SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2023
  • No 4
  • Institutional factors of international trade: A case of the European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences and World Trade Organization

Institutional factors of international trade: A case of the European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences and World Trade Organization


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 21 (no. 4),

International trade, a cornerstone of global economic activity, is significantly influenced by institutional framework. This framework comprises a complex array of policies, agreements, and regulations that govern the interaction between nations in the global marketplace. One prominent example of an institutional factor that drives international trade is the European Union (EU) that created one of the largest single markets in the world through its internal market with free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is yet another institutional factor that significantly shapes international trade. In 2014, the European Union established the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) which sought to provide eligible developing countries with preferential access to the European market by reducing or suspending tariffs on certain imported goods. However, since its formation, it has been questioned whether GSP (later extended to GSP+) is in accordance with the World Trade Organization (WTO) law. This paper explores the role of institutional framework in driving international trade dynamics, highlighting its impact on trade policies, market access, and economic development. In particular, we analyze whether the current EU’s GSP aimed to boost sustainable development and good governance is compatible with the entrenched institutions of international trade represented by the WTO rules and laws. We find that despite some contentious elements, no disruptions can be found. Nevertheless, it is crucial for the EU to address and reform the GSP to continuously increase its effectiveness.
Citation: Miadoková N., Rýsová L. (2023). Institutional factors of international trade: A case of the European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences and World Trade Organization. Terra Economicus 21(4), 123–134. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-4-123-134
Acknowledgment: This paper was supported by the Grant KEGA No. 008UMB-4/23 “The European Union’s position in the world economy – current situation and future prospects. Compendium of study materials for university study programs”


Keywords: international trade; European Union; World Trade Organization; institutional factors; generalized system of preferences; developing countries

JEL codes: B52, F13, F40, E02

References:
  • Arima, E., Barreto, P., Taheripour, F., Aguiar, A. (2021). Dynamic Amazonia: The EU–Mercosur trade agreement and deforestation. Land 10(11), 1243. DOI: 10.3390/land10111243
  • Azmeh, S., Foster, C., Echavarri, J. (2020). The international trade regime and the quest for free digital trade. International Studies Review 22(3), 671–692. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viz033
  • Baier, S., Yotov, Y., Zylkin, T. (2019). On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: Lessons from twenty years of trade integration. Journal of International Economics 116, 206–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2018.11.002
  • Bartels, L. (2007). The WTO Legality of the EU’s GSP+ Arrangement. Journal of International Economic Law 10(4), 869–886. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.986525
  • Basu, K., Jones, E. Schlicht, E. (1987). The growth and decay of custom: The role of the new institutional economics in economic history. Explorations in Economic History 24(1), 1–21. DOI: 10.1016/0014-4983(87)90002-7
  • Borchert, I., Conconi, P., Di Ubaldo, M., Herghelegiu, C. (2021). The pursuit of non-trade policy objectives in EU trade policy. World Trade Review 20(5), 623–647. DOI:10.1017/S1474745621000070
  • Charles, M., Ochieng, S. (2023). Strategic outsourcing and firm performance: a review of literature. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research (IJSSHR) 1(1), 20–29. DOI: 10.61108/ijsshr.v1i1.5
  • Cheng, E. (2018). Principles and perspectives for a diversified renewal in the system of modern political economy. Terra Economicus 16(4), 41–49. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-4-41-49
  • Coase, R. (2013). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics 56(4), 837–877. DOI: 10.1086/674872
  • Delios, A., Perchthold, G., Capri, A. (2021). Cohesion, COVID-19 and contemporary challenges to globalization. Journal of World Business 56(3) 101197. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101197
  • Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy 52(6), 104765. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
  • Erkisi, K., Ceyhan, T. (2019). Trade liberalization and economic growth: A panel data analysis for transition economies in Europe. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting 6(2), 82–94. DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2019.1047
  • Ge, Y., Dollar, D., Yu, X. (2020). Institutions and participation in global value chains: Evidence from belt and road initiative. China Economic Review 61, 101447. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101447
  • Gerber, J. (2016) The Legacy of K. William Kapp. Development of Change 47(4), 902–917. DOI: 10.1111/dech.12238
  • Hodgson, G. (2005). “Institution” by Walton H. Hamilton. Journal of Institutional Economics 1(2), 233–244. DOI: 10.1017/S1744137405210202
  • Hodgson, G. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues 40(1), 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879
  • Hoekman, B., Mavroidis, P. (2021). WTO Reform: Back to the Past to Build for the Future. Global Policy 12, 5–12. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12924
  • Holmes Jr, R., Miller, T., Hitt, M., Salmador, M. (2013). The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Management 39(2), 531–566. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310393503
  • Jiroudková, A., Rovná, L., Strielkowski, W., Šlosarčík, I. (2015). EU accession, transition and further integration for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Economics and Sociology 8(2), 11–25. DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2015/8-2/1
  • Kardung, M., Cingiz, K., Costenoble, O., Delahaye, R., Heijman, W., Lovrić, M., Zhu, B. (2021). Development of the circular bioeconomy: Drivers and indicators. Sustainability 13(1), 413. DOI: 10.3390/su13010413
  • Kersschot, M., Kerremans, B., De Bievre, D. (2020). Principals and transceivers: regional authorities in EU trade negotiations. Political Research Exchange 2(1), 1714454. DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1714454
  • Ketels, C., Porter, M. (2021). Rethinking the role of the EU in enhancing European competitiveness. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 31(2), 189–207. DOI: 10.1108/CR-08-2020-0100
  • Kostova, T., Beugelsdijk, S., Scott, W., Kunst, V., Chua, C., van Essen, M. (2020). The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations. Journal of International Business Studies 51, 467–497. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-019-00294-w
  • MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Pike, A., Birch, K., McMaster R. (2009). Evolution in Economic Geography: Institutions, Political Economy, and Adaptation. Economic Geography 85(2), 129–150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01017.x
  • Maggi, G., Ossa, R. (2021). The political economy of deep integration. Annual Review of Economics 13, 19–38. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-economics-121020-032425
  • Nguyen, D. (2019). A new examination of the impacts of regional trade agreements on international trade patterns. Journal of Economic Integration 34(2), 236–279. DOI: 10.11130/jei.2019.34.2.236
  • North, D. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), 97–11. DOI: 10.1257/jep.5.1.97
  • North, D. (2016). Institutions and Economic Theory. The American Economist 61(1), 72–76. DOI: 10.1177/0569434516630194
  • North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Ornelas, E., Ritel, M. (2020). The not-so-generalised effects of the Generalized System of Preferences. The World Economy 43(7), 1809–1840. DOI: 10.1111/twec.12988
  • Rahman, M., Alam, K. (2021). Exploring the driving factors of economic growth in the world’s largest economies. Heliyon 7, e07109. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07109
  • Rausser, G., Strielkowski, W., Korneeva, E. (2021). Sustainable tourism in the digital age: Institutionaland economic implications. Terra Economicus 19(4), 141–159. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2021-19-4-141-159
  • Reinert, E., Viano, F. (2012). Thorstein Veblen: Economics for an Age of Crises. Anthem Press.
  • Roberts, A., Choer Moraes, H., Ferguson, V. (2019). Toward a geoeconomic order in international trade and investment. Journal of International Economic Law 22(4), 655–676. DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgz036
  • Santeramo, F., Lamonaca, E. (2022). Standards and regulatory cooperation in regional trade agreements: What the effects on trade? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 44(4), 1682–1701. DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13276
  • Simionescu, M., Strielkowski, W., Tvaronavičienė, M. (2020). Renewable energy in final energy consumption and income in the EU-28 countries. Energies 13(9), 2280. DOI: 10.3390/en13092280
  • Stanojević, J., Veličković, G. (2021). Assessing international competitiveness and its role towards the economic prosperity within EU integration framework. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues 26, 45–62. DOI: 10.30924/mjcmi.26.si.3
  • Stilwell, F. (2019). From economics to political economy: Contradictions, challenge, and change. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 78(1), 35–62. DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12259
  • Strielkowski, W., Höschle, F. (2016). Evidence for economic convergence in the EU: The analysis of past EU enlargements. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(4), 617–630. DOI: 10.3846/20294913.2014.890138
  • Thompson, S. (2016). Worker cooperatives in the theory of the firm: Marx and Veblen on technological determinism. Journal of Economic Issues 50(4), 913–939. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.2016.1249743
  • Ugur, M. (2010). Institutions and economic performance: A review of the theory and evidence. SSRN Discussion Paper. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2102746
  • Volchik V., Maslyukova E. (2022). Institutional change and Russian innovation system challenges. Terra Economicus 20(4), 23–44. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2022-20-4-23-44
  • Volchik, V. (2020). Narratives and understanding of economic institutions. Terra Economicus 18(2), 49–69. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2020-18-2-49-69
  • Wang, J., Liao, C., Xiong, J., Wang, C. (2023). Deepening of free trade agreements and international trade: Evidence from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 59(6), 1960–1975. DOI: 10.1080/1540496X.2022.2159372
  • Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free Press
  • Witt, M., Lewin, A., Li, P., Gaur, A. (2023). Decoupling in international business: Evidence, drivers, impact, and implications for IB research. Journal of World Business 58(1), 101399. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101399
  • Wolfe, R. (2020). Reforming WTO conflict management: Why and how to improve the use of “specific trade concerns”. Journal of International Economic Law 23(4), 817–839. DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgaa034
  • Xu, Z., Li, Y., Chau, S., Dietz, T., Li, C., Wan, L., Liu, J. (2020). Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability 3(11), 964–971. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z
  • Zahra, S., Petricevic, O., Luo, Y. (2022). Toward an action-based view of dynamic capabilities for international business. Journal of International Business Studies 53(4), 583–600. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-021-00487-2
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606