Total trade of G20 as a share of world trade Subtotal as a share of total trade of G20

Transcription

1 Table A1 Comparison between sample countries and G20 countries, 2008 (in billions of dollars) Countries that are both in the sample and in the G-20 Other members of the sample or the G-20 Sample group Exports to Imports from Exports to Imports from G20 world world world world Argentina Argentina Australia Australia Canada Canada Indonesia Indonesia Korea Korea Mexico Mexico South Africa South Africa Turkey Turkey Subtotal Subtotal Colombia France * Malaysia Germany * Norway Italy * Pakistan Russia Philippines Saudi Arabia Switzerland United Kingdom * Taiwan Thailand Total trade of sample group 8, ,873.6 Total trade of G20 8, ,183.1 Total trade of sample group as a share of world trade Subtotal as a share of total trade of sample group 72.5% 76.2% 87.5% 89.1% Total trade of G20 as a share of world trade Subtotal as a share of total trade of G % 70.9% 91.2% 95.8% Note: * These individual Member States of the are listed in this table since they are part of the G20, but their trade numbers are not added to the total since EU trade numbers are already included. Source: IMF Direction of Trade Statistics June 2009 for all countries but Taiwan. UNCOMTRADE through the Integrated Trade Systems for Taiwan

2 Table A2 Alternative Ratios of GDP Growth and Trade Growth from Regression and CGE Models Authors of Study (Publication Year) Covered Trade (Base year) Model Type Dollar Ratios Openness Ratios OECD (2003) Developed Countries (2000) Regression Cline (2004) Various Developing Countries Regression Freund and Bolaky (2008) Global economic performance (2000) Regression Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe (2006) Global Liberalization (2008) CGE Brown, Kiyota, and Stern (2005) Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (1997) CGE Brown, Deardorff, and Stern (2001) Uruguay Round (1995) CGE Decreux and Fontagne (2009) Goods, Services, and Trade Facilitation (2020) CGE Decreux and Fontagne (2008) Goods & Services (2025) CGE Francois, van Meijl, and van Tongeren (2005) Doha Round (2001) CGE Gilbert (2009) Uruguay Round (2004) CGE Gilbert (2009) Transport Costs (2004) CGE Scollay and Gilbert (2001) APEC Liberalization (1995) CGE Lodefalk and Kinnmann (2006) Doha Round (2001) CGE Simple Average

3 General notes: The dollar ratio is the ratio of the dollar increase in GDP over the dollar increase in two-way trade. As an example, the dollar ratio in Decreux and Fontagne (2009),from their simulation of a liberalization scenario in goods and services trade as well as trade facilitation improvement, is This number is the ratio between the dollar GDP growth in this scenario, $165 billion, and the related two-way trade growth, $452 billion (for these numbers, refer to Table A3). The openness ratio is the ratio of the percentage increase in GDP over the percentage increase in 2-way trade. As an example, the openness ratio in Decreux and Fontagne (2009),from their simulation of a liberalization scenario in goods and services trade as well as trade facilitation improvement, is This number is the ratio between the GDP percentage growth from this scenario, 0.2%, and the related two-way trade percentage growth, 2.8% (for these numbers, refer to Table A3). Refer to Table A3 for more detailed explanations regarding data and calculations. Sources: Anderson, Kym, Will Martin, & Domique van der Mensbrugghe Market and Welfare Implications of Doha Reform Scenarios. Chapter 12 in Agricultural Trade and the Doha Development Agenda, editted by K. Anderson and W. Martin, London: Palgrave Macmillan (co-published with the Bank). Cline, William R Trade Policy and Global Poverty. Washington: Institute for International Economics. Pages Gilbet, John CGE Simulations in Policy Liberalization and US Merchandise Trade Growth, by Matthew B. Adler and Gary Clyde Hufbauer Peterson Institute for International Economics. Working Paper Brown, Drusilla K., Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M. Stern CGE Modeling and Analysis of Multilateral and Regional Negotiating Options. University of Michigan, Research Seminar in International Economics. Discussion Paper No Brown, Drusilla K., Kozo Kiyota and Robert M. Stern Computational Analysis of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). University of Michigan, Research Seminar in International Economics. Discussion Paper No Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne A Quantitative Assessment of the Outcome of the Doha Development Agenda. CEPII Working Paper Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne An Assessment of May 2008 Proposals for the DDA. CEPII Study Report Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne. 2009, Economic Impact of Potential Outcome of the DDA. CEPII Study Report Francois, Joseph, Hans van Meijl and Frank van Tongeren Doha Round: Gauging the WTO Negotiation's Potential Gains. Economic Policy, April, Freund, Caroline, & Bineswaree Bolaky Trade, Regulations, and Income. Journal of Development Economics, 87, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Economic Outlook, April 2009, Database. Lodefalk, Magnus, and Susanna Kinnman Economic Implications of the Doha Round, Kommerskollegium-Swedish National Board of Trade, Governmental Report, Stockholm. Scollay, Robert, & John P. Gilbert New Regional Trading Arrangements in the Asia Pacific? Institute for International Economics. Policy Analyses in International Economics, May, issue 63. United Nations Comtrade (UNComtade) Online database accessed via the Integrated Trade Solution (WITS).

4 Table A3 Trade Growth, GDP Growth, and Openness Ratio Comparisons from Regression and CGE Models (dollar figures in billions, percent) Authors of Study (Publication Year) OECD (2003) Covered Trade (Base year) Developed Countries (2000) Model Type Initial two-way Trade Dollar two-way Trade Growth Percent Trade Growth Initial GDP Dollar GDP Growth Percent GDP Growth Initial Trade Openness New Trade Openness Trade Openness Growth ($) ($) (%) ($) ($) (%) (%) (%) (%) Regression 15,051 1, , Cline (2004) Freund and Bolaky (2008) Various Developing Countries Global economic performance (2000) Regression 18,267 1, ,850 1, Regression 15,120 1, ,853 1, Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe (2006) Brown, Kiyota, and Stern (2005) Brown, Deardorff, and Stern (2001) Decreux and Fontagne (2009) Decreux and Fontagne (2008) Francois, van Meijl, and van Tongeren (2005) Global Liberalization (2008) Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (1997) CGE 19, , CGE 6, , Uruguay Round (1995) CGE 6, , Goods, Services, and Trade Facilitation (2020) Goods & Services (2025) CGE 15, , CGE 15, , Doha Round (2001) CGE 12,181 1, , Gilbert (2009) Uruguay Round (2004) CGE 20,690 1, , Gilbert (2009) Transport Costs (2004) CGE 20, , Scollay and Gilbert (2001) APEC Liberalization (1995) CGE 3,563 1, , Lodefalk and Kinnmann (2006) Doha Round (2001) CGE 14, ,

5 General notes: GDP growth is measured as equivalent variation in Gilbert (2009) and as welfare gains in Brown, Deardorff, and Stern (2001) and Brown, Kiyota, and Stern (2005). For Freund and Bolaky (2008), the trade data and GDP data come from the Bank Development Indicators (WDI) (2009). For Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe (2006), the initial trade data comes from UNComtrade (2009); 2008 data, or 2007 when 2008 data is not available. GDP data comes from International Monetary Fund (IMF) Economic Outlook (WEO) (2009): 2008 data was used. For the Brown, Kiyota, and Stern (2005) calculations, the initial trade data comes from UNComtrade (2009); 1997 data was used. For the Brown, Deardorff, and Stern (2001) calculations, the initial trade data comes from UNComtrade (2009); 1995 data was used. For the Francois van Meijl, and van Tongeren (2005) calculations the country groups are not completely distinct. For example, Turkey is considered developed for trade growth and developing for GDP growth. For Gilbert (2009), covering Uruguay Round trade, the method involved backcasting to Uruguay Round bound rates for bilateral tariffs between the and its major partners. Initial GDP data for 2004 was taken from IMF (2009). For Gilbert (2009), covering Transportation Costs, the method involved backcasting to 1980 transportation costs for bilateral costs between the and its major partners. Initial GDP data from 2004 was taken from IMF (2009). The Scollay and Gilbert (2001) calculations used initial trade data from DOTS (2009); 1998 data was used. Initial GDP data was from IMF WEO(2009); 1998 data was used. Lodefalk and Kinnmann (2006) provided data for the growth in openness ratios and GDP. Other data were collected by the authors of this working paper. Sources: Anderson, Kym, Will Martin, & Domique van der Mensbrugghe Market and Welfare Implications of Doha Reform Scenarios. Chapter 12 in Agricultural Trade and the Doha Development Agenda, editted by K. Anderson and W. Martin, London: Palgrave Macmillan (co-published with the Bank). Cline, William R Trade Policy and Global Poverty. Washington: Institute for International Economics. Pages Gilbet, John CGE Simulations in Policy Liberalization and US Merchandise Trade Growth, by Matthew B. Adler and Gary Clyde Hufbauer Peterson Institute for International Economics. Working Paper Brown, Drusilla K., Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M. Stern CGE Modeling and Analysis of Multilateral and Regional Negotiating Options. University of Michigan, Research Seminar in International Economics. Discussion Paper No Brown, Drusilla K., Kozo Kiyota and Robert M. Stern Computational Analysis of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). University of Michigan, Research Seminar in International Economics. Discussion Paper No Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne A Quantitative Assessment of the Outcome of the Doha Development Agenda. CEPII Working Paper Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne An Assessment of May 2008 Proposals for the DDA. CEPII Study Report Decreux, Yvan, & Lionel Fontagne. 2009, Economic Impact of Potential Outcome of the DDA. CEPII Study Report Francois, Joseph, Hans van Meijl and Frank van Tongeren Doha Round: Gauging the WTO Negotiation's Potential Gains. Economic Policy, April, Freund, Caroline, & Bineswaree Bolaky Trade, Regulations, and Income. Journal of Development Economics, 87, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Economic Outlook, April 2009, Database. Lodefalk, Magnus, and Susanna Kinnman Economic Implications of the Doha Round, Kommerskollegium-Swedish National Board of Trade, Governmental Report, Stockholm. Scollay, Robert, & John P. Gilbert New Regional Trading Arrangements in the Asia Pacific? Institute for International Economics. Policy Analyses in International United Nations Comtrade (UNComtade) Online database accessed via the Integrated Trade Solution (WITS).

6 Table B1 Tiered formula for tariff reductions to improve agriculture market access (in percent) Developed countries Developing countries Recently acceeded countries Tier Reduction Tier Reduction Tier Reduction 0<= <= <=10 0 >20<=50 57 >30<=80 38 >10<= >50<=75 64 >80<= >20<=50 30 >75 70 > >50<=75 35 >75 39 Notes: A tariff within a certain tier will be reduced by the corresponding reduction amount. For example, a developed country with a tariff of 55 percent will decrease its tariff rate by 64 percent (down to 19.8 percent), while a developing country will decrease the same tariff rate by 38 percent (down to 34.1 percent), and a recently acceded country by 35 percent (down to 35.7 percent). Source: WTO (2008)

7 Table B2 Calculations of a Single Trade Elasticity for Trade Impact Calculations Country Kee et al (2004) Estimated Import Elasticity 2006 Total Merchandise Imports (in billions of dollars) Import Weight Elasticity Contribution to Single Trade Argentina Australia Canada Colombia , Indonesia Korea, Republic of Malaysia Mexico Norway Pakistan Philippines South Africa Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey , Total 7,394 Average Source : Kee et al (2004); UNComtrade via WITS (2009)

8 Table B3 Tariffs in agriculture (percent) Bound Applied Pre-Doha Post-Doha Pre-Doha Post-Doha All 22 countries Source : Author's calculations

9 Table B4 Bound and applied tariff rates in agriculture imposed by,, and on imports from the group of 15 developing countries in the sample (percent) Bound Applied Pre-Doha Post-Doha Pre-Doha Post-Doha Source : Author's calculations

10 Table B5 Tariffs in NAMA (percent) Bound Applied Pre-Doha Post-Doha Pre-Doha Post-Doha All 22 countries Source : Author's calculations

11 Table B6 Bound and applied tariff rates in NAMA imposed by,, and on imports from the group of 15 developing countries in the sample (percent) Bound Applied Pre-Doha Post-Doha Pre-Doha Post-Doha Source : Author's calculations

12 Table B7 Gains in agriculture and NAMA expressed in terms of the reciprocity measure (in billions of dollars) Agriculture NAMA Total cuts Tariff cuts NTB cuts a Tariff cuts only Concessions: Given Received Given Received Given Received Given Received All 22 Members Notes: a. NTBs = non-tariff barriers, which consist of tariff rate quotas, export subsidies, and domestic support Source: Author's calculations

13 Table B8 Share of concessions given and received (measured by reciprocity measure ) by developed and developing countries (in percent) Country Sector Concessions given Concessions received Agriculture All Countries European Union Source: Author's calculations NAMA TOTAL Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total

14 Table B9 Calculated increase in trade due to tariff cuts and NTB cuts a Concessions: in billions of dollars Imports Total cuts in percent in billions of dollars Exports in percent in billions of dollars Agriculture Tariff cuts in percent in billions of dollars in percent in billions of dollars NTB cuts a Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports in percent in billions of dollars in percent in billions of dollars in percent NAMA Tariff cuts only in billions of dollars in percent All 22 countries 20.5 (6.2) 14.1 (5.2) 6.7 (2.0) 5.3 (2.0) 13.8 (4.2) 8.8 (3.3) 45.6 (0.7) 40.3 (1.6) 19.2 (8.5) 7.6 (5.0) 5.4 (2.4) 3.0 (2.0) 13.8 (6.1) 4.6 (3.0) 29.5 (0.7) 17.6 (0.6) 1.4 (1.3) 6.4 (5.6) 1.3 (1.2) 2.2 (2.0) 0.1 (0.1) 4.2 (3.7) 16.1 (0.7) 22.8 (1.0) 15.3 (18.7) 1.7 (3.8) 2.2 (2.7) 1.1 (2.5) 13.1 (16.0) 0.6 (1.2) 11.0 (0.8) 7.5 (0.8) 2.4 (5.7) 0.5 (27.3) 2.0 (4.7) 0.0 (2.4) 0.4 (1.0) 0.5 (24.9) 2.5 (0.5) 6.7 (1.2) 1.6 (2.3) 3.3 (5.2) 0.5 (0.7) 0.8 (1.3) 1.1 (1.6) 2.5 (3.9) 12.7 (0.7) 2.7 (0.4) 0.0 (0.2) 2.0 (8.3) 0.0 (0.2) 0.5 (2.2) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (6.1) 1.0 (1.2) 0.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.6) 1.1 (6.5) 0.2 (0.6) 0.5 (2.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (3.7) 6.7 (1.0) 13.2 (1.5) 0.2 (3.5) 0.3 (4.8) 0.2 (3.5) 0.1 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (3.8) 0.7 (0.1) 1.4 (1.9) a. Agricultural trade calculations reflect both tariff and non-tariff barrier cuts. NAMA trade calculations only reflect tariff cuts. NTBs = non-tariff barriers, which consist of tariff rate quotas, export subsidies, and domestic support. For NTBs, tariff equivalents are estimated. Source : Authors' calculations

15 Table B10 Weighted average of bound duties pre- and post-doha (percent) [Rows are tariffs applied to imports; Columns are tariffs applied to exports] All 22 Countries Developed (7) Developing (15) Eu uropean Union United States Other LDCs Pre-Doha bound rates Other LDCs Post-Doha bound rates Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access LDCs = Least Developed Countries Source : Author's calculations

16 Table B11 Cut in bound tariffs (percentage points) [Rows are cuts on tariffs applied to imports; Columns are cuts on tariffs applied to exports] Developed (7) Developing European United (15) Other LDCs Union States All 22 Countries Agriculture NAMA Total Developed (7) Agriculture NAMA Total Developing (15) European Union United States Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total 18.8 Notes: = not applicable Source : Author's calculations

17 Table B12 Bound v. applied "water levels" pre-doha and post-doha (percentage points) [Rows are tariffs applied to imports; Columns are tariffs applied to e All 22 Countries Developed (7) Developing (15) Eu uropean Union United States Other LDCs Pre-Doha water Other LDCs Post-Doha water Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access LDCs = Least Developed Countries Source : Author's calculations

18 Table B13 Trade-Weighted Average Bound, MFN, and Applied Tariff Rates: 2001, 2006, and Post Doha Round (Percent) IDB for 2001 b WTO dataset for 2006 WTO dataset for Post Doha Round Bound MFN Applied Bound MFN Applied Bound MFN Applied Argentina Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Colombia Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Indonesia Ag NAMA Total Korea, Rep. Ag NAMA Total Malaysia Ag NAMA Total Mexico Ag NAMA Total Pakistan Ag NAMA Total Philippines Ag NAMA Total South Africa Ag NAMA Total Taiwan Ag NAMA Total Thailand Ag NAMA Total Turkey Ag NAMA Total Notes: Averages based on 2-digit HS categories and bilateral import values for 2006 reported in the WTO dataset. Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access b/ WTO Integrated Data Base, accessed through WITS. Tariff year for Thailand is 2004.

19 Table B14 Weighted average of applied tariffs pre-doha and post-doha (percent) [Rows are tariffs applied to imports; Columns are tariffs applied to exports] All 22 Countries Developed (7) Developing (15) Euro opean Un nion United States Other LDCs Pre-Doha applied rates Other LDCs Post-Doha applied rates Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Ag NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access LDCs = Least Developed Countries Source : Author's calculations

20 Table B15 Cuts in applied tariffs (percentage points) [Rows are cuts in tariffs applied to imports; Columns are cuts in tariffs applied to exports] Least Developed Developing European United Other Developed (7) (15) Union States Countries All 22 Countries Developed (7) Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Developing (15) European Union United States Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Agriculture NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Source : Author's calculationscu at

21 Table B16 Reciprocity measure gains from domestic support concessions (in millions of dollars) [Rows are cuts in the tariff equivalent of domestic support applied to imports; Columns are cuts in the tariff equivalent of domestic support applied to exports] Concessions given by: Australia Canada European Union Norway Switzerland United States Argentina Korea, Republic of Thailand Concessions given to: , Australia Canada n.a n.a Norway n.a Switzerland n.a Argentina n.a Bulgaria/Romania/Iceland n.a. n.a. 10 n.a. 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Colombia n.a. n.a n.a. 0 Korea, Republic of n.a n.a Indonesia n.a. n.a. 79 n.a Malaysia n.a. n.a Mexico n.a. n.a Pakistan n.a. n.a Philippines n.a n.a. n.a n.a. South Africa n.a Taiwan n.a n.a. 0 Thailand n.a Turkey n.a. n.a Other developing countries , Least Developed Countries Non WTO Notes: = not applicable n.a. = not available Source : Authors' calculations

22 Table B17 Reciprocity measure gains from concessions in export subsidies (in millions of dollars) (Rows are countries receiving concessions through elimination of export subsidies on their imports; Columns are countries giving concessions through elimination of export subsidies on their exports) Concessions given by: Canada European Union Norway Switzerland United States Concessions given to: 21 2, Australia Canada Norway Switzerland Argentina Bulgaria Colombia Hong Kong, Iceland Indonesia Korea, Republic of Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Pakistan Philippinesi Romania Singapore South Africa Taiwan Thailand Turkey Other developing countries Least Developed Countries Non-WTO members Notes: = not applicable Source : Author's calculations

23 Table B18 Reciprocity measure gains from the expansion of tariff rate quotas (in million of dollars) (Rows are countries receiving concessions; Columns are countries giving concessions) Concessions given by: Canada European Union Norway Switzerland United States Concessions given to: Australia Canada n.a n.a Norway n.a n.a. 0.0 Switzerland n.a Argentina Bulgaria/Romania/Iceland n.a. 0.4 n.a Colombia n.a. 0.2 n.a. n.a. 3.4 Korea, Republic of n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a n.a Indonesia n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.3 Malaysia n.a. 0.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. Mexico n.a Pakistan n.a. 0.1 n.a. 0.0 n.a. Philippines n.a South Africa n.a. 0.2 n.a Taiwan n.a. n.a. 0.0 Thailand n.a. 0.8 n.a. Turkey n.a Other developing countries Least Developed Countries n.a n.a. 0.0 n.a. Others Non WTO Notes: = not applicable Source : Author's calculations

24 Table B19 Overall gains in agriculture and NAMA expressed in terms of the reciprocity measure (in billions of dollars) (Rows are imports; Columns are exports) Importers All 22 Countries Developed (7) Developing (15) European Union Exporters Develope d (7) Developing (15) Other Least Develope European Union d Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag totalt United States Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access LDCs = Least Developed Countries Source : Author's calculations United States

25 Table B20 Increase in trade due to tariff cuts and NTBs - (Rows are imports; Columns are exports) Other LDCs Increase in billions of dollars Percent increase from 2006 trade levels Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Ag total Tariffs NTBs NAMA Total Notes: = not applicable Ag = agriculture, NAMA = Non-agricultural market access LDCs = Least Developed Countries Source : Author's calculations All 22 Countries Developed (7) Developing (15) European Union United States Other LDCs

26 Table B21 Trade Effects of Choosing Various NAMA Flexibility Options (in billions of dollars) 22 Countries -20 Half Cut -20 No Cut -22 No Cut - 22 Half Cut Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Australia Canada Norway Switzerland Argentina Colombia Indonesia Korea, Republic of Malaysia Mexico Pakistan Philippinesi South Africa Taiwan Thailand Turkey Totals Source : Authors' calculations

27 Table B22 Trade Effects of Choosing Various NAMA Flexibility Options (in billions of dollars) 22 Countries -20 Half Cut -20 No Cut -22 No Cut - 22 Half Cut Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn Australia Canada Norway Switzerland Argentina Colombia Indonesia Korea, Republic of Malaysia Mexico Pakistan Philippines South Africa Taiwan Thailand Turkey Totals Source : Authors' calculations

28 Table B23 Trade Effects of Choosing Various NAMA Flexibility Options (in billions of dollars) n 22 Countries -22 No Cut Change in Exports, $Bn Change in Imports, $Bn - 22 Half Cut Change in Change in Exports, Imports, $Bn $Bn Australia Canada Norway Switzerland Argentina Colombia Indonesia Korea, Republic of Malaysia Mexico Pakistan Philippines South Africa Taiwan Thailand Turkey Totals Notes: 20 Half Cut and 20 No Cut simulations were not conducted for. Source : Authors' calculations

29 Table C1 Tariff equivalents of service barriers (percent) Country Current Tariff Equivalent Tariff Equivalent After 10% Cut Argentina Australia Canada Colombia EU a Indonesia Korea Malaysia Mexico Norway Pakistan Philippines South Africa Switzerland Thailand Turkey USA b Notes: a. Measured as the weighted average of service tariff equivalents for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, using 2008 US exports to each country as weights. b. Set equal to a fraction of the EU tariff equivalent (as explained in the main text). Wang, Mohan, and Rosen (unpublished) assumes that the US tariff equivalent of service barriers is zero. Sources : Wang, Mohan, and Rosen (unpublished), Author's Calculations

30 Table C2 Estimated 2007 bilateral services trade (billions of dollars) (Rows are imports; Columns are exports) Developing (14) billions of dollars All Developing (14) EU USA Notes: Services import data availabilities (including reported exports by a partner) are as follows: Argentina: All countries but Australia,, Colombia, Turkey Australia: Only Canada, EU,, Norway, Pakistan, USA : Only Canada, EU,, Norway, Pakistan, USA Canada: All countries : Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Korea, Norway, Pakistan, USA : All countries : Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Norway, Pakistan, USA Indonesia: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA : All countries but Argentina, Colombia, Turkey Korea: Only Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU,, Pakistan, USA Malaysia: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA Mexico: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA Norway: All countries but Argentina, Colombia, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines South Africa, Thailand Pakistan: All Countries Philippines: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA South Africa: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA Switzerland: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Norway Pakistan, USA Thailand: Only Australia, Canada, EU,, Pakistan, USA Turkey: Only Canada, EU, Norway, Pakistan : All countries but Colombia, Turkey All other bilateral relationships are estimated by multiplying each country's total service imports by the relevant proportion of bilateral merchandise trade in Sources: BEA (2009), UN Service Trade Database (2009), OECD (2009), UNComtrade (2009), Authors' calculations