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