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. The name is absent2. AGRICULTURAL TRADE IN THE URUGUAY ROUND: INTO FINAL BATTLE
3. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
4. EMU: some unanswered questions
5. The name is absent
6. A production model and maintenance planning model for the process industry
7. The name is absent
8. A Unified Model For Developmental Robotics
9. Standards behaviours face to innovation of the entrepreneurships of Beira Interior
10. The name is absent