Cargando…
Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism?
We explore the impact of the introduction and design of labor clauses (LCs) in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on bilateral trade flows over the period 1990–2014. While it is not a priori clear if the inclusion of LCs in PTAs will decrease or increase bilateral trade, we expect the direction of...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9212734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35757572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09423-3 |
_version_ | 1784730672734142464 |
---|---|
author | Carrère, Céline Olarreaga, Marcelo Raess, Damian |
author_facet | Carrère, Céline Olarreaga, Marcelo Raess, Damian |
author_sort | Carrère, Céline |
collection | PubMed |
description | We explore the impact of the introduction and design of labor clauses (LCs) in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on bilateral trade flows over the period 1990–2014. While it is not a priori clear if the inclusion of LCs in PTAs will decrease or increase bilateral trade, we expect the direction of trade to matter, that is, we expect to observe the (negative or positive) impact of LCs in the South-North trade configuration. We also expect, in that configuration, stronger LCs to yield stronger (negative or positive) effects on bilateral trade flows. Using a novel dataset on the content of labor provisions in PTAs, we find in line with our first expectation that while the introduction of LCs has on average no impact on bilateral trade flows, it increases exports of low and middle-income countries with weaker labor standards in North–South trade agreements. Consistent with our second expectation, this positive impact is mostly driven by LCs with institutionalized cooperation provisions. In contrast, LCs with strong enforcement mechanisms do not have a statistically significant impact on exports of developing countries in North–South PTAs. The results are inconsistent with the ideas that LCs are set for protectionist reasons or have protectionist effects, casting doubt on the logic for the reluctance of many developing countries to include LCs in their trade agreements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material (Online Appendix with annexes 1-4) available at 10.1007/s11558-021-09423-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9212734 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92127342022-06-22 Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? Carrère, Céline Olarreaga, Marcelo Raess, Damian Rev Int Organ Article We explore the impact of the introduction and design of labor clauses (LCs) in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on bilateral trade flows over the period 1990–2014. While it is not a priori clear if the inclusion of LCs in PTAs will decrease or increase bilateral trade, we expect the direction of trade to matter, that is, we expect to observe the (negative or positive) impact of LCs in the South-North trade configuration. We also expect, in that configuration, stronger LCs to yield stronger (negative or positive) effects on bilateral trade flows. Using a novel dataset on the content of labor provisions in PTAs, we find in line with our first expectation that while the introduction of LCs has on average no impact on bilateral trade flows, it increases exports of low and middle-income countries with weaker labor standards in North–South trade agreements. Consistent with our second expectation, this positive impact is mostly driven by LCs with institutionalized cooperation provisions. In contrast, LCs with strong enforcement mechanisms do not have a statistically significant impact on exports of developing countries in North–South PTAs. The results are inconsistent with the ideas that LCs are set for protectionist reasons or have protectionist effects, casting doubt on the logic for the reluctance of many developing countries to include LCs in their trade agreements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material (Online Appendix with annexes 1-4) available at 10.1007/s11558-021-09423-3. Springer US 2021-05-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9212734/ /pubmed/35757572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09423-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Carrère, Céline Olarreaga, Marcelo Raess, Damian Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title | Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title_full | Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title_fullStr | Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title_full_unstemmed | Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title_short | Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism? |
title_sort | labor clauses in trade agreements: hidden protectionism? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9212734/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35757572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09423-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT carrereceline laborclausesintradeagreementshiddenprotectionism AT olarreagamarcelo laborclausesintradeagreementshiddenprotectionism AT raessdamian laborclausesintradeagreementshiddenprotectionism |