2002年-世界发展银行全球_Trade_in_International_Maritime_Services___How_Much_Does_Policy_Matter__28页_617kb

Trade in International Maritime Services: How Much Does Policy Matter?

Core Content

This article from The World Bank Economic Review analyzes the role of policy and private anticompetitive practices in determining maritime transport costs and their impact on international trade. It highlights that while trade policies and private sector practices both influence transport prices, the latter have a more significant effect. The authors emphasize the importance of addressing these practices through stronger international disciplines to ensure fair competition and reduce trade costs.

Main Points

• Maritime Transport Costs and Trade: Maritime transport costs are a major barrier to international trade, often surpassing the impact of customs duties. These costs affect trade patterns, production, industrial structure, and income distribution.

• Policy vs. Private Practices: The study finds that both public policy restrictions and private anticompetitive practices (such as rate-fixing by shipping conferences) influence transport prices. However, private practices have a stronger effect, particularly in liner shipping.

• Impact of Liberalization: Trade liberalization and the breakup of private carrier agreements could reduce liner transport prices by an average of one-third and save up to US$3 billion on goods transported to the United States alone.

• Cargo Reservation Schemes: These schemes, which restrict the use of foreign ships for certain cargo, have historically been a key barrier. While many countries have phased them out, some still maintain them, either through the UNCTAD Liner Code or similar policies.

• Private Rate-Fixing Agreements: Shipping conferences, which are cartellike arrangements, have been a major source of collusive pricing. These agreements are often exempt from antitrust laws and have been criticized for limiting competition and inflating costs.

• Regulatory Exemptions: The U.S., EU, and other countries have historically exempted shipping conferences from antitrust regulation, citing benefits such as price stability and reduced uncertainty. However, this exemption has been challenged in recent years, with the European Commission fining conferences for anti-competitive behavior.

• New Arrangements: Newer forms of cooperation, such as discussion agreements and global alliances, have emerged but do not necessarily reduce the influence of collusive practices.

• Contestability Debate: There is an ongoing debate on whether liner shipping markets are contestable. Some argue that the presence of conferences and sunk costs (such as reputation and advertising) limits the ability of new entrants to compete effectively.

• Policy Recommendations: The authors call for strengthening the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to address anticompetitive practices and for more comprehensive international rules to ensure fair pricing and access in maritime transport.

Key Information

• Data Sources: The study uses newly published U.S. waterborne transport data, broken down by service type (liner, bulk, tanker), to analyze transport costs and their determinants.

• Cargo Reservation Examples: Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and Korea have eliminated cargo reservation schemes, while others such as Benin, India, and Brazil still maintain them.

• Liner Conferences: These are the most common form of private rate-fixing. They are often exempt from antitrust laws and have been involved in several high-profile legal actions, including fines by the European Commission.

• Econometric Analysis: The study confirms the importance of standard determinants of transport prices (distance, technology) and finds that both public and private restrictions continue to influence prices, with private practices being more impactful.

• Need for International Rules: Given the limited capacity of small states to enforce competition policies, the authors suggest the need for a first-best international response to address anticompetitive practices in maritime transport.

Conclusion

The article underscores the critical role of both public and private restrictions in keeping maritime transport costs high. While public policy liberalization is important, it is the private sector's collusive practices that have a more pronounced effect on prices. The authors advocate for enhanced international disciplines to counteract these practices and promote more competitive and efficient maritime transport services.