Table 18 CGE estimated real income effect of multilateral trade reform and transportation cost
declines (billions of US dollars, equivalent variation measure)
|
Country/region |
Reversion to Uruguay Round tariffs |
Reversion to Tokyo Round tariffs |
Reversion of transportation costs | ||||||
|
Efficiency |
Terms of |
Overall |
Efficiency |
Terms of |
Overall |
Efficiency |
Terms of |
Overall | |
|
Australia |
-1.1 |
0.5 |
-0.6 |
-3.7 |
1.8 |
-1.9 |
-3.0 |
-1.8 |
-4.8 |
|
Brazil |
-3.5 |
1.5 |
-2.0 |
-9.3 |
2.4 |
-6.9 |
-2.2 |
-0.5 |
-2.7 |
|
Canada |
-2.1 |
0.0 |
-2.1 |
-7.9 |
0.9 |
-7.0 |
-2.5 |
2.9 |
0.3 |
|
China |
-1.2 |
5.9 |
4.7 |
-5.0 |
3.8 |
-1.2 |
-9.9 |
-9.2 |
-19.1 |
|
EU-15 |
-21.9 |
1.2 |
-20.7 |
-31.6 |
1.3 |
-30.3 |
-58.8 |
-6.9 |
-65.7 |
|
Hong Kong |
-0.0 |
-0.9 |
-0.9 |
-0.0 |
-2.0 |
-2.0 |
-1.6 |
-0.5 |
-2.1 |
|
India |
-5.0 |
3.7 |
-1.3 |
-20.9 |
12.1 |
-8.8 |
-3.1 |
-2.6 |
-5.7 |
|
Indonesia |
-5.0 |
1.9 |
-3.0 |
-7.2 |
1.7 |
-5.6 |
-1.8 |
-0.4 |
-2.3 |
|
Japan |
-1.2 |
3.0 |
1.8 |
-2.3 |
2.8 |
0.5 |
-11.5 |
0.6 |
-10.8 |
|
Korea |
-1.6 |
2.7 |
1.1 |
-8.3 |
6.1 |
-2.2 |
-5.8 |
0.2 |
-5.6 |
|
Malaysia |
-1.1 |
-3.3 |
-4.4 |
-1.6 |
-5.3 |
-7.0 |
-1.9 |
0.4 |
-1.5 |
|
Mexico |
-20.3 |
6.7 |
-13.6 |
-30.9 |
8.1 |
-22.9 |
-2.2 |
1.8 |
-0.4 |
|
Philippines |
-1.4 |
0.5 |
-0.9 |
-1.8 |
0.2 |
-1.5 |
-1.1 |
-0.0 |
-1.1 |
|
Singapore |
-0.7 |
-1.2 |
-1.9 |
-2.7 |
-1.0 |
-3.8 |
-1.7 |
1.4 |
-0.3 |
|
Taiwan |
-0.0 |
0.0 |
-0.0 |
-0.2 |
-1.1 |
-1.3 |
-3.9 |
-2.1 |
-5.9 |
|
Thailand |
-2.9 |
0.7 |
-2.2 |
-7.4 |
0.8 |
-6.6 |
-1.9 |
-0.3 |
-2.2 |
|
Venezuela |
-0.5 |
-0.6 |
-1.1 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-1.6 |
-0.5 |
0.3 |
-0.2 |
|
United States |
-2.1 |
-11.6 |
-13.7 |
-5.0 |
-13.3 |
-18.2 |
-22.8 |
1.9 |
-20.9 |
|
Rest of world |
-2.4 |
-11.1 |
-13.5 |
-4.3 |
-19.4 |
-23.7 |
2.0 |
14.7 |
16.7 |
|
Total |
-74.1 |
-152.0 |
-134.3 | ||||||
Notes: All simulations are run using Gilbert's CGE model and the GTAP7 database, which has a base year of 2004.The results are comparative static
estimates—they represent only the allocation effects of a change in tariff levels and do not capture other channels, such as productivty effects.
The overall real income effect is measured using an equivalent variation measure, and is decomposed into terms-of-trade and allocative efficiency
components. The results should be interpreted as the annual real income gain or loss. To approximate a total loss over a long period of time, the figures
can be treated as a discounted annuity. For example, the total loss to the United States from an undoing of the Tokyo Round tariff reductions would
be approximately $912 billion—that is, $18.2 billion loss annually discounted to perpetuity at 2 percent. All measures are relative to a baseline of 2004,
adjusted to reflect preferential agreements with the United States.
Source: Gilbert (2009) calculations using GTAP7 database.
34
More intriguing information
1. CHANGING PRICES, CHANGING CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION2. An Estimated DSGE Model of the Indian Economy.
3. Structure and objectives of Austria's foreign direct investment in the four adjacent Central and Eastern European countries Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia
4. The name is absent
5. A Brief Introduction to the Guidance Theory of Representation
6. ROBUST CLASSIFICATION WITH CONTEXT-SENSITIVE FEATURES
7. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization
8. The name is absent
9. Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in Models with Endogenous Fertility
10. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources