热门搜索：

区域全面经济伙伴关系中的服务贸易自由化：现状和前进方向（英）

商贸零售2022-12-01亚开行北***

AI智能总结

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has led to deeper services trade liberalization, but disparities in commitments across member countries, sectors, and modes of supply may result in uneven distribution of potential gains. Lifting restrictions on cross-border movement of independent professionals and contractual service providers could boost Mode 4 services trade and other sectors. Foreign equity restrictions under Mode 3 remain a challenge, while deeper liberalization under Mode 1 is crucial for digital services trade and economic development. Technical assistance is needed to support developing countries in adopting a negative list approach towards greater services trade liberalization, regulatory coherence, and transparency.

NO.237 DECEMBER2022 KEYPOINTS •DeeperservicestradeliberalizationundertheRegionalComprehensiveEconomicPartnership(RCEP)isobserved,onaverage,butdisparities intheextentanddepthofcommitmentsacross membercountries,services ADBBRIEFS LiberalizingServicesTrade intheRegionalComprehensiveEconomicPartnership: StatusandWaysForward sectors,andmodesofsupplymaycausethepotentialgainstobeunevenlydistributed. •Liftingrestrictionson cross-bordermovementofindependentprofessionalsandcontractualserviceproviderscouldnotonlyboostMode4servicestradebutalsotradeingoodsandotherservicesthroughspillovereffects. PramilaA.Crivelli Economist EconomicResearchandRegionalCooperationDepartment AsianDevelopmentBank(ADB) INTRODUCTION JeremyMarandEconomicResearchAnalystADBConsultant GeraldY.PascuaEconomicResearchAnalystADBConsultant •ForeignequityrestrictionsunderMode3remainachallengeinenhancingforeigndirectinvestments. •Coupledwithinvestmentsindigitalinfrastructureandhumancapital,deeper liberalizationunderMode1iscrucialtofosterdigitalservicestradeandeconomicdevelopment. •Technicalassistanceisneededtosupportdevelopingcountries’ negotiatorsandregulatorsinadoptinganegativelistapproachtowardgreaterservicestradeliberalization,regulatorycoherence,andtransparency. ISBN978-92-9269-944-4(print) ISBN978-92-9269-945-1(electronic) ISSN2071-7202(print) ISSN2218-2675(electronic)PublicationStockNo.BRF220573-2 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/BRF220573-2 Morethan2decadesafterthelandmarkentryintoforceofthe1995GeneralAgreementonTradeinServices(GATS),andamidtheeconomicuncertaintiesandoverlappingchallengesarisingfromtradetensionsandtheglobalpandemicexperience,revitalizingservicestradeliberalizationhastakentwonewstridesintheAsiaandPacificregion.1 First,theASEANTradeinServicesAgreement(ATISA)wassignedinManilainOctober2020andenteredintoforceinApril2021,buildingupontheoutcomesofthe10roundsofprogressiveservicesliberalizationpackagesimplementedbytheAssociationofSoutheastAsianNations(ASEAN)memberstatesfrom1997to2018undertheASEANFrameworkAgreementonServices(AFAS).ATISAalsocomeswithsectorannexesonfinancialservices,telecommunicationservices,andtransportancillaryservices(ASEAN2020). Second,signed1monthafterATISA,theRegionalComprehensiveEconomicPartnership(RCEP)enteredintoforceinJanuary2022.TheRCEPisexpectedtofurtherboosttradeinservicesbyprovidingbettermarketaccessandimprovingthepredictabilityandtransparencyofregulations(ASEAN2021).Chapter8ontradeinservicesalsocontainssectorannexesonfinancialservices,telecommunicationsservices,andprofessionalservices. 1TheauthorswouldliketothankthemembersoftheRegionalCooperationandIntegrationThematicGroup(SDTC-RCI)forthevaluablecommentsprovided.TheauthorsarealsogratefultoPauloRodelioHaliliforhiscommentsandproductionsupport. AkeydevelopmentunderATISAandtheRCEPisthetransitionmechanismfromapositivelisttoanegativelistapproachtoservicestradeliberalization.Suchatransitioncouldbechallengingfornegotiatorsandregulatorsindevelopingmembercountries. Itwillrequireconsiderabletechnicalskillandexpertunderstandingofthepracticalimplicationsofservicestradeliberalizationgiventhedomesticregulatorylandscape,economicandsocialstructures,competitiveness,andresources. ThisbriefisaninitialattempttoquantifythedepthoftheRCEPservicesliberalizationcommitments.TheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)andtheEconomicResearchInstituteforASEANandEastAsia(ERIA)developedamethodtocomputetheRCEPServicesTradeLiberalizationrates.2Thisbriefreportstheresultsanddiscussestheminthebroadercontextoftherecentservicestradeexpansionintheregion.WhiletheRCEPoffersdeeperliberalizationthanGATS,significantdisparitiesinliberalizationrateswereobservedamongcountriesandmodesofsupply,whichcouldimpacttradeflows,productivity,3andultimatelyeconomicgrowth.4TheRCEPregion,forexample,notablyexhibitsalowaverageliberalizationrateforservicestradedbyindividualsofonememberthroughtheirpresenceintheterritoryofanother(Mode4).GiventhepositivespillovereffectsofMode4onmerchandisetradeandservicestradedeliveredunderModes1and3(Jansen andPiermartini2004),thelimiteddegreeofMode4liberalizationcanhurtprospectsofservicestradegrowthintheregion. ThisbriefalsoshowsspecifictypesofexistingrestrictionsanddocumentstheservicesliberalizationrategapsbetweentheRCEPcountriesandmodesofdelivery.Itconcludeswithpreliminaryinsightsandimplicationsinthecurrentcontextsofdigitaltransformationandpost-pandemicrecovery. TransitioningfromapositivetoanegativelistapproachWithapositivelistapproach,membercountriessubmitascheduleofcommitmentsthatexplicitlyidentifiesallmarketaccessandnationaltreatmentcommitmentsandlimitations.Thisisdoneforeachservicessectorandsubsectorandforeachofthefourmodesofservicessupply.Unlistedsectorsorsubsectorsarenotliberalized(WTO2002).GATSandAFAS,forexample,bothemployapositivelistapproach. Ontheotherhand,withanegativelistapproach,membersaretoprovidealistof“non-conformingmeasures”containingonlythelimitationsandrestrictionsforspecificservicessectorsand subsectors.Bydefault,servicessectorsandsubsectorsnotincludedinthislistarepresumedtobeopent

点击免费查看完整报告