Post on 18-Jan-2016
Economic Benefits of TTIP
Prof. Gabriel Felbermayr, PhDLudwig Maximilians Universität München
Warsaw School of EconomicsNov 30, 2015
Ifo Center for International Economics
POLAND: HOW TRADE MATTERS FOR INCOMEIfo Institut 2
Income gains from moving from „autarky“ to status quo of 2008
USAGBRITAESPFRA
SWENLDDEUPOLAUTBELSVNCZE
HUNSVK
57%
Source: Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare (2014)..
POLAND: HOW TRADE MATTERS FOR INCOMEIfo Institut 3
Income gains from moving from „autarky“ to status quo of 2008
USAGBRITAESPFRA
SWENLDDEUPOLAUTBELSVNCZE
HUNSVK
10%24%
27%31%32%
46%48%
53%57%
64%71%
80%87%
91%96%
Source: Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare (2014)..
• WTO rules negotiated 1986-2004 to fit XXth century trade• International production sharing: new issues, requiring new rules
APPROPRIATE RULES FOR XXIst CENTURY TRADEIfo Institut 4
• Complementarities between trade in final goods, trade in inputs, trade in services, investment, mobility of workers and data
• Protection on intellectual property• Coherent regulation, to enable gains from specialization• Problems of multiple taxation through tariffs• Just in time practics: trade facilitation• Contract enforcement• Moral hazard issues related to political risk
Which forum/platform for trade policy reform?
TTIP AMBITIONS
Ifo Institut 5
„comprehensive“ agreement „contributing to global rules“
• Market access: going „beyond what the U.S. and the EU have achieved in previous trade agreements“
• Investment: „highest levels of liberalization and of protection“• Regulatory cooperation: „ambitious SPS-plus“ and „ambitious
TBT-plus“ chapters; regulatory council
Feb 2013: Recommendation of a High-Level Working Group
After 11 rounds: high-flying ambitions not all achievable
EVALUATING AN AGREEMENT THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST
Ifo Institut 6
Ex post performance of standard CGE models disappointing: „models drastically underestimated the impact of NAFTA on North American trade” (Kehoe, 2005)
• Right trade model?• How define an appropriate scenario ex ante?
ifo Approach
- „Guess“ likely/realistic scenario?- Use measured effects of past agreements.
Assumption: TTIP lowers trade costs by as much as other already existing deep agreements have (e.g., all US agreements, EU, EU-CHL, …)
GERMAN VICE CHANCELLOR SIGMAR GABRIELIfo Institut 7
Voodoo Economics
Ifo Institut
LEADING STUDIES
Source: ifo.
8
Bertelsmann/ifo: Felbermayr et al., 2013b
BMWi/ifo: Felbermayr et al., 2013a
EU COM/CEPR: Francois, Norberg, et al., 2013. EU Com
Economic Policy: Felbermayr et al., 2015 ifo 1
CESifo WP/ifo: Aichele, Felbermayr, Heiland, 2014 ifo 2
CEPII: Fontagné, Gourdon, Jean, 2013
Economic Policy: Egger, Francois et al., 2015 KOF 1
KOF 2
… and a growing number of more studies
Ifo Institut
DIFFERENT APPROACHES, DIFFERENT OUTCOMES
Source: ifo.
9
Multi SectorSpilloversNTMs top-down
World 1.32% +0.14%1.58%
KOF 1ifo 2 EU Comifo 1 KOF 2
EU +2.27%+2.12% +0.48%+3.94% +2.97%
USA +0.97%+2.68% +0.39%+4.89% +1.13%
China -0.27%-0.23% +0.03%-0.50% +0.26%
ASEAN +0.38%-0.19% +0.89%-0.07% -0.47%
Germany +1.43%+2.48%+3.48% +2.32%
Poland +1.74%+3.51%
approx. EUR 200
per person and year
Ifo Institut
POLAND: DETAILED TRADE EFFECTS
Source: ifo2 (Aichele et al., 2014.)
10
Ifo 2 (Aichele et al., 2014)
USA - EXP
USA - IMP
GER EU CHN RUS-30%
20%
70%
120%
170%
220% 210%190%
-5% -4% -1%
1%
Ifo Institut
ZOOMING IN: EFFECTS OF TTIP ON AGGREGATES IN POLAND
Source: ifo.
11
GDP
Imports
Exports
548
215
211
558
220
217
TTIP 2014
+1.7%
+2.9%
+2.1%
bn USD, 2014
Ifo Institut
POLAND: REAL GDP PER CAPITAEFFECTS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS (%)
Source: Aichele et al., 2014.
12
Tariff only
Deep
Deep + dir. spillovers
0.1
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.3
Ifo Institut
EFFECTS ON LONG-RUN REAL PER CAPITA INCOME, %
Source: ifo 2, Aichele et al., 2014.
Positive net global effects
+2,7%+2,1%
13
Ø Non-TTIP: -0,03%
Ifo Institut
MORE (?) AND BETTER JOBS
Source: ifo.
14
• Displacement effects (Felbermayr et al., 2013)About 1% of labor force1/3 across sectors, 2/3 within sectors
• Labor market effects (Bertelsmann-ifo, 2013)+93 000 Jobs for Poland (=0.5% more jobs)+0.69% real wage
• Better jobs (Felbermayr et al., 2015): Newly creaed jobs arepaying higher salariestend to be more secure
Ifo Institut
SECTOR EFFECTS15
Business services nec
Construction
Machinery nec
Chemicals
Agriculture & Food
Paper
Electricity
Mineral products
Wood
Mining
Textiles
Petroleum
Electronics
Water
Air transport
Trade
-20%-15%-10%
-5%0%5%
10%15%20%25%
GDP share Change through TTIP
Initial shares (%) and rates of change (%), value added, top industries
Source: ifo 2, Aichele et al., 2014.
Ifo Institut
SOME „THREATS“ AND WHAT THEY REQUIRE
Source: ifo.
16
Adjustment costs:displacement effects
short-run in naturesocial policy (European
Globalization fund)
Higher inequality- Higher competition
threat to weak- Market access
opportunity for strong
Crucial for ‚right‘ incentivesfiscal and social policy
Constraints on regulatory autonomy
Reciprocal constraints on uncoordinated, arbitrary, discriminatory policies are the reason for free trade agreements.
Ifo Institut
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
17
Ifo Institut
BACKUP
18
FREQUENT MISUNDERSTANDINGSIfo Institut
• Ifo assumes an overoptimistic scenario.WRONG. The scenario is benchmarked to the average of other agreements and is therefore, by construction, feasible.
• Because current US-EU trade is low, welfare gains from TTIP cannot be large.
WRONG. In all known models, initial trade volumes correlate negatively with the size of potential gains from trade.
• The size of ifo gains is implausibly high.WRONG. Modern data-based research attributes the gains from trade for Germany at 30-50%.
• Bilateral trade effects are inconsistent with the welfare effects.WRONG. What matters for welfare is not the value (price x quantity) of trade flows, but quantity and quality only.
19
ADVANTAGES OF THE ifo APPROACHIfo Institut 20
1. Top-down strategy on trade costs No need to estimate non-tariff measures (NTMs)Comprehensive measure
2. Data-defined scenario for TTIP Capturing „actual“ direct and indirect effects Political feasibility
3. Easily applicable on very large country samples 173 countries, i.e., 29,756 country pairs
4. Perfect theory-econometrics-data matchParameters estimated on baseline date, using
structural relationships from the modelConfidence intervals easily computed
MACRO- vs. MICRO-PERSPECTIVEIfo Institut 21
• Single-sector approach• Simple, transparent, low data requirements,
established in scientific literature• No stance on patterns of comparative
advantage, sectoral trade patterns, and value added networks, …
MACRO
• Multi-sector approach• Closer to CGE tradition, high data
requirements• Patterns of comparative advantage, sectoral
trade patterns, and value added networks are modelled but fixed
MICRO