Dataset of Services Commitments in

RTAs

Juan A. Marchetti & Martin Roy(WTO Secretariat)

Workshop on PTAs and the WTO: A New EraGeneva, 4 November 2010

Purpose Assess liberalization commitments in recent

PTAs, and compare them with achievements under GATS

Based on Marchetti & Roy (2008), “Services Liberalization in the WTO and in PTAs”, in Marchetti & Roy (eds.) Opening Markets for Trade in Services – Countries and Sectors in Bilateral and WTO Negotiations (Cambridge University Press - WTO, 2008)

Assessing Commitments in Services PTAs: Methodology (1) Analysis of MA and NT commitments by 37 WTO Members

(EU as 1) in 40 PTAs. Includes all those signed/entered into force since 2000, + others signed only.

Focus on modes 1 and 3

Looking at what goes beyond GATS commitments/offers

Starting point: Hoekman methodology...

Score of 1 for full commitments Score of 0.5 for “partial” commitments Score of 0 for no commitment

Assessing Commitments in Services PTAs: Methodology (2) ...But the scoring was further modified to take account of

improvements from one agreement to the other. Example:Sector GATS PTA with

Country A PTA with Country

B PTA with Country

C No commitment

Better commitment than in GATS, but limitations remain (partial)

Even better commitment than in the PTA with A, but limitations remain (partial)

Even better commitment than in the PTA with B, but limitations remain (partial)

Legal Services

0 0.5 0.75 0.875 No commitment

Full commitment No commitment Partial commitment Accountancy Services

0 1 0 0.5

Partial commitment

No better commitment than in the GATS.

Better commitment than in the GATS, although limitations remain (partial)

Full commitment Advertising Services

0.5 0.5 0.75 1

Dataset available on WTO Website 3 data files:

 Total score per member for all RTAs reviewed “Highest” RTA score for each member across all

RTAs reviewed

“Highest” RTA score for each member for selected service sectors

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/dataset_e/dataset_e.htm

Total Score for Each RTA Party

All services

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8ASEAN

Australia-SingaporeAustralia-ThailandCAFTA-DR

Costa Rica-Mexico

EU-Chile

EU-Mexico

EFTA-Chile

EFTA-Korea

EFTA-Mexico

EFTA-Singapore

India-Singapore

J apan-Malaysia

J apan-Mexico

J apan-P hilippinesJ apan-Singapore

J apan-ThailandJ ordan-SingaporeKorea-Chile

Korea-SingaporeMERCOSURMexico-El Salvador

Mexico-Guatemala

Mexico-Honduras

New Zealand-Singapore

P anama-Chinese Taipei

P anama-El Salvador

P anama-Singapore

US-Australia

US-Bahrain

US-Chile

US-J ordan

US-MoroccoUS-Oman

US-P eruUS-Singapore

“Highest” RTA score for each Member across all RTAs reviewed

Overall Results(average for all Members reviewed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total score Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3

All Members Developed Developing

RTAGATS offerGATS

Scores by Member (sample)Note: PTA score is for “best” PTA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ARG AU

S

BHR

BRA

CHL

CHN

COL

CR DR EC ELS

GU

A

HN

D

ICE

IDN

IND

JAP

JOR

KO

R

LIE

MA

L

MEX

MO

R

NIC

NO

R

NZ

OM

N

PAN

PER

PHI

PRY

SIN

G

SWI

CHT

THA

URY U

S

PTAGATS

“Highest” RTA score for each Member, per sector

Sectoral liberalization in PTAs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RTAGATS offerGATS

Thank you!