THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL SERVICES TRADE RESTRICTIVENESS ON TRADE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTER, AND INFORMATION SERVICES: EVIDENCE FROM OECD COUNTRIES

Öz

This study analyzes the impact of digital services trade restrictiveness on trade in telecommunications, computer, and information services of Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development countries by utilizing the Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood method covering the period 2014-2022. The findings of the study statistically significantly confirm the disincentive impact of the higher degree of digital services trade restrictiveness on both exports and imports in telecommunications, computer, and information services. Therefore, more relaxing policies can most likely help to enhance the trade in this type of services due to mainly diminishing trade costs. Besides, to make use of more advantages of increasing digitalization, further cooperation and dialogue across countries, particularly with technologically advanced countries, is required. By this means, domestic services suppliers can attain foreign advanced knowledge and technology at relatively moderate costs, thus productivity can be improved, and eventually, more trade in services can be achieved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness
• Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood
• OECD.
• Trade in Telecommunications and Computer and Information Services

Kaynakça

1. Appleyard, D. R. and Field, A. J. (2014) “International Economics”, 8th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Arvis, J. F. and Shepherd, B. (2013) “The Poisson Quasi-Maximum Likelihood Estimator: A Solution to the ‘Adding Up' Problem in Gravity models”, Applied Economics Letters, 20(6): 515-519.
3. Benz, S., Ferencz, J. and Nordås, H. K. (2020) “Regulatory Barriers to Trade in Services: A New Database and Composite Indices, The World Economy, 43(11): 2860-2879.
4. Burger, M., Van Oort, F. and Linders, G. J. (2009) “On the Specification of the Gravity Model of Trade: Zeros, Excess Zeros, And Zero-Inflated Estimation”, Spatial Economic Analysis, 4(2): 167-190.
5. Doty, J. C. (2015) “International Trade in Telecommunication Services: A Cross-Sectional Gravity Regression”, Undergraduate Economic Review, 12(1): 1-16.
6. Egger, P., Larch, M., Staub, K. E. and Winkelmann, R. (2011) “The Trade Effects of Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(3): 113-43.
7. Egger, P. H. and Tarlea, F. (2015) “Multi-way Clustering Estimation of Standard Errors in Gravity Models”, Economics Letters, 134: 144-147.
8. Ferencz, J. (2019) “The OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 221, Paris: OECD Publishing.

9. Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A. and Trognon, A. (1984) “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models”, Econometrica, 52(3): 701-720.
10. Gupta, P., Maryam, J., Sasmal, S. and Singh, S. (2020) “Improving the OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, Working Paper, No. CWS/WP/200/58, Delhi: Centre for WTO Studies.
11. Gupta, S., Ghosh, P. and Sridhar, V. (2022) “Impact of Data Trade Restrictions On IT Services Export: A Cross-Country Analysis”, Telecommunications Policy, 46(9): 1-14.
12. Jiang, L., Liu, S. and Zhang, G. (2022) “Digital Trade Barriers and Export Performance: Evidence from China”, Southern Economic Journal, 88(4): 1401-1430.
13. Jiang, T., Hu, Y., Haleem, F. and Zeng, S. (2023) “Do Digital Trade Rules Matter? Empirical Evidence from TAPED”, Sustainability, 15(11): 1-19.
14. Kandilov, I. T. and Grennes, T. (2010) “The Determinants of Service Exports from Central and Eastern Europe”, Economics of Transition, 18(4): 763-794.
15. Khachaturian, T. (2015) “Services Trade Restrictions and Company Profits: Telecommunications”, US International Trade Commission: Office of Industries, Working Paper ID-042.
16. Martin, W. J. and Pham, C. S. (2015) “Estimating the Gravity Model When Zero Trade Flows Are Frequent and Economically Determined”, World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper, No. 7308.
17. Nordås, H. K. and Rouzet, D. (2015) “The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness On Trade Flows: First Estimates”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 178, Paris: OECD Publishing.
18. OECD (2023) https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STRI_DIGITAL, (14.06.2023)
19. OECD-GDT (2023) https://goingdigital.oecd.org/en/indicator/73, (20.06.2023)
20. Santos Silva, J. and Tenreyro, S. (2006) “The Log of Gravity”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4): 641-658.
21. Santos Silva, J. and Tenreyro, S. (2011) “Further Simulation Evidence On the Performance of the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Estimator”, Economics Letters, 112(2): 220-222.
22. Shepherd, B. (2016) “The Gravity Model of International Trade: A User Guide (An Updated Version)”, ARTNeT United Nations Publications, 1-58.
23. Sukanuntathum, A. (2012) “Robust Estimation of Gravity Models Under Heteroskedasticity and Data Censoring”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40: 731-735.
24. Westerlund, J. and Wilhelmsson, F. (2011) “Estimating the Gravity Model Without Gravity Using Panel Data”, Applied Economics, 43(6): 641-649.
25. WB-WDI (2023) https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, (14.06.2023) WTO (2023) https://stats.wto.org/, (14.06.2023)
26. Yang, F., Wang, Y. and Whang, U. (2023) “Trade Restrictions On Digital Services and The Impact On Manufacturing Exports”, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 1-28.
27. Yi, Z., Wei, L. and Huang, X. (2022) “Does Information-and-Communication-Technology Market Openness Promote Digital Service Exports?”, Sustainability, 14(9): 1-19.
28. Yotov, Y. V., Piermartini, R., Monteiro, J. A. and Larch, M. (2016) “An Advanced Guide to Trade Policy Analysis: The Structural Gravity Model, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
29. Zhang, X. and Wang, Y. (2022) “Research on the Influence of Digital Technology and Policy Restrictions on the Development of Digital Service Trade”, Sustainability, 14(16): 1-16.
30. Zheng, X. and Sun, A. (2023) “Digital Services Trade between China and V4 Countries–A Study of Trade Complementarity and Regulatory Restrictiveness”, Journal of Economics, 71(2): 139-154.