Estimating the Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of Perfumes and Toilet Waters in Ecuador

  • Gonzalo E. Sánchez
  • Patricia A. Vargas


This chapter discusses the effect of two technical barriers to trade (TBT) adopted by Ecuador in November 2013 on the import flows of perfumes and toilet waters. The study considers two TBTs: Resolution 116 and Resolution 093. In order to obtain an unbiased estimate, the study uses a synthetic control method combined with a difference-in-difference estimation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that uses the synthetic control method to estimate the causal effect of a particular barrier to trade. In that sense, the contribution of this chapter is mainly methodological.


  1. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque country. The American Economic Review, 93(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2011). SYNTH: Stata module to implement synthetic control methods for comparative case studies. Statistical Software Components S457334, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 28 January 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J., & Neary, J. (2005). Measuring the restrictiveness of international trade policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bhagwati, J. N. (1965). On the equivalence of tariff and quotas. In R. E. Baldwin (Ed.), Trade growth and balance of payment. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Billmeier, A., & Nannicini, T. (2013). Assessing economic liberalization episodes: A synthetic control approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 983–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohn, S., Lofstrom, M., & Raphael, S. (2014). Did the 2007 legal Arizona workers act reduce the state’s unauthorized immigrant population? Review of Economics and Statistics, 9(2), 258–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brander, J. A., & Krugman, P. R. (1983). A reciprocal dumping model of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 15, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darvas, Z. (2012). Real effective exchange rates for 178 countries: A new database. Working paper. Department of Mathematical Economics and Economic Analysis, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest. Retrieved from
  11. GATT Secretariat. (1994). The results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral negotiations: The legal texts. Geneva: GATT.Google Scholar
  12. Krugman, P. (1986). Strategic trade policy and the new international economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Maskus, K., & Wilson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade: Can it be done? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
  15. Resolución 116. (2013). Consejo de Comercio Exterior del Ecuador. Published in Registro Oficial 140, Quito.Google Scholar
  16. Resolución 13392 – RTE 093. (2013). Subsecretaría de Calidad del Ecuador. Published in Registro Oficial 121, Quito.Google Scholar
  17. Sánchez, G. E. (2017). The short-term response of the Hispanic noncitizen population to anti-illegal immigration legislation: The case of Arizona SB 1070. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 22(42), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UNCTAD. (2013). Non-tariff measures to trade: Economic and policy issues for developing countries. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  19. United States Trade Representative. (2015). 2015 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE). Office of the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  20. World Bank. (2016). World development indicators 2016. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  21. World Trade Organization. (2016a). Committee on technical barriers to trade. 21st annual review of the implementation and operation of the TBT agreement, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. World Trade Organization. (2016b). Integrated analysis and retrieval of notified non-tariff measures. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonzalo E. Sánchez
    • 1
  • Patricia A. Vargas
    • 2
  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Humanísticas, Campus Gustavo GalindoEscuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, ESPOLGuayaquilEcuador
  2. 2.Dirección de DocenciaPontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, PUCEQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations