting the multilateral trade regime with preferential agreements therefore creates a system of highly asymmetrical relationships of weaker spokes around a few hubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
004885
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Taipei, Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research, 1994.
|
| Description |
35p.
|
| Series |
CIER discussion paper; no.9302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035894 | 382.9097/WAN 035894 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
004883
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Taipei, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, 1993.
|
| Description |
25p.
|
| Series |
CIER Occasional Paper; no.9308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035890 | 382.9097/WAN 035890 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
128264
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The world economy has maintained or enhanced its integration in the past decade even in the face of the global financial crisis. A large part of this globalization has been driven by capital flows. This symposium focuses on one element of these capital flows, foreign direct investment (FDI), and on the regime in place to safeguard and promote such investments around the globe. The articles by Allee and Peinhardt and Simmons focus on the nature and evolution of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that have been developed to protect such investments and that have proliferated since the 1990s. The final article, by Büthe and Milner, turns its attention to the ways in which international trade agreements affect FDI. The comparison between the investment and trade agreements is instructive, since they seem to have different effects.
FDI has become one of the most important economic flows in the global economy. It is a critical source of capital for developing countries and remains a significant source of investment in the developed world. FDI has grown in part because countries changed their policies toward it dramatically after the 1980s; governments in developing countries made unilateral policy changes that opened up markets across the globe and increased competition among countries for FDI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
120721
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Abstract Liberalization of trade and investment in services through trade agreements has progressed less than trade in goods. We review the limited progress achieved to date in the WTO and major regional agreements on services and possible explanations why trade agreements have not been more effective at integrating the services markets of participating countries. We argue that the prospects for both services liberalization and welfare-enhancing regulatory reform in the context of trade agreements can be enhanced through mechanisms that enhance transparency, dialogue and cooperation between regulators, trade officials and stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
073325
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
110490
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article lays out qualitative and quantitative information of the extent of intellectual property (IP) protection reached by industrial property related sections of US bilateral trade agreements (TAs) agreed during 2000 decade. The paper classifies IP protection provisions of such TAs. Their extent of protection is measured through the identification of 'shall+' commitments, i.e. compulsory commitments that imply protection beyond WTO-TRIPS benchmark. The metrics built highlight the fact that despite significant similarities in structure and content found across TAs, there is a notable dispersion in the extent of protection they contain. Indices produced show that pharmaceutical provisions comprise a significant part of 'shall+' commitments of such agreements. This finding supports the hypothesis of pharmaceutical industry's success in setting the agenda for US international trade and IP policy1 and the role that IP protection plays in such industry.2, 3 The extent of IP protection is highly correlated across IP categories and they reveal that Chile agreed to the lowest number of such commitments, whilst Oman and CAFTA agreed to the greatest number of such provisions. Duration of negotiations appears to be negatively and significantly correlated with indices for patent and data protection for pharmaceuticals. This finding suggests that such provisions indeed became the core of the negotiations, and countries that strove to limit their inclusion, succeeded partially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
104132
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Taking the problematic ratification of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) as a focal point, this article aims to determine the current state and future prospects of Philippine trade policy. Utilizing a multi-level approach, the motives and actions of the Philippines are analysed within the broader historical and socio-political framework of the country's trade policy. JPEPA was initiated by Tokyo and for both Japan and the Philippines it served important foreign policy goals, although the economic benefits for the latter were also substantial. The analysis shows that political institutions in the Philippines do not exert much influence on trade policy outcomes, the major exception being the office of the President. Domestic interests are far more important for Philippine trade policy. The analysis indicates that trade liberalization has hardly ever been an issue in Philippine politics, except in rare cases when it came to be foregrounded by a combination of incidental domestic political processes and initiatives of foreign powers such as Japan or regional organizations like ASEAN and APEC. The JPEPA case has reinforced the existing domestic trade policy gridlock, although external initiatives by foreign countries and regional organizations will remain of key importance for further trade liberalization in the Philippines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
082363
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
168229
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the evolution of Taiwan’s relationship with Singapore since the 1960s as a unique case study in the Asia-Pacific. The theoretical concept of recognition in international relations (IR) and its nexus with international law are used to analyze the conclusion of the bilateral military and trade agreements absent diplomatic relations. The article argues that beyond security dimensions, the two states’ struggles for recognition exhibit the formation of national identities, which invigorate the claims for sovereign state status in global politics. First, this article explores the emerging notion of recognition in IR and sheds light on the significance of Taiwan’s presidential visit to Singapore under its one-China policy. Second, it explains Singapore’s pursuit of external sovereignty that led to substantive defense cooperation with Taiwan, as well as the role of Lee Kuan Yew in facilitating Beijing–Taipei negotiations. Finally, it assesses contemporary developments such as the inking of the Taiwan–Singapore free trade agreement and the first-ever summit between the presidents of China and Taiwan in Singapore. Hence, the political and legal analysis of Singapore–Taiwan relations enriches the study of IR and contributes to the understanding of the foreign policy of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|