Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:48:54.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Embraces Technical Barriers to Trade? The Case of European REACH Regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

Yoojin Cha  and
Min Gyo Koo
Yoojin Cha
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University
Min Gyo Koo*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Public Administration and Asian Development Institute, Seoul National University
*
*Corresponding Author: Email: mgkoo@snu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technical Barriers to Trade are on the rise at a time when the ghost of protectionism looms large across the world economy. They are allegedly trade restrictive and some of them are more burdensome than others, particularly to foreign suppliers. The leading question of this study is who embraces technical barriers to trade better than others and why. This study examines how different countries have reacted to the REACH regulations of the European Union and what factors have motivated some, if not all, of them to harmonize their domestic policies with REACH regulations. With a random-effects ordered logistic regression analysis, this study finds strong statistical support for two out of three diffusion mechanisms – that is, transnational communication and competition pressure for exports market. The causal relationship between intergovernmental institution and the level of harmonization is found statistically insignificant. These findings imply that technical regulations, if understood correctly through communication and/or motivated by strong commercial incentives, can create upward pressure for global regulatory harmonization.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 25 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, GW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Anders, SM and Caswell, JA (2009) Standards as Barriers versus Standards as Catalysts: Assessing the Impact of HACCP Implementation on US Seafood imports. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(2), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applegate, JS (2008) Synthesizing TSCA and REACH: Practical Principles for Chemical Regulation Reform. Ecology Law Quarterly 35(4), 721–770.Google Scholar
Auer, MR (2000) Who Participates in Global Environmental Governance? Partial Answers from International Relations Theory. Policy Sciences 33, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bao, X and Qiu, LD (2010) Do Technical Barriers to Trade Promote or Restrict Trade? Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics 17(3), 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C (1991) Review Article: What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? British Journal of Political Science 21(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergkamp, L and Penman, M (2013) Introduction. in Bergkamp, L (eds.), The European Union REACH Regulation for Chemicals: Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1–14.Google Scholar
Bhandari, H and Yasunobu, K (2009) What is Social Capital? A Comprehensive Review of the Concept. Asian Journal of Social Science 37(3), 480–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blind, K (2001) The Impacts of Innovations and Standards on Trade of Measurement and Testing Products: Empirical Results of Switzerland's Bilateral Trade Flows with Germany, France and the UK. Information Economics and Policy 13, 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blind, K and Jungmittag, A (2005) Trade and the Impact of Innovations and Standards: The Case of Germany and the UK. Applied Economics 37(12), 1385–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botos, Á, Graham, JD, and Illés, Z (2018) Industrial Chemical Regulation in the European Union and the United States: A Comparison of REACH and the Amended TSCA. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1454495.Google Scholar
Copeland, BR and Taylor, MS (2003) Trade, Growth and the Environment. NBER Working Paper No. 9823, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crivelli, P and Groeschl, J (2016) The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows. The World Economy 39(3), 444–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Frahan, BH and Vancauteren, M (2006) Harmonization of Food Regulations and Trade in the Single Market: Evidence from Disaggregated Data. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(3), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, PJ and Powell, WW (1991) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbin, F, Simmons, B, and Garrett, G (2007), The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? Annual Review of Sociology 33, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, DW (2001) Globalization and Policy Convergence. International Studies Review 3(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, DW (2005) Globalization, Harmonization, and Competition: The Different Pathways to Policy Convergence. Journal of European Public Policy 12(5), 841–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre, EU SME (2011) Guidelines for China REACH: New Chemical Substances. Beijing: EU SME Centre.Google Scholar
Ferro, E, Otsuki, T, and Wilson, JS (2014) The Effect of Product Standards on Agricultural Exports. Food Policy 50, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipec, O (2017) REACH Beyond Borders: Europeanization towards Global Regulation. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, HD (1997) Ethnic Conflict: Commerce, Culture, and the Contact Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, J (1994) Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, WH and Hensher, DA (2010) Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, EB (1964) Beyond the Nation-state: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, PM (1992) Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46(l), l–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbatschek, N, Bergkamp, L, and Mihova, M (2013) The REACH Programs and Procedures. Bergkamp, L (eds.), The European Union REACH Regulation for Chemicals: Law and Practice. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–170.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, V (2009) Globalizing Regulation: Reaching beyond the Borders of Chemical Safety. Journal of Law and Society 36(1), 110–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, AO (1980[1945]) National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Holzer, K (2019) Addressing Tensions and Avoiding Disputes: Specific Trade Concerns in the TBT Committee. Global Trade and Customs Journal 14(3), 102–116.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K and Knill, C (2004) Competition and Cooperation in Environmental Policy: Individual and Interaction Effects. Journal of Public Policy 24(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzinger, K, Knill, C, and Sommerer, T (2008) Environmental Policy Convergence: The Impact of International Harmonization, Transnational Communication, and Regulatory Competition. International Organization 62(4), 553–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzinger, K, Knill, C, and Sommerer, T (2011) Is There Convergence of National Environmental Policies? An Analysis of Policy Outputs in 24 OECD Countries. Environmental Politics 20(1), 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H, Mavroidis, PC, and Wijkström, EN (2013) In the Shadow of the DSU: Addressing Specific Trade Concerns in the WTO SPS and TBT Committees. Journal of World Trade 47(4), 729–759.Google Scholar
Kelemen, RD and Vogel, D (2010) Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics. Comparative Political Studies 43(4), 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, RO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, K, Kissling-Näf, I, Landmann, U, Mauch, C, and Löffelsend, T (2001) Policy Convergence and Policy Diffusion by Governmental and Non-Governmental Institutions – An International Comparison of Eco-labeling Systems. Discussion Paper FS II 01–305, Berlin: WZB Social Science Research Center.Google Scholar
Koo, MG (2010) Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia: Between a Rock and a Hard Place. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, MG and Kim, SY (2018) East Asian Way of Linking the Environment to Trade in Free Trade Agreements. Journal of Environment and Development 27(4), 382–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, SD (1982) Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization 36, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunce, M and Shogren, JF (2002) On Environmental Federalism and Direct Emission Control. Journal of Urban Economics 51, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazo, RP and Sauve, P (2018) The Treatment of Regulatory Convergence in Preferential Trade Agreements. World Trade Review 17(4), 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T (2015) Policy Convergence between Korea and the European Union in the Field of Chemical Controls. Asia Europe Journal 13, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L and Yue, C (2009) Non-tariff Barriers to Trade Caused by SPS Measures and Customs Procedures with Product Quality Changes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 34(1), 196–212.Google Scholar
Mangelsdorf, A, Portugal-Perez, A, and Wilson, JS (2012) Food Standards and Exports: Evidence for China. World Trade Review 11(3), 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, RL (1999) The Credibility of Exit Threats: Refining the ‘Race to the Bottom’ Debate. Journal of Public and International Affairs 10, 47–62.Google Scholar
McDonald, J (2005) Domestic Regulation, International Standards, and Technical Barriers to Trade. World Trade Review 4(2), 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michida, E (2017) Regulatory Diffusion from Europe to Asia. Michida, E, Humphrey, J, and Nabeshima, K (eds.), Regulations and International Trade: New Sustainability Challenges for East Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiki, Y (2010) Assessing Policy Reach: Japan's Chemical Policy Reform in Response to the EU's REACH Regulation. Journal of Environmental Law 22(2), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuki, T, Wilson, JS, and Sewadeh, M (2001) Saving Two in a Billion: Quantifying the Trade Effect of European Food Safety Standards on African Exports. Food Policy 26, 495–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, R and Neumayer, E (2012) Does the ‘California Effect’ Operate across Borders? Trading- and Investing-up in Automobile Emission Standards. Journal of European Public Policy 19(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, ME (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, ME and Linde, C (1995) Toward a New Conception of the Environment–Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portugal-Perez, A, Reyes, J, and Wilson, JS (2010) Beyond the Information Technology Agreement: Harmonisation of Standards and Trade in Electronics. The World Economy 33(12), 1870–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakash, A and Potoski, M (2006) Racing to the Bottom? Trade, Environmental Governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science 50(2), 350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, BA and Elkins, Z (2004) The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy. American Political Science Review 98, 171–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, D and Meyer, JW (1993) Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. Theory and Society 22, 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, S (1982) Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis. International Organization 36(2), 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, P, Temple, P, and Shurmer, M (1996) Standards and Trade Performance: The UK Experience. The Economic Journal 106, 1297–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nations, United (2017) Globally Harmonized System of Classifications and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). 7th revised edition, New York: United Nations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigani, M, Raimondi, V, and Olper, A (2012) International Trade and Endogenous Standards: The Case of GMO Regulations. World Trade Review 11(3), 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voon, T (2015) Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO. World Trade Review 14(3), 451–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D (1997) Trading Up and Governing Across: Transnational Governance and Environmental Protection. Journal of European Public Policy 4(4), 556–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Wilson, JQ (1980) The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Winder, C, Azzi, R, and Wagner, D (2005) The Development of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of Hazardous Chemicals. Journal of Hazardous Materials 125, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WTO and UNCTAD (2012) A Practical Guide to Trade Policy Analysis. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
Young, AR (2015) The European Union as a Global Regulator? Context and Comparison. Journal of European Public Policy 22(9), 1233–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cha and Koo Supplementary Materials

Cha and Koo Supplementary Materials

Download Cha and Koo Supplementary Materials(File)
File 28.8 KB