dataset of services commitments in rtas juan a. marchetti & martin roy (wto secretariat)...

Dataset of Services Commitments in

RTAs

Juan A. Marchetti & Martin Roy(WTO Secretariat)

Workshop on PTAs and the WTO: A New EraGeneva, 4 November 2010

Purpose

Assess liberalization commitments in recent PTAs, and compare them with achievements under GATS

Based on Marchetti & Roy (2008), “Services Liberalization in the WTO and in PTAs”, in Marchetti & Roy (eds.) Opening Markets for Trade in Services – Countries and Sectors in Bilateral and WTO Negotiations (Cambridge University Press - WTO, 2008)

Assessing Commitments in Services PTAs: Methodology (1)

Analysis of MA and NT commitments by 37 WTO Members (EU as 1) in 40 PTAs. Includes all those signed/entered into force since 2000, + others signed only.

Focus on modes 1 and 3

Looking at what goes beyond GATS commitments/offers

Starting point: Hoekman methodology...

Score of 1 for full commitments Score of 0.5 for “partial” commitments Score of 0 for no commitment

Assessing Commitments in Services PTAs: Methodology (2) ...But the scoring was further modified to take account of

improvements from one agreement to the other. Example:

Sector GATS PTA with Country A

PTA with Country B

PTA with Country C

No commitment

Better commitment than in GATS, but limitations remain (partial)

Even better commitment than in the PTA with A, but limitations remain (partial)

Even better commitment than in the PTA with B, but limitations remain (partial)

Legal Services

0 0.5 0.75 0.875

No commitment

Full commitment No commitment Partial commitment Accountancy Services

0 1 0 0.5

Partial commitment

No better commitment than in the GATS.

Better commitment than in the GATS, although limitations remain (partial)

Full commitment Advertising Services

0.5 0.5 0.75 1

Dataset available on WTO Website

3 data files:

 Total score per member for all RTAs reviewed

“Highest” RTA score for each member across all RTAs reviewed

“Highest” RTA score for each member for selected service sectors

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/dataset_e/dataset_e.htm

Total Score for Each RTA Party

All services

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8ASEAN

Australia-SingaporeAustralia-Thailand

CAFTA-DR

Costa Rica-Mexico

EU-Chile

EU-Mexico

EFTA-Chile

EFTA-Korea

EFTA-Mexico

EFTA-Singapore

India-Singapore

J apan-Malaysia

J apan-Mexico

J apan-P hilippines

J apan-Singapore

J apan-ThailandJ ordan-Singapore

Korea-ChileKorea-Singapore

MERCOSUR

Mexico-El Salvador

Mexico-Guatemala

Mexico-Honduras

New Zealand-Singapore

P anama-Chinese Taipei

P anama-El Salvador

P anama-Singapore

US-Australia

US-Bahrain

US-Chile

US-J ordan

US-Morocco

US-Oman

US-P eruUS-Singapore

“Highest” RTA score for each Member across all RTAs reviewed

Overall Results(average for all Members reviewed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total score Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3

All Members Developed Developing

RTA

GATS offer

GATS

Scores by Member (sample)Note: PTA score is for “best” PTA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AR

G

AU

S

BH

R

BR

A

CH

L

CH

N

CO

L

CR

DR

EC

EL

S

GU

A

HN

D

ICE

IDN

IND

JAP

JOR

KO

R

LIE

MA

L

ME

X

MO

R

NIC

NO

R

NZ

OM

N

PA

N

PE

R

PH

I

PR

Y

SIN

G

SW

I

CH

T

TH

A

UR

Y US

PTA

GATS

“Highest” RTA score for each Member, per sector

Sectoral liberalization in PTAs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RTA

GATS offer

GATS

Thank you!