Skip to main content
Log in

Beyond tariff evasion: bypass effect of FTAs to circumvent technical barriers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of World Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Can free trade agreements (FTAs) evade technical barriers to trade (TBT)? Based on the FTAs and TBT notification of the United States, this paper addresses this question using detailed product-level trade data of the period 2000–2017. It shows that, for the products covered by the US TBT notifications, Chinese exports to third countries that are part of the FTA trade bloc with the US are positively correlated to the imports by the US from the same countries. However, the authors do not find a bypass effect of FTA in evading technical barriers as regards trade with several other countries. Furthermore, the bypass evidence is stronger for countries near China that have similar institutional qualities, better political relations with China, a larger Chinese population, an FTA, and commonality in language with China, and where the rerouting cost is low for Chinese exporters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig.5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, in US-Australian FTA, TBT Chapter includes scope and coverage, affirmation of the TBT agreement, regional governments, international standards, technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, transparency, trade facilitation, chapter coordinators and information exchange. Of course, dropping Israel and Jordan will not change our results.

  2. https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/10/vietnam-chinese-made-in-vietnam-labels-us-tariffs/.

  3. In empirical regression, we omit the zero trade of China distinguishing from the US imports i.e., USijt. When introduced jointly with zero value of China’s export, the joint effect CH × FTA × TBT is positive and significant while the coefficient of CH stays significant but the coefficient turns negative. It is difficult to make any sense of this result compared with the previous results. Another reason we do this is to avoid some statistical errors in some extent and mainly investigate the bypass effect on the intensive margin of Chinese exports.

  4. This possible candidate may also have its own problem since later we do not find similar results from other countries.

  5. The data are collected via the Demographic Yearbook census questionnaires. However, the data is highly incomplete, and this is the reason the number of observations is so small compared to others (Source: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dybcensusdata.cshtml).

  6. The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) report on six broad dimensions of governance: (I) Voice and Accountability; (II) Political Stability and Absence of Violence; (III) Government Effectiveness; (IV) Regulatory Quality; (V) Rule of Law; and (VI) Control of Corruption. We normalized six indices and calculated the average value.

References

  • Baghdadi, L., Martinez-Zarzoso, I., & Zitouna, H. (2013). Are RTA agreements with environmental provisions reducing emissions? Journal of International Economics, 90(2), 378–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2009). Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching econometrics. Journal of International Economics, 77, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, X. H., & Qiu, L. (2012). How do technical barriers to trade influence trade? Review of International Economics, 20(4), 691–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, N., & Chevrier, M. (2011). Distance, information asymmetry, and mergers: Evidence from Canadian firms. Managerial Finance, 37(1–2), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besedes, T., Goldbach, S., & Nitsch, V. (2017). You’re banned! The effect of sanctions on German cross-border financial flows. Economic Policy, 32(90), 263–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bown, C. P. (2011). The great recession and import protection: The role of temporary trade barriers. Centre for Economic Policy Research and the World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, X., Lu, Y., Wu, M., et al. (2016). Does environmental regulation drive away inbound foreign direct investment? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Development Economics, 123, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czubala, W., Stepherd, B., & Wilson, J. S. (2009). Help or hindrance? The impact of harmonized standards on African exports. Journal of African Economies, 18(5), 711–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, H. L. F., Linders, G. J., Rietveld, P., et al. (2004). The institutional determinants of bilateral trade patterns. Kyklos, 57(1), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontagne, L., & Orefice, G. (2018). Let’s try next door: Technical Barriers to Trade and multi-destination firms. European Economic Review, 101, 643–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontagne, L., Orefice, G., Piermartini, R., & Rocha, N. (2015). Products standards and margins of trade: Firm-level evidence. Journal of International Economics, 97(5), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Ni, Y., Pittman, J., & Saadi, S. (2013). Does information asymmetry matter to equity pricing? Evidence from firms’ geographic location. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(1), 140–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundke, R., & Moser, C. (2019). Hidden protectionism? Evidence from non-tariff barriers to trade in the United States. Journal of International Economics, 117, 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C., Lin, F., Tan, Y., et al. (2019). How exporting firms respond to technical barriers to trade? The World Economy, 42(5), 1400–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., Qiu, L. (2015). Beyond trade creation: Free trade agreements and trade disputes (Working paper, 2015). http://www.eria.org/ERIA-DP-2015-28.pdf.

  • Liu, C. (2010). The obstacles of outsourcing imported food safety to China. Cornell International Law Journal, 43, 249–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Shi, H. (2019). Anti-dumping duty circumvention through trade rerouting: Evidence from Chinese exporters. The World Economy, 42(5), 1427–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melitz, J., & Toubal, F. (2014). Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. Journal of International Economics, 93(2), 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portugal-Perez, A., Reyes, J. D., & Wilson, J. S. (2010). Beyond the information technology agreement: Harmonization of standards and trade in electronics. The World Economy, 33(12), 1870–1897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prusa, T. J. (2001). On the spread and impact of anti-dumping. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34(3), 591–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, J., & Trindade, V. (2002). Ethnic Chinese networks in international trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotunno, L., Vezina, P. L., & Wang, Z. (2013). The rise and fall of (Chinese) African apparel exports. Journal of Development Economics, 105, 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanov, A. (2012). Tariff evasion and rules of origin violations under the Canada-US free trade agreement. Canadian Journal of Economics, 45(3), 879–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trefler, D. (2004). The long and short of the Canada- U. S. free trade agreement. American Economic Review, 94(4), 870–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanardi, M. (2006). Antidumping: A problem in international trade. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), 591–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor and Professor Gerald Willmann and two anonymous referees for their insightful comments. All the remaining errors are our own. Generous financial support was given by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71773148 and 72073128). Authors are in alphabetical order and contribute equally to the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faqin Lin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables

Table 5 Example of Companies helping anti-dumping, quota and avoid technical barriers

5,

Table 6 Summary statistics of the main variables

6,

Table 7 List of countries that signed FTAs with the United States up to 2017

7 and

Table 8 The rules of quantitative partnerships

8.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Lin, F. Beyond tariff evasion: bypass effect of FTAs to circumvent technical barriers. Rev World Econ 158, 1085–1105 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-022-00455-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-022-00455-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation