Are nontariff measures and tariffs substitutes? Some panel data evidence

Using new estimates of ad valorem equivalent of nontariff measures (NTMs) over time, this paper examines NTMs and tariffs’ relationship for a sample of 70 economies for 4,949 products at the 6‐digit harmonized system level over the period 2003–2015. A panel data methodology models the lagged adjustment of NTMs to tariffs, consistent with a causal relationship. Trade policy substitution is found when the models are estimated in both levels and changes; with this holding for both OECD and non‐OECD countries, but not for the agriculture sector in OECD countries. Overall, there is a fairly complete substitution between policy instruments in absolute terms.     

Non-tariff and overall protection: evidence across countries and over time

This paper analyzes the evolution of the incidence and intensity of non-tariff measures (NTMs). It extends earlier work by measuring protection from NTMs over time from a newly available database and provides evidence on the evolution of NTMs. In particular, building on Kee et al. (Econ J 119(534):172–199, 2009), this paper estimates the ad valorem equivalents of NTMs for 97 countries at the product level over the period 1997–2015. We show that the incidence and the intensity of NTMs were both increasing over this period, with NTMs becoming an even more dominant source of trade protection. We are also able to investigate the evolution of overall protection derived jointly from tariffs and NTMs. The results show that the overall protection level, for most countries and products, has not decreased despite the fall in tariffs associated with multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements in recent decades. We also document an increase in overall trade protection during the recent 2008 financial crisis. Overall, this study sheds light on an under-researched aspect of trade liberalization: the proliferation and increase of NTMs.     

Chinese cross‐border mergers and acquisitions in the developing world: Is Africa unique?

China has emerged as an important partner for Africa. Not surprisingly, Chinese business and investment relations with Africa have been growing. This article contends that Africa offers a different proposition to Chinese business interests in non‐African developing economies. In this optic, it takes a “comparative” institution‐based view treating factors that determine Chinese multinationals' cross‐border merger and acquisition (CBMA) decisions as comparatively different for Africa to the rest of the developing world. From a panel data estimation of the number of Chinese CBMAs from 2007 to 2016, we find among market size, natural resources, strategic assets, labor productivity, and institutional governance, only natural resources and market size have a distinctive effect, with Chinese investors being more attracted to African natural resources than the African market. The drive for natural resources provides impetus for Chinese MNEs to choose CBMAs over greenfield investment, and through majority ownership to exercise control. Our inference is that Africa is “significantly” different from other developing regions, in terms of CBMAs, as Chinese multinationals have a strong motive to control access to natural resources.