Shaping Future GATS Rules for Trade in Services
The new round of negotiations has begun with a mechanical sense of "since we said we would, therefore we must," says the author. To make the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) more effective ay liberalization, the author sugges...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2001/04/1121245/shaping-future-gats-rules-trade-services http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19667 |
| Summary: | The new round of negotiations has begun
with a mechanical sense of "since we said we would,
therefore we must," says the author. To make the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) more effective
ay liberalization, the author suggests improving the
agreement's rules, countries' specific
commitments, and the negotiating methodology: 1) Wasteful
regulations, and entry restrictions pervade trade in
services. Unlike the GATT, the GATS has created no hierarchy
of instruments of protection. It may be possible to create a
legal presumption in favor of instruments (such as fiscal
measures) that provide protection more efficiently. 2) Many
countries have taken advantage of the GATS to create a more
secure trading environment, by making legally binding
commitments to market access. The credibility of reform
would increase with wider commitments to maintain current
levels of openness, or to increase access in the future. 3)
Multilateral rules on domestic regulations can help promote,
and consolidate domestic regulatory reform, even when the
rules are designed primarily to prevent the erosion of
market access for foreign providers. The pro-competitive
principles developed for basic communications, could be
extended to other network-based services sectors, such as
transport (terminals and infrastructure), and energy
services (distribution networks). The "necessity
test" instituted for accounting services, could be
applied to instruments in other sectors (so that doctors
judged competent in one jurisdiction, wouldn't have to
be retrained for another, for example). 4) Anticompetitive
practices that fall outside the jurisdiction of national
competition law, may be important in such sectors as
maritime, air transport, and communications services.
Strengthened multilateral rules are needed to reassure small
countries with weak enforcement capacity, that the gains
from liberalization will not be appropriated by
international cartels. 5) Explicit departures from the
most-favored-nation rule matter most in such sectors as
maritime transport, audiovisual services, and air transport
services - which have been excluded from key GATS
disciplines. Implicit discrimination can be prevented by
developing rules to ensure the non-discriminatory allocation
of quotas, and maintaining the desirable openness of the
GATS provision on mutual recognition agreements. 6)
Reciprocity must play a greater role in negotiations, if the
GATS is to advance liberalization beyond measures taken independently. |
|---|