Search results

The purposes of this paper are to provide a new framework for the (re)assessment of North-South relations, with a specific focus on North-South preferential trade agreements (PTAs); advance a new mechanism of how first-order, i.e. Southern countries’ first, North-South PTAs can affect the outcomes of second-order, i.e. Southern countries’ subsequent, North-South PTA negotiations; and re-examine the effects of North-South power asymmetries on the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations.

The paper focuses on how North-South power asymmetries affect the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations. It introduces the concept of “first-order” and “second-order” North-South PTAs to show that the “order” of an agreement can be a crucial factor in PTA negotiations. The claims of the paper are also supported by primary data obtained through the author’s personal interviews with European Union and USA trade officials and policy-makers (see Appendix).

The paper advances a new theoretical framework that takes a longer-term view on North-South trade relations, whereby, against the backdrop of the proliferating PTAs, first-order North-South agreements can raise the bargaining powers of Southern countries during subsequent North-South PTA negotiations, with strong implications for both developed and developing countries.

The paper is largely theoretical. A systematic empirical study of North-South PTAs will be required to validate or refute the theoretical framework advanced in this paper.

The paper introduces a new variable, namely the “order” of an agreement, which affects the logic of North-South PTA negotiations. Hence, the paper sets out a new theoretical framework that allows for a more accurate assessment of North-South power asymmetries and their effects on the outcomes of North-South PTA negotiations.

In this chapter I put forward a framework to help us understand the underlying sources of national policy failures regarding intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, the need for international coordination, and how the coordination should be done. I also analyze whether global harmonization of IPR standards is necessary or sufficient for achieving globally welfare-maximizing policies. Then I move on to analyze the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which is a mighty effort to coordinate IPR policies across member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I discuss what TRIPS was supposed to do and what it has actually achieved, with reference to my theoretical framework. I explain that it is desirable for IPR to be included in world trade talks and be negotiated along with other trade issues. I offer analyses on the extensions of the basic model by introducing political economy and trade barriers, as well as allowing countries to discriminate against foreign firms. Finally, I comment on further potential extensions such as introduction of foreign direct investment (FDI) or licensing, parallel imports, cumulative innovations, subject matter of protection and costs of implementation. The main thrust of the basic model is that, provided that there is free trade and non-discrimination of foreign firms, there exist positive cross-border externalities as a country strengthens its IPR protection, since it raises the profits of foreign firms and the welfare of foreign consumers without causing any deadweight loss on foreign soil. This implies that national governments tend to provide too little IPR protection compared with the global optimum. The model also implies that a country with higher innovative capability and larger domestic market would provide stronger IPR. Thus, it is natural for the South to protect IPR less than the North in the absence of international coordination. These basic results largely continue to hold under various extensions.

This paper aims to shed light on two mechanisms that show how foreign productivity improvement affects domestic welfare.

First, this study applies a general equilibrium model that takes into account how wages respond to productivity improvements. Second, this study uses a monopolistic competition model that shows how benefits or losses from foreign productivity changes are distributed within domestic economy.

First of all, this study shows that a region’s productivity improvement is beneficial for the region itself as well as for its trading partner. Moreover, the study finds that productivity improvement in a developing region is beneficial for the entire economy, benefits all unskilled workers in the economy and skilled workers in the developing region and hurts those in the developing region’s trading partner.

This study contributes to the existing literature in two key aspects. First, the study applies a two-region, two-factor, one-sector general equilibrium model with flexible wages, and second, the study uses a two-region, two-factor, two-sector monopolistic competition model, relaxing the single-factor (labor) assumption, which is used in other works. Under the single-factor assumption, foreign productivity changes do not have any impact on domestic income distribution. In reality, however, any productivity change between countries creates losers and winners within each country. Hence, the author believes that it is imperative to study how benefits or losses that come from foreign productivity changes are distributed between domestic production factors.

The purpose of this paper is to examine patterns and determinants of trade among developing countries (South‐South trade), with emphasis on the role of production sharing in global economic integration of the Southern economies.

The paper begins with an analytical narrative of the emerging trends and patterns of South‐South trade using a classification system that helps delineating trade based on global production sharing (network trade) from total recorded trade. Then it undertakes a comparative econometric analysis of the determinants of South‐South and South‐North trade using the standard gravity model.

The share of South‐South trade in world trade has shown a significant increase over the past two decades. This increase has predominantly come from the dynamic East Asian countries, reflecting their growing engagement in global production sharing. The growth dynamism of East‐Asia centered production networks depends heavily on demand for final (assembled) goods in the Northern markets; South‐South trade is largely complementary to, rather than competing with, South‐North trade. While regional trading agreements (RTAs) could play a role at the margin, natural economic forces associated with growth and structural change in the economy and the overall macroeconomic climate as reflected in the real exchange rate, and the quality of trade related logistics are far more important in the expansion of South‐South network trade.

This is the first study to examine patterns and determinants of South‐South trade paying attention to the role of global production sharing. The findings are valuable for informing the contemporary policy debate on promoting South‐South trade. The trade data classification system developed here is expected to help further research on this subject.

Aims to find an appropriate economic model for the reunification question. Perhaps the most important economic issue is what model is to be applied in integrating the two Koreas into a single, viable and eventually highly‐competitive economy. Because of the dissimilarities between the German and Korean economies, and the enormous economic problems created by the swift German reunification, the instant‐reunification German model was rejected. Instead, proposes a more gradual, four‐stage economic integration model for Korea, which was divided in 1945. For a successful economic integration of the two countries, economic reforms should take place in North Korea since the North Korean economy has been afflicted with too many difficult problems, mainly caused by a rigid, centrally‐planned, command economy.

The dominant paradigm of world trade patterns posits two principal features. Trade between North and South arises due to traditional comparative advantage. Trade within the North, largely intra-industry trade, is based on economies of scale and product differentiation. The paradigm specifically denies an important role for endowment differences in determining North–North trade. We demonstrate that trade in factor services among countries of the North is systematically related to endowment differences and large in economic magnitude. Intra-industry trade, rather than being a puzzle for a factor endowments theory, is instead the conduit for a great deal of this factor service trade.

There is great conflict between some developed countries and developing countries regarding attitudes toward reducing global warming (e.g. the USA vs China). The aim of this paper is to argue that open trade doesn't necessarily increase world pollution if clean development mechanism (CDM) is generously undertaken and if the CDM devotes considerable real resources in transfers of the associate abatement technology.

The impacts of trade on environment can be decomposed into scale, technique and composition effects. This paper incorporates abatement assets into Copeland and Taylor's model to argue that the technique effect stems from an increasing in pollution taxes and in international diffusion of abatement technology; however, the former is fully offset but the latter is facilitated by the CDM.

While world pollution is jointly determined by the composition and technique effects, in contrast to literature, open trade doesn't necessarily increase world pollution if CDM is generously undertaken with considerable real resources in abatement technology transfers.

Currently, there are more than about one half of the CDM projects that allocate no real resources in technology transfers. This study addresses how voluntary investment of the CDM from the North (e.g. the USA) to the South (e.g. China) might reduce pollution on a global level only if having “generously” technology transfer.

South‐South trade is the fastest growing segment of world trade in the last two decades. This paper aims at demonstrating that it is a unique opportunity and a sound development tool for developing countries.

The paper describes the statistical and empirical evidence from a macroeconomic and microeconomic viewpoint, and discusses the policy options developing country governments face to promote South‐South trade and investment.

Not all regions, countries, products and services fare equally in the current state of play. That South‐South trade expands at a much faster pace than other trade, although it is subject to higher barriers and higher distance‐related costs, suggests that addressing trade facilitation issues is of the essence for future progress, including major investments in trade‐related infrastructure, like the modernization of air and water ports, roads, transport and customs services.

South‐South trade expansion is a market‐driven development – mostly resulting from the widespread operation of international supply chains of the South – that may be enhanced by government intervention but seldom spearheaded by it in the long run.

The “natural” next questions are whether South‐South trade can be an alternative to North‐South trade, whether the learning process for international trading is enhanced or retarded by it, and whether the proliferation of PTAs is strangulating progress in rules‐based multilateralism, the first‐best choice according to mainstream economic theory. Even more important in development terms is whether South‐South trade can help bring developing countries, small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and the poor into the export process or, rather, it is a distraction from the real targets. This paper suggests there are robust answers to these queries already.

Liner shipping plays a crucial role in facilitating the movement of manufactured goods around the world. While previous literature has shown that liner shipping is an important trade driver, potential differences across trade routes and world regions have not as yet been explored. This paper examines whether the impact of liner shipping on bilateral trade flows differs significantly across world regions, as well as exploring other geographical patterns.

Using state-of-the-art gravity modelling, this paper investigates the impact of the UNCTAD's Liner Shipping Bilateral Connectivity Index on bilateral trade in manufactured goods using a comprehensive database of disaggregated trade data for the period from 2006 to 2019.

The results show that the trade effect of liner shipping is greater in long-distance and interregional bilateral flows. For some regions, such as North America and Oceania, the effect is greater than the world average, while for others, such as Africa and South America, the effect is significantly smaller. The trade effects of liner shipping connectivity on the main east–west routes are average, but clear asymmetry emerges when analysing China's inward and outward trade flows separately.

The results of this paper show that the major east–west routes determine the baseline trade effects of liner shipping, demonstrate that some north–south trades such as those involving Oceania generate larger trade effects and confirm that the trade effects of liner shipping can be improved for some world regions such as South America and Africa.

Presents over sixty abstracts summarising the 1999 Employment Research Unit annual conference held at the University of Cardiff. Explores the multiple impacts of globalization on work and employment in contemporary organizations. Covers the human resource management implications of organizational responses to globalization. Examines the theoretical, methodological, empirical and comparative issues pertaining to competitiveness and the management of human resources, the impact of organisational strategies and international production on the workplace, the organization of labour markets, human resource development, cultural change in organisations, trade union responses, and trans‐national corporations. Cites many case studies showing how globalization has brought a lot of opportunities together with much change both to the employee and the employer. Considers the threats to existing cultures, structures and systems.