A partnership with academia

Building knowledge for trade and development

Vi Digital Library - Text Preview

The Design of Preferential Trade Agreements: A New Dataset in the Making

Working paper by WTO, 2011

Download original document (English)

Since 1990 the number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has increased very rapidly. This paper aims to contribute to this literature by presenting a new database on PTAs called Design of Trade Agreements (DESTA). Starting from 690 negotiated trade agreements between 1945 and 2009, 404 agreements were coded. The aim is to have a database for about 550 agreements by 2012. The agreements cover a number of sectors, namely market access, services, investments, intellectual property rights, competition, public procurement, standards, trade remedies, non-trade issues, and dispute settlement. This working paper describes the DESTA data set and provides selected descriptive statistics.

1


Staff Working Paper ERSD-2011-10 Date: 16 June 2011








World Trade Organization
Economic Research and Statistics Division












The Design of Preferential Trade Agreements:


A New Dataset in the Making




Leonardo Baccini,


IMT Lucca


Andreas Dür


University of Salzburg


Manfred Elsig


University of Bern


Karolina Milewicz


Universities of Bern & Lucerne




Manuscript date: June 2011




















Disclaimer: This is a working paper, and hence it represents research in progress. This paper


represents the opinions of the authors, and is the product of professional research. It is not


meant to represent the position or opinions of the WTO or its Members, nor the official


position of any staff members. Any errors are the fault of the authors. Copies of working


papers can be requested from the divisional secretariat by writing to: Economic Research and


Statistics Division, World Trade Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154, CH 1211 Geneva 21,


Switzerland. Please request papers by number and title.





2


The Design of Preferential Trade Agreements: A New


Dataset in the Making






Leonardo Baccini, IMT Lucca


Andreas Dür, University of Salzburg


Manfred Elsig, University of Bern


Karolina Milewicz, Universities of Bern & Lucerne






Abstract
1




Since 1990 the number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has increased very rapidly.


This paper aims to contribute to this literature by presenting a new database on PTAs called


Design of Trade Agreements (DESTA). We identified a total of 690 negotiated trade


agreements between 1945 and 2009 of which we have coded 404 agreements for which treaty


texts and appendices were available. We aim to have a database for about 550 agreements by


2012. We have coded agreements for a total of 10 broad sectors of cooperation, encompassing


market access, services, investments, intellectual property rights, competition, public


procurement, standards, trade remedies, non-trade issues, and dispute settlement. For each of


these sectors, we have coded a significant number of items, meaning that we have about 100


data points for each agreement. The resulting DESTA database is – to the best of our
knowledge – by far the most complete in terms of agreements and sectors covered. This
dataset fills a crucial gap in the field by providing a fine-grain measurement of the design of


PTAs. Among others, we think that DESTA will be of relevance for the literatures on the


signing of PTAs; the legalization of international relations; the rational design of international


institutions; the diffusion of policies; the political and economic effects of trade agreements;


power relations between states; and forum shopping in international politics. This working


paper describes the DESTA data set and provides selected descriptive statistics. The overview


puts emphasis on variation in design over time and across regions.




Keywords: Preferential trade agreements




JEL Classification: F15





1
We acknowledge the support of NCCR Trade Regulation of the Swiss National Science Foundation


(www.nccr-trade.org). For research and coding assistance, we thank Johanna Bötscher, Martina Castro, Kristina


Hauser, Benjamin Hofmann, Theresa Kuhn, Salome Lang, Justin Leinaweaver, Julie Mandoyan, Martiño Rubal


Maseda, Claudia Meier, Irina, Mirkina, Katharina Niedermayer, Livio Raccuia, Maria Rubi, and Kathrin


Schwaller. We are grateful for comments and suggestions to Richard Baldwin, Roberto Echandi, Carsten Fink,


Andreas Lendle, Martin Malinuevo, James Melton, Joost Pauwelyn, Martin Roy, and Robert Teh.




3


Introduction




During the past twenty years, PTAs that liberalize trade between countries have proliferated.


Twenty new agreements were notified to the WTO in 2009 and thirteen in 2010. Every


member of the WTO (with the exception of Mongolia) is now a member of a PTA.
2
The


proliferation of PTAs shows no signs of slowing down in the near future. Many negotiations


are underway. Canada, for instance, is currently negotiating 12 PTAs.
3
The proliferation of


PTAs also is not limited to developed economies. On the contrary, many PTAs are concluded


between developing countries. The average African country belongs to four different


agreements, and the average Latin America country belongs to seven agreements. This


proliferation of PTAs has significantly altered the world trade regulatory landscape. Both


economic and political studies therefore have tried to identify the factors that explain this


rapid growth.


While research on PTAs is not short of theoretical arguments, there are still important


gaps in the collection of systematic data for the purpose of empirical testing. The objective of


this paper is to describe a new dataset on PTAs that will allow us to address a number of


empirical puzzles present in the literature on international cooperation and the design of


international agreements. In particular, the data could prove helpful to address research


questions on the formation of PTAs, the design of international agreements, and the impact of


PTAs on economic and political phenomena.


We have (so far) coded 404 agreements signed between 1945 and 2009. We have


coded these agreements for a total of 10 broad sectors of cooperation ranging from market


access to investments, services, intellectual property rights, competition, and dispute


settlement. Some of these sectors are divided into sub-sectors. We have used manual content


analysis and statistical techniques in order to check coders‟ reliability. To the best of our


knowledge, there is no other dataset that covers such a wide number of PTAs and that codes


such an extensive number of sectors.


The next section of this paper surveys previous attempts at coding PTAs. The third


section then outlines key scholarly debates that our data speak to. In the fourth section, we


map the population of PTAs since 1945. Section five then describes the coding scheme and


provides some graphical illustrations for selected factors coded. The final section provides



2
Soon all WTO members will participate in new regionalism as Mongolia is currently studying the feasibility of


a PTA with Japan and other states.
3
From the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-


agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/index.aspx.




4


some information as to planning and process of coding and focuses on the reliability of our


exercise.




Previous attempts at mapping PTA design




In political science, precedents of coding legal and political texts abound. Without the


ambition of providing a complete list, we identify four large coding projects that are


tangential to our work. First, there are several important attempts to measure ideological


position of parties by coding their manifestos. These attempts are implemented by using both


manual coding (Budge et al. 2001; Klingemann et al. 2006) and software (Benoit and Laver


2006; Slapin and Proksch 2008; Lowe et al. 2011). Second, in the 1990s several competing


studies have tried to come up with a reliable measure of central bank independence (Alesina


1988, 1989; Grilli et al. 1991; Eijffinger and Schaling 1992, 1993; Cukierman et al. 1994).


Third, Elkins et al. (2009) have manually coded all the constitutions signed between 1789 and


now.
4
Finally, Koremenos (2005, 2007) codes a large number of international treaties looking


at 375 provisions. This impressive study was carried out using manual coding. In sum, these


previous exercises have sharpened the discipline‟s attention to questions of reliability and


show the importance of gathering data from legal and political texts.


PTA coding is far from new. There exist several studies that have coded (parts of)


PTAs. These previous studies have not only helped us draw up our coding scheme, but also


allow us to check the reliability and validity of our results. The most comprehensive attempt


so far is Estevadeordal et al. (2009). The contributors to that volume coded around 50


agreements, with some variation across chapters. Many studies either limit themselves to a


small number of agreements (often from one region or signed by a few actors) or to a specific


sector. Table 1 provides an overview of a number of coding exercises.



4
http://www.comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/index.htm.




5




Table 1: Previous research on the contents of PTAs


Study Agreements coded Sectors coded Level of detail


Estevadeordal et al. 2009 Around 50 PTAs, with some


variation across chapters


Market access, trade


remedies, technical barriers


to trade, services,


investments, competition


Very detailed. For example,


the coding of investment


provisions comprises a total


of 30 items


Estevadeordal & Suominen


2007


12,247 international


agreement (including PTAs


and BITs)


23 domains under seven


broad categories


Fink & Molinuevo 2008 25 East Asian agreements


with a services component


Services 154 services subsectors


across four modes of supply


Haftel 2010 25 agreements Scope, implementation,


institutional independence,


corporate bureaucracy,


dispute settlement, regional


institutionalization


Indicator that ranges


between 0 and 30


Heydon & Woolcock 2009 Series of agreements signed


by the US, EU, EFTA, Japan


and Singapore


All sectors Differs, qualitative summary


Hicks & Kim 2009 57 agreements in Asia Type, coverage (industry,


agriculture, nontariff


barriers, technical barriers to


trade), dispute settlement,


pace of liberalization


Considerable, especially for


dispute settlement and pace


of liberalization


Horn et al. 2009 28 EU and US agreements Comprehensive Presence or absence of


substantive provisions on


broad areas


Houde et al. 2007 20 deep agreements Investments and services Detailed


Kim 2010 8 US bilateral trade


agreements


Market access Breadth, depth, and rate of


trade liberalization


Kono & Rickard 2010 All agreements notified to


the WTO


Procurement Presence or absence of


substantive procurement


provisions


Kucik 2011 330 agreements (1960-2005) Trade remedies Measures of flexibility in


antidumping, countervailing


duties and safeguards


Lesher & Miroudot 2006 24 North-South agreements Investments 25 investment provisions


Mansfield and Milner 2010 389 PTAs (1945-2005) Investment clauses and


dispute settlement


Ordinal indicator


Mattoo & Sauvé 2007 App. 45 agreements Services MFN clause, national


treatment, market access,


coverage etc.


McCall Smith 2000 62 trade agreements signed


between 1957 and 1995


Dispute settlement Along a scale with five


values


OECD 2002 App. 30, but varies across


chapters


Comprehensive Detailed with respect to


services, qualitative


discussion for most other


sectors


Roy et al. 2007 (and


Marchetti & Roy 2009)5


32 agreements with services


provisions


Services Around 150 subsectors


across 2 modes of supply


UN Social and Economic


Commission for Asia and


the Pacific (2005-2010)


137 Asian and Pacific trade


agreements (including


framework agreements)


Comprehensive Presence or absence of


major provisions











5
Some of the data are available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/dataset_e/dataset_e.htm.




6


The theoretical backdrop to the project




The motivation to collect this data has been our belief that many strands of literature in


political science or economics would benefit from better data on the design of international


trade agreements. Among others, we think that our data will be of relevance for the following


bodies of literature:




The signing of PTAs


There is no shortage of explanations on why countries form PTAs. Regarding the economic


literature, the domino theory (Baldwin 1993) explains the proliferation of PTAs using a


political economy model that focuses on the cost - in terms of trade diversion - of being


excluded from PTAs. Furthermore, a more recent study emphasizes the role of economic size


and similarity among economies as important drivers in the formation of PTAs (Baier and


Bergstrand 2004). As regards the political science literature, there exist many different


explanations for why states sign PTAs, suggesting that states might aim to lock-in domestic


reforms, strengthen their position in multilateral negotiations, pursue import-substitution


policies at the regional level, address security concerns, or sign PTAs as a reaction to other


agreements (for an overview, see Ravenhill 2008). Recent studies investigate the role of


domestic institutions (Mansfield et al. 2002; 2008; Baccini 2011), interest groups (Mattli


1999; Chase 2005; Dür 2007), bureaucratic interests (Elsig 2007, Elsig and Dupont 2011) and


international shocks (Mansfield and Reinhardt 2003) in explaining the formation of PTAs.


The political science literature thus has the merit of showing that politics do matter in a state‟s


decision to establish a PTA. A major shortcoming of most previous research, however, has


been the failure to take account of important design variation across PTAs. Our dataset aims


to fill this gap in the field. For instance, it will provide the data to facilitate the further


exploration of what impact domestic institutions have upon the design of PTAs – in terms of


flexibility, for instance - and how interest groups‟ preferences affect the inclusion of specific


provisions in PTA treaties.




Legalization through international agreements


A growing body of literature has addressed the issue of legalization or judicialization


describing the range and variability of institutional forms in interstate relations (Stone Sweet


1999, Abbott et al. 2000). This strand of literature reflects the actual move in international


cooperation towards embracing more detailed and precise rules (degree of precision),




7


accepting more stringent commitments as well as compliance mechanisms (degree of


obligation), and agreeing on additional forms of rule enforcement (e.g., delegation to


international organizations and international courts). Some of the WTO agreements (e.g., the


Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement) have served as prime examples of


highly legalized treaties (Abbott et al. 2000). More recently, legalization has been studied as


an explanatory variable analyzing how certain elements of legalization affect domestic


policies (Allee 2005) or compliance more generally (Guzman 2008, Zangl 2008). As regards


PTAs some work has been carried out on dispute settlement provisions (e.g., McCall Smith


2000). Yet, only little systematic research has been conducted on the variance in legalization


across PTAs and the dominating approaches to judicial forum choice.




The rational design of international institutions/agreements


Another research program that has emerged alongside legalization is the rational design


literature. A number of liberal scholars have postulated that design differences across


international agreements and/or institutions are not random and can not be explained by


simply drawing on realist arguments (Koremenos et al. 2001). The original contribution of the


rational design (RD) literature has been to conjecture a number of explanations to account for


particular design features of institutions and/or agreements (e.g., membership rules, scope of


issues covered, centralization of tasks, rules for controlling the institution, and flexibility of


arrangements). Key explanations in the RD tradition are drawn from game theory, in


particular cooperation problems that are characterized by distributional and enforcement


issues. Two additional explanatory factors are addressed: uncertainty and number of actors. In


particular, the latter should be an important factor accounting for different design features


through bilateral, regional or multilateral trade cooperation. While there exists some


systematic research on the design of bilateral investment treaties (Allee and Peinhardt 2010),


less attention has been paid to the design features of PTAs across regions and time. Finally,


some scholarship at the crossroad of the legalization and the rational design literature has


addressed the question of optimal institutional features that balance commitment and high


levels of delegation with necessities to allow for escape mechanisms or forms of “efficient


breach” (Goldstein and Martin 2000; Rosendorff and Milner 2001, Rosendorff 2005, Baccini


2009, Schropp 2010).









8


Diffusion


A large political science literature studies diffusion processes across borders. Among the


many policies, institutions, and events that spread across borders, previous studies have


looked at regulatory agencies (Jordana et al. 2011), international agreements (Elkins et al.


2006; Barthel and Neumayer 2010; Baccini and Dür 2011), tax policy (Swank 2006),


democracy (Gleditsch and Ward 2008) and conflicts (Buhaug and Gleditsch 2008). Data on


the design of PTAs will allow us to shed light on the conditions under which policies spread


across borders and the mechanisms through which policies spread (coercion, competition,


learning or emulation). Specific questions that can be addressed are: do provisions in PTAs


spread? If yes, in which sequence do different countries adopt these provisions? What does


this sequence tell us about the mechanism of diffusion?




Political and economic effects of trade agreements


The effects of PTAs on economic variables have been thoroughly studied by economists. A


vast body of literature explores the impact of PTAs on national and world welfare by looking


at the relative magnitude of trade creation and trade diversion (Viner 1950; Bhagwati 1993;


Krugman 1991; Summers 1991). Moreover, countless studies investigate the impact of trade


agreements on trade flows (Rose 2004; Goldstein et al. 2007) and foreign direct investment


(Büthe and Milner 2008) using a gravity model. Interestingly enough, the findings of these


studies often conflict with one another. We identify a poor operationalization of PTAs on the


right-hand side of the econometric equation as one of the main problems of such studies.


Looking at the content of PTAs would allow us to overcome some of these measurement


inconsistencies and provide a better understanding of the impact of PTAs on both trade flows


and FDI. Other recent studies explore the impact on political variables. Among these, some


studies (Pevehouse 2005; Pevehouse and Russet 2006) argue that certain IOs, including some


PTAs, increase the probability of democratization. Mansfield and Pevehouse (2000) show that


PTAs help countries to peacefully settle conflicts and mitigate the risk of such conflicts


escalating into full-blown war. Finally, others (Ethier 1998; Fernandez and Portes 1998) claim


that PTAs help developing countries to implement and lock in economic reforms. Future


studies could explore these arguments in more detail. Specifically, we could assess the impact


of PTAs on economic reforms looking at specific provisions – enforcement provisions, for


instance – in specific sectors, such as intellectual property rights. In addition, the design of


PTAs in combination with domestic institutions and leaders‟ preferences may shed new light


on why and when developing countries decide to implement economic reforms.




9




Power


How and when states exercise power in international politics is one of the key questions in the


field of International Relations (Baldwin 2002; Barnett and Duvall 2005). The design of PTAs


is indicative of power relations as preferences over the contents and institutional setup of such


agreements vary across states. In particular, developed countries are likely to prefer deeper


agreements than developing ones. To the extent that there is variation across North-South


agreements, this may be due to some developing countries having more power (issue specific


or structural) than others. Thus, the data will be useful in exploring to what degree and under


what conditions power asymmetry is reflected in the design of PTAs.




Forum shopping/overlapping regimes


Systematic analyses addressing the effects of overlapping regimes on the evolving politics of


forum-shopping are scant (Young 1996; Aggarwal 1998; Raustiala and Victor 2004; Alter and


Meunier 2007; Dupont and Elsig 2011). Drezner (2006) suggests that more powerful states


are better able to cope with overlapping jurisdictions and increased legalization. He argues


that (too much) legalization has empowered stronger states. This observation runs counter to


the conventional wisdom related to how legalization constrains the abuse of power (Grant and


Keohane 2005). Focusing on interaction across regimes, Shaffer and Pollack (2010) argue that


soft law regimes may be “hardened” through regime linkage, while hard law regimes may be


“softened”. Put differently, linking soft law regimes (other policy fields, bilateral economic


cooperation) with hard law regimes (WTO) may have important spill-over effects. Some


initial work on forum-shopping in the area of trade has focused on dispute settlement (Davis


2006, Busch 2007). Busch (2007) argues that forum shopping is not only about the likelihood


of the claimant‟s success, but is also about setting a precedent that is useful for case-law


development. Pauwelyn (2009) describes how the WTO and regional dispute settlement


mechanisms increasingly overlap, and offers rules on how to address sequencing and conflicts


arguing that the WTO cannot remain indifferent to forum exclusion clauses in PTAs. Yet,


there is little research on forum-shopping (Bernauer et al. 2011). Given the increasing number


of PTAs, we expect our data-set to be also useful in order to address questions emerging from


this research program.









10




Our sample of PTAs




Our objective has been to cover all negotiated trade agreements signed between 1945 and


2009 that include concrete steps, that is, potentially be covered by GATT Article XXIV, the


GATT Enabling Clause, or GATS Article 5, towards the preferential liberalization of trade in


goods or services.
6
By including “negotiated” in our definition, we exclude one-sided


preference schemes such as the Generalized System of Preferences. The term “concrete”


means that we did not consider agreements that only include vague provisions on objectives,


without specifying specific measures that will be carried out in a reasonable time frame. This


excludes framework agreements that often precede the conclusion of actual PTAs (for


example, the 2003 framework agreement between India and ASEAN) and partnership and


cooperation agreements (for example, EU-Ukraine 1998).
7
“Preferential” indicates that we


excluded agreements that extend steps to liberalize trade to third countries without asking for


reciprocity. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, for example, is a grouping that we do not


consider in this project. Moreover, we exclude agreements that simply extend most-favored


nation treatment to countries that are not members of the World Trade Organization. The


preferences can be one-sided as is the case for the European Union‟s Lomé agreements.


We used a variety of sources to identify the relevant trade agreements. Our main


sources were the list maintained by the World Trade Organization, the Tuck Trade


Agreements and McGill Faculty of Law Preferential Trade Agreements databases, and the list


collated by Gary Clyde Hufbauer.
8
After eliminating overlaps and some agreements that did


not fit our definition, and adding agreements especially from the Middle East, we ended up


with a database of 690 agreements.
9
So far, we have been able to code 404 of these



6
Importantly, we do not consider agreements that touch upon “trade and” issues such as competition policy or


movement of natural persons unless the same agreement also includes provisions that are directly aimed at


enhancing market access for goods and/or services. This excludes some very far-reaching agreements, such as


EU-Switzerland Bilateral Agreements II, which cover everything from taxation to free movement of persons.
7
We decided to include a few borderline agreements such as the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-


SAD), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, and the Protocol on


Trade Negotiations.
8
These databases are available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/summary_e.xls;


http://www.dartmouth.edu/~tradedb/; and http://ptas.mcgill.ca/. We also relied on other webpages, such as


www.bilaterals.org and http://www.cuts-citee.org/PTADossier.htm, to get a full list of agreements signed more


recently. For the Hufbauer list, see Hufbauer 2007.
9
To compare, as of October 2010 the WTO list of agreements, including those signed but not yet in force,


encompasses 419 agreements (both goods and services agreements). Our dataset also includes agreements


enlarging and deepening pre-existing agreements. For instance, for the EU we coded the Rome Treaty (1957),


the enlargement treaties, and the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam


Treaty (1997), the Nice Treaty (2001), and the Lisbon Treaty (2007). In contrast to the WTO list, we did not




11


agreements. We currently have not coded texts for the other agreements mentioned in these


sources because we were unable to find the full texts of some agreements and because of time


constraints. The agreements not yet coded introduce a certain bias, as many of them are older


agreements, partial agreements, and agreements among lesser developed countries.
10




Nevertheless, our sample contains virtually all the countries in the world and covers all the


types of agreements defined above. The following graphs give an overview of the agreements


that we have coded.




0
5


0
1


0
0


1
5


0


19
45


-1
94


9


19
50


-1
95


4


19
55


-1
95


9


19
60


-1
96


4


19
65


-1
96


9


19
70


-1
97


4


19
75


-1
97


9


19
80


-1
98


4


19
85


-1
98


9


19
90


-1
99


4


19
95


-1
99


9


20
00


-2
00


4


20
05


-2
00


9


N
u


m
b


e
r


All agreements


Coded so far



Figure 1: New PTAs over time




Figure 1 shows the number of agreements signed over time (including the percentage of the


agreements that we have coded so far). This figure confirms the common view of a stark


increase in the number of agreements signed in the 1990s. Currently, we only know the data


of signature of an agreement; our data on the date of entry into force still has some gaps at the


time of writing. As we do not know which agreements disappear over time, we cannot give


cumulative numbers. The oldest agreement that we include is the South Africa-Southern



include interim agreements and we separately counted services agreements only if the services agreement was


signed in a different year than the goods agreement.
10


We may also be missing (or may not have coded) some protocols that were added to agreements after they


were signed. Our strategy has been to include all protocols in the coding exercise that are referenced in the main


text of an agreement.




12


Rhodesia Customs Union from 1948 (Interim Agreement for the re-establishment of a


customs union between the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia).
11


The trend sees a


peak in the period 2000-2004, when about 22 agreements were signed each year. Since then,


we have seen a slight decline in the number of PTAs signed, largely due to a decline in the


number of agreements among European countries.


Figure 2a distinguishes between different types of agreement. We use the categories


bilateral, plurilateral, region-country, and inter-regional agreements to classify agreements.


Plurilateral are all agreements that include more than two countries, but do not fall into the


region-country or inter-regional categories. Inter-regional agreements are those signed


between two regional entities. 53 percent of the agreements in our database are bilateral and


only 3 percent of our agreements are inter-regional ones. The figure also shows that our


sample of coded agreements contains slightly fewer bilateral agreements than the


population.


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0
6


0
7


0


B
ila


te
ra


l


P
lu


ril
at


er
al


R
eg


io
n-


co
un


try


In
te


rr
eg


io
na


l


All agreements


Coded so far


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


E
ur


op
e


A
si


a


A
fri


ca


A
m


er
ic


a


O
ce


an
ia


C
ro


ss


All agreements


Coded so far


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e




Figure 2a & 2b: PTAs by (a) type of agreement and (b) region




In terms of geographical distribution, Figure 2b lists the agreements by continent, using the


United Nations classification to assign countries to a continent.
12


We define agreements


crossing regions as “cross-continent”. Some of the agreements falling under this category are


actually agreements between countries that are geographically close, such as Bulgaria



11


In fact, the origins of this agreement go back to 1910.
12


http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.




13


(Europe) and Turkey (Asia). The data confirms the conventional view that most agreements


have been signed among European countries, although the number of PTAs crossing regions


is not much lower. Again, figure 2b shows a small bias in our sample of coded agreements in


favor of European agreements and cross-continent agreements.


In Figure 3, we show the regional distribution of agreements over time. Two trends are


particularly evident from this graph: first, the sharp increase in the number of agreements in


the 1990s was driven by European countries. Second, more recently, cross-continent


agreements are the dominant form of PTAs.


Before 1960 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s


Time


N
u


m
b


e
r


0
2


0
4


0
6


0
8


0
1


0
0


Europe


Asia


Africa


America


Oceania


Cross-continent



Figure 3: Regional distribution of PTAs by time period




Finally, in Figure 4 we distinguish between North-North, North-South and South-South


agreements. North-North agreements are those among the United States, Canada, Western


European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
13


North-South agreements are those


signed between one or several of the above countries and all other countries. South-South


agreements are those excluding the above countries. The figure clearly shows that the number



13


Clearly, this list of “Northern” countries is debatable. Countries that can be considered developed at least for
parts of the period covered are Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, several Central and Eastern


European countries, and Israel. A better approach would be to classify agreements by comparing the Gross


Domestic Product per capita of member countries; however, this goes beyond what we could do at this stage of


the project.




14


of South-South agreements by far outstrips the number of North-North or North-South


agreements.


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0
6


0
7


0


N
or


th
-N


or
th


N
or


th
-S


ou
th


S
ou


th
-S


ou
th


All agreements


Coded so far


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e




Figure 4: Agreements by level of development of member countries




We have coded the 404 agreements for a total of 10 broad sectors of cooperation. Some of


these sectors are divided into sub-sectors. The number of items coded varies from one sector


to another: from a minimum of six for the sector government procurement to a maximum of


30 for the sector market access.




The design of PTAs




In the following, we provide an overview of the sectors coded and some selected descriptive


evidence on the design of the PTAs (additional information on the coding strategy is found in


the penultimate section of the paper).




Market access


In terms of market access, we code general characteristics of tariff schedules, degree of


concessions, tariff peaks, exemptions, speed and depth (e.g., Hicks and Kim 2009). We focus


on the types of templates used: First, we code whether states work with the Harmonized


System (HS) or a national system, which particular HS references are used (as these have




15


been regularly updated; HS 1988/92 - very similar and therefore usually combined, HS 1996,


HS 2002 and HS 2007) and at which digit level concessions are listed. Second, the coding


differentiates whether the parties agree on a uniform (basket) approach or whether there are


areas that have a specific treatment (e.g., agriculture, fishery products, textiles, etc)


(Estevadeordal et al. 2009). This is usually reflected in a positive list approach, a negative list


approach or a combination of both. We further code whether there is an explicit stand-still


clause (that parties cannot increase tariffs during negotiations).


With respect to concessions (depth), we focus on the absolute and relative numbers of


tariff lines with concessions (and the number of tariff rate quota lines with concessions). We


also code exemptions (no concessions) and the treatment of tariff peaks (remaining,


decreasing, removed). We calculate average tariffs ex ante and ex post the transition period


(where available). To capture the speed of concessions, we code the pattern of liberalization


over the transition period for tariff lines and tariff quotas focusing on the degrees of early


liberalization, gradual liberalization and liberalization towards the end of the transition period.


Finally, we code whether agreements regulate export taxes. A first round of coding


will be finalized by December 2011.




Services


Several previous attempts have been made to code the services provisions in PTAs, all of


which have looked at a smaller number of PTAs (Stephenson 2002; Mattoo and Sauvé 2007;


Roy et al. 2007; Fink and Molinuevo 2008; Heydon and Woolcock 2009; Marchetti and Roy


2009). Other studies have concentrated on the comparison of the provisions for specific


services sectors (aviation, financial services etc.) or specific modes of supply (e.g., movement


of natural persons) across a number of PTAs (see, for example, some contributions in


Marchetti and Roy 2009). Our coding scheme builds on these previous studies, but refrains


from coding the liberalization commitment for each services subsector (the WTO‟s list


distinguishes more than 150 such sub-sectors, ranging from veterinary services to electronic


mail) across all four modes of services supply (cross-border supply, consumption abroad,


commercial presence, and movement of natural persons). We decided not to code at this level


of detail because 600 coding decisions
14


across more than 400 agreements went beyond what


we could feasibly achieve.



14


In fact, since commitments may not be completely symmetric across member states, the actual number of


coding decisions would be 600 times the number of member states. The study that comes closest to coding at this


level of detail is Roy et al. (2007) who code the commitments for 36 WTO members in the General Agreement


on Trade in Services and in PTAs across all 150 services subsectors for two modes of supply (cross-border trade


and commercial presence).




16


Our initial interest is simply whether an agreement includes any substantive provisions


on the liberalization of trade in services, or mentions this liberalization as an objective.
15


We


then distinguish between positive and negative list approaches to the liberalization of services


trade. Agreements with a negative list approach tend to be more far-reaching than those with a


positive list approach (Fink and Molinuevo 2008). In addition to this, we checked whether the


agreement explicitly included or excluded 11 broad services sectors (from business to


transport services). We also coded the presence or absence of MFN, national treatment, non-


establishment, and movement of natural persons clauses, with the latter two capturing two


modes of services supply. Finally, we coded whether or not the services chapter includes a


continuous review provision.


Figure 5a shows that less than a quarter of all agreements included in our coding


exercise have a substantial services chapter (23 percent). Another third, however, mentions


the liberalization of services trade as an objective, whereas 45 percent of all do not mention


trade in services. Importantly, some agreements that are coded as having no substantive


services provisions may still have chapters on specific services sectors, such as financial


services or transport services. Figure 5b makes a distinction between North-North, North-


South, and South-South agreements. Of the three, North-South agreements have the most far-


reaching and South-South agreements the shallowest services provisions.


No mention Objective Subst. provisions


Service provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0


North-North North-South South-South


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


No mention


Objective


Subst. provisions





Figures 5a & 5b: Services coverage in PTAs by (a) scope and (b) level of development




As expected, the percentage of agreements with substantive services provisions has been


growing for the last couple of years. In fact, a large majority of agreements signed between



15


We use services chapter as a short hand for substantive measures, which may also be found in declarations


added to an agreement. Non-legally binding provisions (as those included in a declaration attached to the 1985


Israel-U.S. agreement) are coded as objective only, as are agreements that only write down an MFN obligation.




17


2005 and 2009 includes a service chapter. By contrast, before 1985 hardly any agreements


foresaw the liberalization of services trade. We also witness substantial variation across


continents in the depth of services provisions. The largest share of agreements with


substantive services provisions is to be found in the Americas, whereas we have only two


coded African agreements in the database with substantive services provisions. Also the large


majority of intra-European agreements either do not mention the liberalization of services


trade (especially the older ones) or do so only as an objective to be reached at a later stage.


When comparing types of agreements (bilateral, plurilateral, region-country, and region-


region agreements), no particular trend becomes apparent.


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


Positive approach


Negative approach


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


MFN clause no


MFN clause yes


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


National treatment no


National treatment yes


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


Continuous review no


Continuous review yes



Figures 6a-6d: Services sectors by region (percentages are calculated in relation to all


agreements that at least mention services liberalization)
16






Figures 6a to 6d provide evidence with respect to the more detailed items that we coded for


each services sector, always distinguishing by region. Clearly, most agreements with


substantive services provisions adopt a negative list approach. Interestingly, Asian agreements


are an exception to this rule. MFN clauses are rather rare in the agreements that mention at


least the objective of services trade liberalization, and are not used in European agreements.



16


The values shown in Figures 6a and 6c do not add up to 100 percent as coding the approach to liberalization


and national treatment provisions only makes sense for agreements with substantive services provisions.




18


Most agreements with substantive provisions on services trade liberalization include a


national treatment clause. Finally, across all continents many agreements include a continuous


review provision, which is a clause that stipulates further negotiations on the liberalization of


trade in services.




Investment


Our coding strategy focuses on eights sets of variables: 1) sectoral coverage; 2) scope of non-


discrimination provisions; 3) most-favored nation (MFN); 4) national treatment (NT); 5)


standards of treatment; 6) transfer of payments; 7) dispute settlement mechanism (DSM); 8)


temporary movement of business and natural people. Sectoral Coverage is the most important


variable in determining the scope of investment protection. First, in coding this variable we


distinguish among PTAs that do not include any investment provisions and PTAs that do.


Second, among the latter PTAs we categorize whether PTAs include a vague statement on


investment protection, rely on bilateral investment treaties previously signed by member


countries, contain investment provisions only in the service sector (GATS type), and PTAs


that have an ad hoc section on investment (NAFTA type).


The scope of non-discrimination provisions allows checking in which phase(s) (if at


all) of the investment procedure foreign investors are protected. In coding MFN and NT we


distinguish between negative list and positive list; the former one being a stronger form of


investment protection than the latter one. MFN and NT are contingent standards based on the


treatment afforded to other groups of investors, whereas the standards of treatment are based


on customary international law (Lesher and Miroudot 2006: 14). Regarding transfers of


payments, we code whether there are restrictions in transferring profits from the host country


to the home country. Regarding the DSM, we assess the presence of a dispute settlement


clause and also distinguish between an investor-state DSM and a state-state dispute DSM.


Finally, we code whether there are restrictions for movement of key personnel, e.g. managers


and chairmen of the board, and business.




19


no mention endeavors based on BIT services beyond services


Sectoral Coverage


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0




Figure 7: Investment coverage in PTAs




A third of the agreements included in our coding exercise do not mention investment at all


(Figure 7). 40 percent of the agreements mention investment protection as a general objective,


often in the preamble, without including any further provisions on how to realize and enforce


such protection. Moreover, only a handful of PTAs rely on provisions included in a bilateral


investment treaty previously signed by the same two countries (three percent). Similarly, only


two percent of PTAs regulate investment protection in the service sector. PTAs signed by the


EU with developing countries fall in this category. Finally, almost 20 percent of PTAs include


a separate chapter on investment protection. In sum, only a relatively low number of PTAs


contain strict regulations on investment.


As with other sectors, the percentage of agreements with investment protection


provisions has been growing over time (see Figure 8a) and it is a feature of new regionalism


(Ethier 1998). Interestingly, the majority of PTAs signed in the last five years include an


investment chapter, that is to say, double the number of PTAs that make no mention of


investment protection. Moreover, Figure 8b shows that bilateral agreements are the deepest


PTAs in terms of investment protection. Indeed, more than 40 percent of bilateral agreements


include a chapter on investment. Finally, developed economies tend to form PTAs that


include stricter regulation on investment than developing countries do. This does not come as


a surprise. Since they have the largest share of FDI outflows, highly industrialized countries


are particularly concerned in protecting their investments.





20


1945-54 1960-64 1970-74 1980-84 1990-94 2000-04


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


no mention


endeavors


based on BIT


only services


invest. ch.




Bilateral Plurilateral Region-country Inter-regional


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


no mention


endeavors


based on BIT


only services


invest. ch.




Figures 8a & 8b: Investment sectors by (a) time period and (b) type






Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross-region


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


no mention


endeavors


based on BIT


services


beyond services




North-North North-South South-South


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


2
5


3
0


no mention


endeavors


based on BIT


only services


invest. ch.




Figures 8c & 8d: Investment sectors by (c) region and (d) level of development




In terms of dispute settlement mechanisms, Figure 9 shows that only one third of PTAs has


either an investor-state DSM or a state-state DSM. This percentage is higher for north-south


PTAs relatively to north-north PTAs and south-south PTAs. Indeed, almost 50 percent of the


north-south PTAs include either an investor-state DSM or a state-state DSM. As for sectoral


coverage, the number of PTAs that include a DSM on investment has increased sharply in the


last decade (Figure 10). Overall, we can conclude that investments are still poorly protected


by PTAs, though there is evidence that countries have become more concerned with this issue


over the last ten years.




21


no DSM state-investor DSM state-state DSM


DSM


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
2


0
4


0
6


0
8


0



Figure 9: Investment-related dispute settlement provisions










1945-54 1960-64 1970-74 1980-84 1990-94 2000-04


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


no DSM


state-investor DSM


state-state DSM




North-North North-South South-South


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0


no DSM


state-investor DSM


state-state DSM



Figure 10a & 10b: Investment-related dispute settlement provisions by (a) time period and


(b) level of development






Intellectual Property Rights


Our coding strategy focuses on three sets of variables for intellectual property rights (IPRs):


1) general statement on IPRs; 2) IPR Conventions; 3) scope of IPR protection. Regarding


general statement on IPRs, the aim is to distinguish among PTAs that do not include any IPR


provisions and PTAs that do. Regarding IPR Conventions, we code whether PTAs include




22


specific deadlines for acceding to key multilateral conventions on the protection of IPR.


Regarding scope of IPR protection, we code whether there are provisions protecting IPRs in


specific sector (e.g., pharmaceutical industry). Moreover, we coded 1 when there are


provisions that require products to specify the geographical provenance. Finally, we coded 1


if there is a specific provision on the enforcement of regulations related to IPRs protection.


Figure 11 shows IPR coverage for all PTAs in the sample. Specifically, coders were


asked to answer 10 yes or no questions related to IPRs. High numbers imply strong coverage


of IPRs, e.g. a score of 10 implies that a coder answered yes, i.e. she coded 1, to every


question. More than forty percent of PTAs have no provision on IPRs and more that two


thirds have only weak IPRs coverage, i.e. IPRs total coverage scores lower than or equal to 2.


Roughly ten percent of PTAs have strong IPR coverage, i.e. IPRs total coverage scores at


least 7. EU and US bilateral trade agreements fall in this category.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


IPRs Total Coverage


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0



Figure 11: Coverage of intellectual property rights.


17




Figure 12 shows that provisions on IPRs have been included in PTAs only in the last 20 years.


Against the background of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)


agreement, signed by WTO members in 1994, there is evidence that (at least) some countries


do not find existing provisions included in this multilateral agreement sufficient and try to


regulate IPRs bilaterally. Moreover, this finding suggests that a small percentage of PTAs


include WTO-plus provisions on IPRs. Finally, and not surprisingly, north-south PTAs


include stronger IPRs protection compare to north-north and south-south PTAs.



17


10 yes (coded one) or no (coded zero) questions related to provision protecting IPRs. High numbers imply


strong coverage of IPRs.




23


1945-54 1960-64 1970-74 1980-84 1990-94 2000-04


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0
6


0


Weak Protection


Medium Protection


Strong Protection


North-North North-South South-South


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0


Weak Protection


Medium Protection


Strong Protection



Figures 12a &12b: Coverage of intellectual property rights by (a) time period and (b) level of


development






Government procurement


With respect to provisions governing public procurement, again building on previous studies


in this area (Heydon and Woolcock 2009), we first coded whether an agreement included the


regulation of procurement policies as a general objective or in form of substantive rules. We


also coded the presence or not of a national treatment clause, a transparency clause, and a


reference to the GATT/WTO rules on public procurement. Finally, we coded the scope of the


procurement provisions (if any) in terms of entities (government, sub-national governments,


state-owned enterprises) and type of purchase (goods and/or services) covered.


About 50 percent of the agreements have a reference to government procurement, but


only 14 percent include substantive procurement provisions (that is, provisions that go beyond


stating adherence to the WTO agreement on procurement or the desire to exchange


information in this area) (Figures 13a & 13b)




24


No mention Objective Subst. provisions


Procurement provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0


North-North North-South South-South


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No mention


Objective


Subst. provisions




Figures 13a & 13b: Coverage of government procurement provisions by (a) substance and b)


level of development




Again, as with the other sectors coded here, it is evident that over time the depth of integration


has increased with respect to government procurement (Figure 13c). Government


procurement provisions are virtually absent from African agreements; by contrast, the share of


agreements with substantive procurement provisions is highest for agreements in the


Americas (Figure 13d).


up to 59 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


No provision


Objective


Substantive


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
5


1
0


1
5


2
0


No provision


Objective


Substantive



Figures 13c & 13d: Coverage of government procurement provisions by (c) time period and


(d) by region




Basically all of the agreements with substantive provisions grant national treatment with


respect to government procurement. Throughout, they tend to extend this treatment to goods


and services; moreover, they apply not only to the national government, but also to


subnational governments and state-owned enterprises (although many agreements include




25


positive lists of such enterprises). More than half of all agreements that mention access to


government procurement at least as objective make a reference to the GATT/WTO agreement


on government procurement, whereas only a quarter include a transparency provision.




Competition


With regard to competition-related obligations, we first seek to capture the importance given


to this area by the contracting parties. We code whether competition is covered in a chapter or


single articles. We also record whether agreements have provisions related to subsidies,


coding whether these are allowed or out-ruled, and whether specific references to the


GATT/WTO agreement are made. Second, we compile information on the scope of areas


covered in an agreement (e.g., monopolies and cartels, mergers and acquisitions, state trading


enterprises, state aid (and as an extra category structural adjustment provisions)) (see also Teh


2009) and the degree of cooperation measured by the forms of cooperation (general obligation


not to distort competition, exchange information, notification, establish national competition


authorities, establish working groups, coordination among authorities of partner countries,


creation of common competition authority).


Chapter General provision


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


20


40


60


80


North-North North-South South-South


Chapter


General provision


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40



Figures 14a & 14b: Provisions on competition by (a) scope and (b) level of development




Figures 14a and 14b show descriptive statistics related to the existence of provisions in the


field of competition. The existence of a competition chapter indicates the importance


attributed to this area by the contracting parties. While only 24 percent have a chapter


dedicated to competition, more than 80 percent of PTAs have competition-related provisions.


Only after 1990 parties started to integrate full chapters on competition into agreements. In


terms of development, north-north and north-south agreements have a relative high number of


competition chapters (roughly 50 percent).




26


monopolies


& cartels


mergers


& acq.


state


trad. ent. state aid


structural


adjustment


Coverage


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


50


60


70


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


monopolies & cartels


mergers & acquisitions


state trading enterprises


state aid


structural adjustment


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25




1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


monopolies & cartels


mergers & acquisitions


state trading enterprises


state aid


structural adjustment


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


monopolies & cartels


mergers & acquisitions


state trading enterprises


state aid


structural adjustment


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


35


North-North North-South South-South


monopolies & cartels


mergers & acquisitions


state trading enterprises


state aid


structural adjustment


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


35



Figures 15a-15e: Coverage of competition issues by (a) coverage (b) region, (c) time period,


(d) type of agreement and (e) level of development
18





18


The values shown in figures 15a-15e go beyond 100 percent as the same agreement can feature multiple


competition-related provisions. The same applies to figures 17, 18, 20, 23 & 24.




27




When we look at the coverage, the data shows that most provisions are related to state aid (71


percent) and least to mergers and acquisitions (about 5 percent) (Figure 15a). African trade


agreements feature least and European trade agreements most provisions (Figure 15b).


Focusing on the past 20 years, we see that there are fewer provisions – in relative terms – on


structural adjustment and there an increasing number of PTAs that also regulate mergers and


acquisitions (Figure 15c). As to type of PTA, we see in particular a relative high attention


paid to state aid in region-country agreements (Figure 15d). Finally, from a development


perspective, we observe a relative importance of state aid and little attention to M&A


provisions in south-south agreements, while little attention is paid in north-north agreement in


relation to structural adjustment (Figure 15e).


Figures 16a-16e illustrate the degree of cooperation in this field ranging from


declarations not to distort competition and lose cooperation on information exchange to the


creation of a common authority that manages competition policy. Generally, cooperation is


low in Asia and Africa and substantially higher in other parts of the world. Over time, in


particular information exchange and other coordination provisions have significantly


increased after the end of the Cold War. From the development perspective (figure 16e),


north-north agreements foresee a relative high degree of cooperation, north-south are in


particular focusing on institutionalized cooperation between national authorities, and south-


south agreements put less emphasis on institutionalized cooperation.


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


20


40


60


80


no
t t


o
di


st
or


t


in
fo


. e
xc


ha
ng


e


es
ta


bl
is


hm
en


t


n
at


. a
ut


ho
rit


y


es
ta


bl
is


hm
en


t


w
or


ki
ng


g
ro


up
s


co
or


di
na


tio
n


n
at


. a
ut


ho
rit


ie
s


cr
ea


tio
n


c
om


m
on


a
ut


ho
rit


y


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


not to distort


info. exchange


est. of nat. authority


est. of working groups


coord. among nat. authorities


creation of common authority


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25





28


1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


not to distort


info. exchange


est. of nat. authority


est. of working groups


coord. among nat. authorities


creation of common authority


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


not to distort


info. exchange


est. of nat. authority


est. of working groups


coord. among nat. authorities


creation of common authority


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40




North-North North-South South-South


not to distort


info. exchange


est. of nat. authority


est. of working groups


coord. among nat. authorities


creation of common authority


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40



Figures 16a-16e: Cooperation on competition policy by (a) type of cooperation, (b) region,


(c) time period, (d) type of agreement and (e) level of development






Trade defence instruments


Besides a general coding on competition, we focus on three specific unilateral trade policy


measures: anti-dumping, countervailing duties, and safeguards provisions (see also Teh et al.


2009). We code whether these trade defence instruments (TDIs)
19


(also called trade remedies)


are allowed or out-ruled and whether specific references to the GATT/WTO agreements are


made. In terms of safeguards, we also code whether specific exceptions related to balance of


payments exist. Figures 17a-17e provide an overview on the general TDI categories. In the



19


TDI as defined by the European Commission




29


figures, we have also included balance of payments-related exceptions. TDIs are frequently


used across regions as well as in bilateral and regional agreements. The patterns are strikingly


similar across the various categories.


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


20


40


60


80


an
ti-


du
m


pi
ng


co
un


te
rv


ai
lin


g


d
ut


ie
s


sa
fe


gu
ar


ds


ba
la


nc
e


of


p
ay


m
en


ts


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


anti-dumping


countervailing duties


safeguards


balance of payments


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


anti-dumping


countervailing duties


safeguards


balance of payments


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


anti-dumping


countervailing duties


safeguards


balance of payments


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


North-North North-South South-South


anti-dumping


countervailing duties


safeguards


balance of payments


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40



Figures 17a-17e: Coverage of trade defence instruments by (a) coverage, (b) region, (c) time


period, (d) type of agreement and (e) level of development




30




Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures


Our coding of TBTs and SPS measures first concentrates on the presence or not of any


provisions for these potential nontariff barriers.
20


For both areas, we also code references to


GATT/WTO provisions, provisions calling for cooperation and information exchange, and


provisions stipulating the harmonization of rules. For TBTs, we also code whether the


agreement encourages the use of international standards and whether the section on TBTs


makes any reference to resolving disputes.


No Yes


TBT provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0
6


0
7


0


No Yes


SPS provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
5


0
6


0
7


0


North-North North-South South-South


TBT provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No
Yes


North-North North-South South-South


SPS provisions


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No
Yes



Figures 18a-18d: Provisions on (a) technical barriers to trade (TBT), (b) sanitary and


phytosanitary measures (SPS), (c) TBT by level of development and (d) SPS by level of


development




An analysis of provisions for TBT and SPS measures shows that about 60 percent of all


agreements coded include TBT measures and even 67 percent SPS measures (Figures 18a and


18b). When comparing across North-North, North-South and South-South agreements, it



20


For a previous study that compares agreements with respect to TBTs and SPS, see Heydon and Woolcock


(2009).




31


becomes evident that both TBT and SPS provisions are most likely included in North-South


agreements. North-North agreements are the least far-reaching in that regard.


up to 59 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No provision


Provision


up to 59 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No provision


Provision


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0


No provision


Provision


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0
1


0
2


0
3


0
4


0
No provision


Provision



Figures 19a-19d: Provisions on technical barriers to trade (TBT) and sanitary and


phytosanitary measures (SPS) by (a&b) time period and (c&d) region






Analyzing the development over time, Figures 19a to 19b show that agreements signed in the


1990s and 2000s are much more likely to include TBT and SPS provisions than older


agreements. When comparing across regions (Figures 19c and 19d), the small share of Asian


agreements with TBT and SPS provisions is remarkable, more so if we consider that many of


them have been signed more recently.


Interestingly, the TBT provisions included in most agreements are rather shallow.


Only about 20 percent of all agreements make reference to the aims of adopting international


standards or harmonizing standards for members party to the PTA. Many of the agreements


(41 percent), however, include a reference to the WTO TBT agreement, and 49 percent


stipulate that parties should cooperate in this area. 30 percent also stipulate that parties should


cooperate in the field of SPS measures.











32




Dispute Settlement


Our coding strategy for dispute settlement focuses on five sets of variables: existence of


provisions, degree of delegation, choice of dispute settlement forum, implementation


(bindingness and sanctions), and exemptions. With regard to the degree of delegation (see


Abbott et al. 2000) we capture the extent to which parties allow delegation to occur


(consultation, mediation, arbitration, creation of a standing body, or use of external dispute


settlement forms). As to the choice of forum, we code whether parties can choose from


different dispute settlement mechanisms and what rules apply (in particular restrictions to


forum choice).


Implementation-related coding covers a range of issues. We record in particular the


rules related to the use of sanctions, including the aspect of who selects appropriate sanctions


(disputing parties jointly, complainant, or third party), as well as the form of sanctions


(sanction in the same sector, cross-retaliation - sanctions in other sectors, monetary


compensations). Under exemptions we document whether areas are exempted from dispute


settlement through a positive list or a negative list approach.


Figures 20a-20e provide an overview for provisions related to the degree of


delegation.


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


20


40


60


80


co
ns


ul
ta


tio
n


m
ed


ia
tio


n


ar
bi


tra
tio


n


st
an


di
ng


b
od


y


ex
te


rn
al


in
st


itu
tio


n


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


consultation


mediation


arbitration


standing body


external institution


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25





33


1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


consultation


mediation


arbitration


standing body


external institution


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


consultation


mediation


arbitration


standing body


external institution


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


50




North-North North-South South-South


consultation


mediation


arbitration


standing body


external institution


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


50



Figures 20a-20e: Degree of delegation by (a) instrument, (b) region, (c) time period, (d) type


of agreement and (e) level of development




Figure 20a shows that around a quarter of all agreements foresee the possibility to refer to


treaty-external institutions of dispute settlement. Mediation and the creation of standing


bodies are the least found options. Dispute settlement is largely dominated by consultation


procedures (90 percent) and forms of arbitration (45 percent). Across regions, it is interesting


to note that in particular Asian and American agreements rely on external institutions, while


mediation is absent in European and African agreements. Arbitration is mostly offered in


American agreements. Over time references to external bodies (mostly GATT/WTO) also


increase, while the creation of treaty-internal standing bodies is less frequently observed.


Finally, mediation provisions have gained popularity in the last 10 years. References to


external bodies have been used in particular in the newer treaties. The distinction of




34


agreement types provides evidence that plurilateral agreements (which includes EU and EU


accession agreements) include fewer references to external bodies and rely more on standing


bodies; bilateral agreements put more emphasis on arbitration and lack provisions on the


creation of new bodies (would probably be too costly). In terms of development, south-south


agreements are generally less legalized, but still a significant number of treaties foresee a


standing court. The few north-north agreements lack mediation as a form of dispute


settlement.


provision on external DS institution restrictions on use of multiple fora


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


provision on external DS institution


restrictions on use of multiple fora


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


2


4


6


8


10


12




1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


provision on external DS institution


restrictions on use of multiple fora


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


provision on external DS institution


restrictions on use of multiple fora


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


2


4


6


8


10


12


14





35


North-North North-South South-South


provision on external DS institution


restrictions on use of multiple fora


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


2


4


6


8


10


12


14



Figures 21a-21e: Choice of forum by (a) provisions/restrictions (b) region, (c) time period,


(d) type of agreement and (e) level of development




Figures 21a-21e map the provisions on external dispute settlement institutions and the


existence of restrictions related to the choice of forum. Figure 21c illustrates an increase in the


last 10 years of both potential recourse to external institutions and restrictions. The data


actually shows that restrictions are an often observed phenomenon which stands in contrast to


some conventional wisdom that suggests a lack or addressing forum choice. Further, variation


as to the existence of external institutions and choice of forum is visible along the regional


dimension. Africa and Europe have little outside references to judicial bodies, whereas this


seems to be a more established practice in the Americas. Interestingly south-south agreements


foresee when referring to external bodies systematically a restriction to forum-shopping,


while in north-north and north-south some exceptions exist.


Finally, when mapping the forms of sanctions in case of non-implementation (Figures


22a-22d), we observe that monetary sanctions are the most preferred option foreseen to


induce compliance in Europe and in Africa. The time dimension further shows that until the


end of the 1980s the only mentioned sanctioning mechanisms relied on monetary sanctions.


Monetary sanctions are in particular found in regional agreements. Cross-sector sanction is as


often foreseen as same-sector sanction, usually relying on a sequencing procedure according


to which parties first apply sanction in the same sector and only then move towards cross-


retaliation.





36


same sector cross-retaliation monetary


Instrument


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


same sector


cross-retaliation


monetary


Region
P


e
rc


e
n


ta
g


e


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


same sector


cross-retaliation


monetary


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


2


4


6


8


10


12


14


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


same sector


cross-retaliation


monetary


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


2


4


6


8


10





Figures 22a-22d: Forms of sanctions by (a) instrument, (b) region, (c) time period and (d)


type of agreement




Non-trade issues (“political” issues)


The main objective in this design category is to list types of non-trade issues that are


addressed in PTAs. We focus on issues that are normally regulated in international legal


instruments other than classical trade regulation. Types of non-trade issues are recorded from


information available in the preamble and the remaining part of the agreement. Accordingly,


we code the type of issues addressed in the agreement. In addition, we list related references


to other international treaties or international organizations. We have identified six areas of


non-trade issues: 1) corruption, 2) labor standards, 3) environmental protection, 4) human




37


rights, 5) democracy, and 6) military cooperation. In a separate category we list additional


non-trade issues mentioned in the agreements; these include organized crime, drug smuggling,


migration issues, economic development, common foreign policy, and financial assistance.


The data will helpful for studying questions, such as whether and to what extent non-


economic, political issues have been taken up in PTAs across time and region (see also


Hafner-Burton 2005).


Figures 23a-23e map the number of areas which are covered in the treaty text. The


predominant non-trade issues include cooperation on environmental protection, military


cooperation and labor standards. Across regions, we observe significant coverage of labor


standards in European agreements. Corruption-related obligations are in particular witnessed


in the Western hemisphere. Military cooperation is most often observed in Asian and


American treaties. Over time, we observe more attention to corruption, whereas human rights


and governance issues drop in recent years from a very high level after the end of the Cold


War. As to the types of agreements, bilateral agreements seem to be the preferred venue to


address environmental concerns, however are less prevalent for dealing with human rights and


democratic protection. If we compare South-South and North-South agreements, we observe


important variation. South-South agreements focus more on environmental protection and


military cooperation, yet less on democracy and human rights.


Finally, we present some descriptive statistics about the scope of non-trade issues by


creating an indicator from 0 (no non-trade issues) to 6 (all six areas). Figures 24a-24d provide


an overview. Most agreements have a relative low scope (0-2), yet over time this changes


significantly. Were first agreements without any reference to non-trade concerns, the 1990s


saw a strong growth of agreements incorporating non-trade issues. In particular North-South


and South-South agreements as well as African agreements are characterized by broad non-


trade concerns being addressed in the treaty design.











38


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


50


co
rr


up
tio


n


la
bo


r s
ta


nd
ar


ds


en
vi


ro
nm


en
ta


l


p
ro


te
ct


io
n


hu
m


an
ri


gh
ts


de
m


oc
ra


tic


g
ov


er
na


nc
e


m
ili


ta
ry


c
oo


pe
ra


tio
n


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


corruption


labor standards


environmental protection


human rights


democratic governance


military cooperation


Region
P


e
rc


e
n


ta
g


e


0


5


10


15


20


1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


corruption


labor standards


environmental protection


human rights


democratic governance


military cooperation


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


bilateral plurilateral


region-


country


inter-


regional


corruption


labor standards


environmental protection


human rights


democratic governance


military cooperation


Type of agreement


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


North-North North-South South-South


corruption


labor standards


environmental protection


human rights


democratic governance


military cooperation


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30



Figures 23a-23e: Political issues by (a) issue area, (b) region, (c) time period and (d) type of


agreement and (e) level of development




39






0 1 2 3 4 5 6


Number of political issues


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


Europe Asia Africa America Oceania Cross


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


Region


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40


50


60




1945-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


Time


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


20


40


60


80


100


North-North North-South South-South


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


Level of development


P
e


rc
e


n
ta


g
e


0


10


20


30


40






Figures 24a-24d: Political issues by (a) number covered, (b) region, (c) time period and (d)


level of development






Coding work organization and reliability tests




We employed eleven coders in carrying out this project. Specifically, two coders worked on


services, procurement, technical barriers to trade, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)


measures at the University of Salzburg. Six coders focused on market access (tariffs),




40


competition, trade defence instruments, dispute settlement mechanism and other provisions at


the World Trade Institute at the University of Bern. Three coders worked on the sections


investment and intellectual property rights at IMT Institute of Advanced Studies in Lucca.


Importantly, the coders were extensively trained in order to give them high levels of


reliability. The rationale of dividing the coding exercise by sectors rather than by PTAs is to


improve coders‟ performance. Indeed, coders‟ learning is likely to be particularly quick if


coders deal with the same sectors and they get familiar with specific topics.


At this stage of the project, each sector is coded by one coder (or sometimes two


coders) using a coding scheme prepared by us. It is important to stress that in preparing the


coding scheme we rely on the suggestions of experts in the field, mainly economists and trade


lawyers, as well as previous articles that address similar topics. A list of papers that we used


as base to our coding scheme is included in Table 1.


To check the reliability of our coders, three coders independently code a sub-sample


of agreements, i.e. EU PTAs and US PTAs. Results from the Kappa statistics are


remarkable.
21


Indeed, the association among coders was higher than 85 percent for these


PTAs.
22


These findings are particularly encouraging since EU PTAs and US PTAs are


famously the deepest and most complex agreements (e.g., Horn et al. 2009). However, it must


be stressed that these PTAs are also very similar one to another in terms of structure, so


coders‟ learning is likely to be quicker in these cases compare to other PTAs.


We implemented other checks to verify the reliability of our findings. Specifically, we


compare the results that we obtained in coding the investment sector with the results that we


obtained in coding the services sector. Indeed, the correlation between two sectors is expected


to be high given the fact that they regulate similar issues (Houde et al. 2007). We run three


different tests. First, the correlation between the presence of substantive provisions on


services and the presence of substantive provisions on investment is .79. Second, the


correlation between a MFN provision on service and a MFN provision on investment is .84.


Third, the correlation between a NT provision on service and a NT provision on investment is


.67. Overall, these results are very encouraging on the accuracy of our coding exercise. We


intend to implement similar checks also for the other sectors of our coding scheme in the


future.



21


Cohen‟s kappa is a measure of association (correlation or reliability) between two measurements of the same
individual when the measurements are categorical. Kappa is often used to study the agreement of two raters such


as judges or doctors. Each rater classifies each individual into one of k categories.
22


Rules-of-thumb for kappa: values less than 0.40 indicate low association; values between 0.40 and 0.75


indicate medium association; and values greater than 0.75 indicate high association between the two raters.




41


A further reliability check is to compare our results with those reported in comparable


studies (see Table 1). For example, comparing our coding of procurement provisions shows


that of 39 agreements listed by Kono and Rickard (2010) as having a procurement chapter, we


classify 33 as having substantive provisions and 6 as having procurement liberalization as an


objective. Similar comparisons will be carried out for the other sectors that we are coding.


For the time being, it is our intention to test further the reliability of our coding


exercise. We plan to do that in two stages. First, we will ask two coders independently to code


a random sub-sample of agreements. Taking a random sub-sample should decrease the


concern that some PTAs are easier to code than others or that the learning process is quicker


for some PTAs compare to others. Second, we plan to use two coders to code every PTA in


the sample. In doing so, we could not only test the overall reliability of our coders, but also


resolve the inconsistency using a conciliator, i.e. a third person who decides the “right


coding” in case of inconsistency.23 Finally, such an approach will allow us to incorporate


coder‟s error in the final measurement of PTA scope, as suggested by previous studies in


comparative politics (Benoit et al. 2009; Lowe et al. 2011).




Conclusion




This paper has described a new dataset covering the design of PTAs signed since the end of


World War II. Moreover, we have given indications as to how this data could be used to


answer some important research questions related to PTAs. From this coding exercise, we


derive three broad preliminary findings. First, we witness that the regional dimension seems


to lose significance over time (and with it explanations rooted in the European integration


literature). We observe in particular an important growth in the number of PTAs that involve


countries from different continents. Second, the scope of PTAs widens over time. For


instance, PTAs signed in the last decade include a larger number of provisions on trade-


related sectors than PTAs signed in the 1990s. Third, there seems to be important variation


when comparing types of agreements, whereas differences across geographical regions seem


at first sight less important. In particular, bilateral trade agreements tend to cover sectors that


are not included in the majority of plurilateral agreements.


What are the next steps? For the time being, we will tackle PTAs that have been left


out from this first round of coding. In addition, market access will be coded in the months to


come to ensure every sector is completed. Finally, we will make a major effort to check the



23


For a similar approach see Melton et al. (2010).




42


reliability of our results, which will involve cross-checking between similar sectors,


comparison with previous datasets on the design of PTAs, and double-coding of (at least) a


sub-sample of PTAs. In the end, we hope that the data will prove useful for the scientific


inquiry into the politics and economics of PTAs.




References




Abbott Kenneth, Robert Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Duncan


Snidal 2000. “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization 54(3):401-19.


Aggarval Vinod 1998. Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages and


Nesting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.


Alesina Alberto 1988. “Macroeconomics and Politics,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, volume 3, pp. 13-62.


Alesina Alberto 1989. “Politics and Business Cycles in Industrial Democracies,” Economic
Policy 8(1):55-98.


Allee Todd 2005. “The „Hidden‟ Impact of the World Trade Organization on the Reduction of
Trade Conflict,” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association
Conference, Chicago, Illinois.


Allee Todd and Clint Peinhardt 2010. “The Least BIT Rational: An Empirical Test of the
„Rational Design‟ of Investment Treaties,” unpublished manuscript.


Alter Karen and Sophie Meunier 2007. “The Politics of International Regime Complexity,”
Roberta Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies Working Paper No. 3.


Baccini Leonardo 2009. “Explaining Formation and Design of EU Trade Agreements: The
Role of Transparency and Flexibility,” European Union Politics 11(2):195-217.


Baccini Leonardo 2011. “Democratization and Trade Policy: An Empirical Analysis of
Developing Countries,” European Journal of International Relations, forthcoming.


Baccini Leonardo and Andreas Dür 2011. “The New Regionalism and Policy
Interdependency,” British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.


Baier Scott and Jeffrey Bergstrand 2004. “On the Economic Determinants of Free Trade
Agreements,” Journal of International Economics 64(1):29-63.


Baldwin David 2002. “Power and International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas
Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: SAGE,


pp. 177-91.


Baldwin Richard 1993. “A Domino Theory of Regionalism,” NBER Working Paper No.
4465.


Barnett Michael and Raymond Duvall (eds.) 2005. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press.


Barthel Fabian and Eric Neumayer 2010. “I Sign If my Competitors Sign: Spatial Dependence
in the Diffusion of Double Taxation Treaties,” unpublished manuscript.


Benoit Kenneth and Michael Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London:


Routledge.




43


Benoit, Kenneth, Slava Mikhaylov, and Michael Laver. 2009. “Treating Words as Data with
Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions.” American Journal of Political
Science 53 (2): 495-513.


Bernauer Thomas, Manfred Elsig and Joost Pauwelyn 2011. “Dispute Settlement Mechanism
– Analysis and Problems”, in Amrita Narlikar, Martin Daunton and Robert M. Stern
(eds.), Oxford Handbook of the WTO, Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.


Bhagwati Jagdish 1993. “Regionalism and Multilateralism: An Overview,” in Jaime de Melo
and Arvind Panagariya (eds.), New Dimensions in Regional Integration, Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press.


Budge Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Eric Tanenbaum with


Richard Fording, Derek Hearl, Hee Min Kim, Michael McDonald and Sylvia Mendes


2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments


1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Buhaug Halvard and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch 2008. “Contagion or Confusion? Why
Conflicts Cluster in Space,” International Studies Quarterly 52(2):215-33.


Busch Marc 2007. “Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in
International Trade,” International Organization 61(4):735-61.


Büthe Tim and Helen Milner 2008. “The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment into
Developing Countries: Increasing FDI through International Trade Agreements?,”
American Journal of Political Science 52(4):741-62.


Chase Kerry 2005. Trading Blocs: States, Firms, and Regions in the World Economy. Ann


Arbor: University of Michigan Press.


Cukierman Alex, Stephan Webb and Bilin Neyapti 1992. “Measuring the Independence of the
Central Banks and Its Effects on Policy Outcomes,” The World Bank Economic Review
6(2):353-98.


Davis Christina 2006. “The Politics of Forum Choice for Trade Disputes: Evidence from U.S.
Trade Policy,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Philadelphia.


Drezner Daniel 2006. “The Viscosity of Global Governance: When is Forum-Shopping
Expensive?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Poltitical Science
Association, Philadelphia.


Dupont Cédric and Manfred Elsig 2011. “Border Politics and International Regulation: A
Framework of Analysis through the Prism of the World Trade Organization,” unpublished
manuscript.


Dür Andreas 2007. “EU Trade Policy as Protection for Exporters: The Agreements with
Mexico and Chile,” Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4):833-55.


Eijffinger Sylvester and Eric Schaling 1992. “Central Bank Independence: Criteria and
Indices,” Tilburg University, Research Memorandum No. 548.


Eijffinger Sylvester and Eric Schaling 1993. “Central Bank Independence: Theory and
Evidence.” Center for Economic Research, Tilburg University, Discussion paper No.
9325.


Elkins Zachary, Tom Ginsburg and James Melton 2009. The Endurance of National


Constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Elkins Zachary, Andrew Guzman and Beth Simmons 2006. “Competing for Capital: The




44


Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960-2000,” International Organization
60(4):811-46.


Elsig Manfred 2007. “The EU‟s Choice of Regulatory Venues for Trade Negotiations: A Tale
of Agency Power?” Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4):927-48.


Elsig Manfred and Cédric Dupont 2011. “European Union Meets South Korea: Bureaucratic
Interests, Exporter Discrimination and the Negotiations of Trade Agreements,” Paper
presented at the EUSA Biennial Conference, Boston.


Estevadeordal Antoni, Matthew Shearer and Kati Suominen 2009. “Market Access Provisions
in Regional Trade Agreements,” in Antoni Estevadeordal, Kati Suominen and Robert Teh
(eds.), Regional Rules in the Global Trading System, Cambridge: Cambridge University


Press.


Estevadeordal Antoni and Kati Suominen 2007. “Sequencing Regional Trade Integration and
Cooperation Agreements: Describing a New Dataset for a New Research Agenda,”
Economie Internationale 109:53-82.


Ethier Wilfred 1998. “The New Regionalism,” The Economic Journal 108(3):1149-61.


Fernandez Raquel and Jonathan Portes 1998. “Returns to Regionalism: An Analysis of
Nontraditional Gains from Regional Trade Agreements,” World Bank Economic Review
12(2):197-220.


Fink Carsten and Martin Molinuevo 2008. “East Asian Preferential Trade Agreements in
Services: Liberalization Content and WTO Rules,” World Trade Review 7(4):641-73.


Gleditsch Kristian and Michael Ward 2008. “Diffusion and the Spread of Democratic
Institutions,” in Frank Dobbin, Geoffrey Garrett and Beth Simmons (eds.), The Global
Diffusion of Markets and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Goldstein Judith and Lisa Martin 2000. “Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic
Politics: A Cautionary Note,” International Organization 54(3):603-32.


Goldstein Judith, Douglas Rivers and Michael Tomz 2007. “Institutions in International
Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade,”
International Organization 61(1):37-67.


Grant Ruth and Robert Keohane 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World
Politics,” American Political Science Review 99(1):29-44.


Grilli Vittorio, Donato Masciandaro and Guido Tabellini 1991. “Political and Monetary
Institutions and Public Financial Policies in the Industrial Countries,” Economic Policy
6(2):341-92.


Guzman Andrew 2008. How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory. Oxford:


Oxford University Press.


Hafner-Burton Emilie 2005. “Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements
Influence Government Repression,” International Organization 59(3):593-629.


Haftel Yoram 2010. “Commerce and Institutions: Trade, Scope, and the Design of Regional
Economic Organizations,” Paper presented at the Workshop on The Politics of
Preferential Trade Agreements: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Applications,


Princeton University, April 30-May 1.


Heydon Kenneth and Stephen Woolcock 2009. The Rise of Bilateralism: Comparing


American, European, and Asian Approaches to Preferential Trade Agreements. Paris:


United Nations University Press.




45


Hicks, Raymond and Kris Johnson. 2011. “Protecting Trade and Investment: When Will
Firms Demand More than a BIT?” Prepared for presentation at the 2011 Annual Meeting
of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 1, 2011.


Hicks Raymod and Soo Yeon Kim 2009. “Credible Commitment through PTAs and their
Effects on Trade: A Study of Asia‟s Reciprocal Trade Agreements,” unpublished
manuscript.


Horn Henrik, Petros Mavroidis and Andre Sapir 2009. Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU


and US Preferential Trade Agreements. Brussels: Bruegel.


Houde Marie-France, Akshay Kolse-Patil and Sébastien Miroudot 2007. “The Interaction
between Investment and Services Chapters in Selected Regional Trade Agreements,”
OECD Trade Policy Working Papers No. 55.


Hufbauer Gary Clyde 2007. “Preferential Trade Arrangements in the World Economy: Two
New Databases and Seven Questions.” Bern: World Trade Institute.


Jordana Jacint, David Levi-Faur and Xavier Fernandez 2011. “The Global Diffusion of
Regulatory Agencies & the Restructuring of the State,” Comparative Political Studies,
forthcoming.


Kim Moonhawk 2010. “Bringing Trade Liberalization Back into Trade Agreements:
Explaining the Variation in U.S. Preferential Trade Agreements,” Paper presented at the
Workshop on The Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements: Theory, Measurement, and


Empirical Applications, Princeton University, April 30-May 1.


Klingemann Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Ian Budge, Judith Bara and Michael McDonald


2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Parties, Electorates and Governments in Eastern


Europe and the OECD 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Kono Daniel and Stephanie Rickard 2010. “Do Preferential Trade Agreements Discourage
Procurement Discrimination?” Paper presented at the Workshop on The Politics of
Preferential Trade Agreements: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Applications,


Princeton University, April 30-May 1.


Koremenos Barbara 2005. “Contracting around International Uncertainty,” American
Political Science Review 99(4):549-65.


Koremenos Barbara 2007. “If Only Half of International Agreements Have Dispute
Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining?” Journal of Legal Studies 36:189-
212.


Koremenos Barbara, Charles Lipson and Duncan Snidal 2001. “The Rational Design of
International Institutions,” International Organization 55(4):761-99.


Kucik Jeffey 2011. “The Domestic Politics of International Institutional Design: Industry
Preferences over Preferential Trade Agreements,” unpublished paper.


Krugman Paul 1991. “The Move toward Free Trade Zones,” in Lawrence H. Summers (ed.),
Policy Implications of Trade and Currency Zones, Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank,


pp. 7-42.


Lesher Molly and Sébastien Miroudot 2006. “Analysis of the Economic Impact of Investment
Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements”, OECD Trade Policy Working Papers No. 36.


Lowe William, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov and Michael Laver 2011. “Scaling Policy
Preferences from Coded Political Texts,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, forthcoming.




46


Manger, Mark 2009. Investing in Protection: The Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements


Between North and South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Mansfield Edward and Helen Milner 1999. “The New Wave of Regionalism,” International
Organization 53(3):589-627.


Mansfield Edward and Helen Milner 2010. “Votes, Vetoes, and Preferential Trading
Agreements,” Paper prepared for the WTO workshop on PTAs in the New Era, Geneva,
Nov. 4.


Mansfield Edward, Helen Milner and Jon Pevehouse 2008. “Democracy, Veto Players, and
the Depth of Regional Integration,” The World Economy 31(1):67-96.


Mansfield Edward, Helen Milner and Peter Rosendorff 2002. “Why Democracies Cooperate
More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements,” International Organization
56(3):477-513.


Mansfield Edward and Jon Pevehouse 2000. “Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International
Conflict,” International Organization 54(4):775-808.


Mansfield Edward and Eric Reinhardt 2003. “Multilateral Determinants of Regionalism: The
Effects of GATT/WTO on the Formation of Preferential Trading Arrangements,”
International Organization 57(4):829-62.


Marchetti Juan and Martin Roy (eds.) 2009. Opening Markets for Trade in Services:


Countries and Sectors in Bilateral and WTO Negotiations. Cambridge: Cambridge


University Press.


Mattli Walter 1999. The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press.


Mattoo Aaditya and Pierre Sauvé 2007. „Regionalism in Services Trade,” in Aaditya Mattoo,
Robert M. Stern and Gianni Zanini (eds.), A Handbook of International Trade in Services,


Oxford: Oxford University Press.


McCall Smith James 2000. “The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism
in Regional Trade Pacts,” International Organization 54(1):137-80.




Melton, James, Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and Kalev Leetaru. 2010. On the


Interpretability of Law: Lessons from the Decoding of National Constitutions.


Unbpublushed manuscript.


OECD 2002. Regional Trade Agreements and the Multilateral Trading System. Paris: OECD.


Pauwelyn Joost 2009. “Legal Avenues to „Multilateralise Regionalism‟: Beyond Article
XXIV”, in Richard Baldwin and Patrick Low (eds.), Multilateralising Regionalism,
Challenges for the Global Trading System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Pevehouse Jon 2005. Democracy from Above? Regional Organizations and Democratization.


New York: Cambridge University Press.


Pevehouse Jon and Bruce Russett 2006. “Democratic Intergovernmental Organizations Cause
Peace,” International Organization 60(4):969-1000.


Raustiala Kai and David Victor 2004. “The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources,”
International Organization 58(2):277-309.


Ravenhill John 2008. “Regionalism”, in John Ravenhill (ed.), Global Political Economy,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.




47


Rose Andrew 2004. “Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?” The American
Economic Review 94(1):98-114.


Rosendorff Peter 2005. “Stability and Rigidity: Politics and the Design of the WTO‟s Dispute
Resolution,” American Political Science Review 99(3):389-400.


Rosendorff Peter and Helen Milner 2001. “The Optimal Design of International Trade
Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape,” International Organization 55(4):829-58.


Roy Martin, Juan Marchetti and Hoe Lim 2007. “Services Liberalization in the New
Generation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs): How Much Further than the


GATS?,” World Trade Review 6(2):155-92.


Schropp Simon 2010. Trade Policy Flexibility and Enforcement in the World Trade


Organization: A Law and Economics Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Shaffer Gregory and Mark Pollack 2010. “Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements and
Antagonists in International Governance,” Minnesota Law Review 94:706-99.


Slapin Jonathan and Sven-Oliver Proksch 2008. “A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-
Series Policy Positions from Texts,” American Journal of Political Science 52(3):705-22.


Stephenson Sherry 2002. “Regional versus Multilateral Liberalization of Services,” World
Trade Review 1(2):187-209.


Stone Sweet Alec 1999. “Judicialization and the Construction of Governance,” Comparative
Political Studies 32(2):147-84.


Summers Lawrence 1991. “Regionalism and the World Trading System,” in Lawrence
Summers (ed.), Policy Implications of Trade and Currency Zones, Kansas City: Federal


Reserve Bank.


Swank Duane 2006. “Tax Policy in an Era of Internationalization: An Assessment of a
Conditional Diffusion Model of the Spread of Neoliberalism?,” International
Organization 60(4):847-82.


Teh Robert 2009. “Competition Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements,” in Antoni
Estevadeordal Kati Suominen and Robert Teh (eds.), Regional Rules in the Global


Trading System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Teh Robert, Thomas Prusa and Michele Budetta 2009. “Trade Remedy Provisions in Regional
Trade Agreements,” in Antoni Estevadeordal, Kati Suominen and Robert Teh (eds.),
Regional Rules in the Global Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


UN Social and Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2005-2010) “Trade
Agreements Database,” http://www.unescap.org/tid/aptiad/AllAgreementsGrid.aspx.


Viner Jacob 1950. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for


International Peace.


Young Oran 1996. “Institutional Linkages in International Society: Polar Perspectives,”
Global Governance 2(1):1-24.


Zangl Bernhard 2008. “Judicialization Matters! A Comparison of Dispute Settlement under
GATT and the WTO,” International Studies Quarterly 52(4):825-54.




Login