Foreign Affiliate Sales and Trade in Both Goods and Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the differing forms that international agreements on trade in goods and trade in services take in the GATT (1994) and the GATS there is an incompatibility between measures of world trade in goods and services.Measures of goods trade reflecting GATT (1994) are restricted to trade that crosses borders.Service trade, however, under GATS mode 3 (commercial presence) includes both cross border delivery and foreign affiliate sales within borders.As a result, present comparisons of services and goods trade, as in WTO (2007), are unsatisfactory.One can further argue that our perceptions of the degree of integration in the global economy are likely ill formed, and for comparability the trade component of affiliate sales in goods should be included in goods trade or affiliate sales should be removed from service trade data.Here, we make modifications to reported goods and services trade for specific countries where this is possible by using data on affiliate sales in both goods and services to produce more consistently measured cross country estimates of trade flows.This allows us to compare combined total goods and services trade both over time and across countries, as well as growth rates of trade, trade imbalances and the relative size of trade in goods and services.We use three different statistical bases for measures.One of them is the present mixed GATT and GATS basis; another is trade including foreign affiliate sales, and a final one excludes foreign affiliate sales.Perceptions both on the combined size of country goods and services trade as well as their relative size change a lot using these three measures.We finally draw conclusions and offer policy implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".