The Increasing Irrelevance of Trade Diversion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper is intended as a guide for policymakers considering new regional trade agreements. The data provided here show that only about a quarter of imports are potentially subject to trade diversion from new agreements (i.e. they come from countries outside of regional trading blocs and in industries with positive most‐favored nation tariffs). Since this percentage is steadily declining with the increasing number of regional trade agreements and the falling level of tariffs, trade diversion is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a concern for new trade deals. The paper also estimates how each potential new bilateral free trade agreement would affect a country's imports and exports, as well as whether the increased imports would replace domestic production, imports from other RTA partners, or imports from non‐RTA partners. In this way, the estimates are able to shed light on which countries make the best partners for new regional trade agreements. Finally, the paper provides estimates of the trade effects for two large potential new regional agreements: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans‐Pacific Partnership.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it