MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tariff Aggregation and Market Access: An Empirical Assessment for Canada and the EU

2008· article· en· W1997158145 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Janine Pelikan, Martina Brockmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumTariffMarket accessEconomicsRestrictivenessInternational economicsLiberalizationWelfareYield (engineering)Free tradeInternational tradeAgricultureMicroeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use two alternative approaches to analyze the trade restrictiveness of the Canadian and EU import tariff structures for agricultural goods. The first involves direct, detailed calculations at the tariff line level of summary protection indexes. We compare the newer method of welfare and import equivalent indexes to the standard trade weighted method of aggregation. The second approach involves indirect index calculations, where we map tariff data into a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, and then use the model to generate the summary. Each approach has its advantages. The direct tariff line approach reflects sector detail more comprehensively, but misses the sector and regional linkages captured by the CGE model. As an empirical illustration we simulate the impact of market access liberalization proposed in the WTO draft modality paper of February 2008. Pursuant to a tiered formula, we reduce bound and applied tariffs at the 6‐digit tariff line level. We find that the direct tariff line approach and the hybrid tariff line CGE approach yield similar results. These indicate that access to Canada's agricultural sector is particularly restricted for milk imports from high‐income countries. In contrast, developing countries have particular difficulty accessing the EU's Single Market, where high trade restrictions on beef, sugar, and rice are most relevant. Nous avons utilisé deux méthodes différentes pour analyser le caractère restrictif des structures du tarif douanier à l'importation du Canada et de l'UE pour les produits agricoles. La première consiste en des calculs directs détaillés des indices de protection au niveau de la ligne tarifaire. Nous avons comparé la nouvelle méthode des indices welfare−equivalent et import−equivalentà la méthode d'agrégation standard pondérée en fonction des échanges. La deuxième méthode consiste en des calculs d'indices indirects, où nous insérons les données tarifaires dans un modèle informatique d'équilibre général (IEG) qui sert à générer le sommaire. Chaque méthode a ses avantages. La méthode de la ligne tarifaire directe fait ressortir les détails du secteur, mais ne détecte pas les liens sectoriels et régionaux capturés par le modèle IEG. En tant que modèle empirique, nous avons simulé l'impact de la libéralisation de l'accès aux marchés proposée dans le projet révisé de « modalités » de l'OMC présenté en février 2008. Conformément à la formule étagée, nous avons diminué les limites et avons appliqué des tarifs au niveau de ligne tarifaire à 6 chiffres. Nous avons trouvé que la méthode directe de la ligne tarifaire et la méthode hybride de la ligne tarifaire (IEG) donnaient des résultats similaires. Ces résultats ont indiqué que l'accès au secteur agricole canadien est particulièrement restreint dans le cas des importations de lait provenant des pays à revenu élevé. Par contre, les pays en développement éprouvent de la difficultéà accéder au marché unique de l'UE, où les restrictions commerciales sur le bæuf, le sucre et le riz sont les plus importantes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207