Co-auteur
  • DELPEUCH Claire (4)
  • VAN DER MAREL Erik (3)
  • LE VERNOY Alexandre (3)
  • DE MELO Jaime (3)
  • Voir plus
Type de Document
  • Partie ou chapitre de livre (55)
  • Working paper (36)
  • Article (35)
  • Rapport (14)
  • Voir plus
This paper explores a much-neglected aspect of cultural policies: the role of the institutions in charge and the way they use the instruments at their disposal. It focuses on the film industry which offers the remarkable contrast on how the Korean film industry has outperformed the French one in less than twenty years. This paper provides three conclusions. First, it presents an economic analysis of the French and Korean institutions which shows that building a rich organization with a large degree of freedom for action and granting extensive subsidies is not a sure recipe for the success of the country’s film industry. Second, it explains this paradox by the types of subsidies used by the institutions—whether these subsidies target narrowly defined goals (on a film-per-film basis), or have objectives broad enough to benefit potentially all participants in the film industry, such as improving the infrastructure needed for producing films (studios, schools for actors). Last but not least, this paradox is also due to the abundance of subsidies and measures of all types at the disposal of rich institutions, which can easily become a source of costly inconsistencies. This paper provides two illustrations of these conflicts among the instruments provided.

Kritika Kultura and the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) are pleased to publish this special issue on cultural practices and cultural policies in the global and digital age. It is the outcome of a conference held in Ateneo de Manila University which has offered great opportunities for authors coming from different continents to discuss the vast changes in these domains. [First paragraph]

Since June 2018 Australia and the European Union have been negotiating a Free Trade Agreement. This book offers insights from recognised experts in the field, from Australia, Europe and Asia, on the potential economic benefits to be reaped from greater economic openness. It addresses issues of direct relevance to both negotiating teams as well as policy makers, academics, and business leaders across Australia and the European Union. The book covers 21st century topics such as regulatory cooperation, global value chain connectivity and digital trade. Professional services, audiovisual services, financial services, investment, investor-state dispute settlement and government procurement are explored in depth; as is agriculture and food. (Publisher's abstract)

J’évalue l’impact des réglementations commerciales et concurrentielles dans transport maritime de ligne sur la structure du marché, les coûts de transport et le commerce maritime. D’abord, je quantifie le niveau global des Barrières Commerciales (BC) dans le secteur du transport maritime de ligne en construisant un Indice de Restriction du Commerce des Services (IRCS). Cet indicateur est inclus dans une analyse économétrique en deux étapes. Les BC sont susceptibles d’influencer le commerce maritime à travers les Coûts de Transport Maritime (CTM). Ainsi, j’évalue l'impact des BC sur les CTM, puis l'impact des CTM sur le commerce maritime. Je montre que les BC ont un impact positif sur les CTM et que les CTM ont un impact négatif sur le commerce maritime. Ainsi, les BC ont un impact indirect négatif sur le commerce maritime. Je montre aussi qu’en plus d’affecter négativement le commerce maritime à travers les CTM, la distance a un impact positif direct sur le commerce maritime. Ensuite, j’évalue l'impact des barrières réglementaires à l'entrée sur la structure du marché et les CTM. D’abord, j’évalue l'impact de la réglementation sur la structure du marché. Puis, j’évalue l'impact de la structure du marché sur les CTM. Je montre que la présence de conférences maritimes n’a pas d’impact sur le nombre de compagnies sur les routes alors que la présence d'accords de discussion a un impact positif. De plus, lorsqu’elles atteignent un seuil, les BC ont un impact négatif sur le nombre de compagnies. En outre, je montre les BC affectent les CTM à travers la structure du marché et les coûts marginaux. Enfin, je montre que les compagnies maritimes de ligne exercent un pouvoir de march

83
vues

83
téléchargements
Cette thèse explore les dimensions spécifiques de la facilitation des échanges et leurs impacts sur le commerce. Dans une première partie, j’étudie les différentes façons de mesurer la facilitation des échanges. Je reviens sur les indicateurs traditionnellement utilisés tout en étudiant leurs limites. Je parcours également une série d’études de cas, ainsi que les accords internationaux incluant des dispositions spécifiques. Constatant la nécessité de recourir à des indicateurs plus désagrégés, je construis un indicateur composite de la facilitation des échanges couvrant plusieurs dimensions. Je démontre qu’il subsiste de nombreuses disparités à travers les pays membres de l’OCDE, ainsi que l’accessibilité à l’information, les renseignements tarifaires contraignants et les formalités douanières ont un impact positif important sur le commerce. Dans une seconde partie, j’étends mon analyse au reste du monde et particulièrement à l’Union Européenne. Il apparaît que les disparités sont plus grandes à l’échelle mondiale et couvrent différents aspects. Ces résultats démontrent également l’intérêt de l’extension des indicateurs construit précédemment aux pays en développement. Enfin, l’étude de cas sur l’Union Européenne suggère qu’il reste des gains potentiels même dans des pays développés ayant pourtant un environnement réglementaire proche. Cette étude souligne aussi que malgré les difficultés de mise en place de telles politiques, il existe un chemin vertueux conduisant à un système efficace des échanges, à travers l’intensification des initiatives développant la coopération entre tous les acteurs ainsi que le recours actif aux nouvelles technologies.

0
vues

0
téléchargements
Tough times are expected in the year(s) to come, but focusing entirely on public and private budget cuts is not a politically sustainable policy. On top of its direct impoverishing impact, austerity has an indirect impact, which is very corrosive in the long run for consumers. It induces producers of goods and services to retreat to their home markets, reducing the level of competition in the markets they left behind. There is thus an urgent need to build a pro-growth agenda, for which the services sector is the best candidate, since it accounts for 60-70 percent of the G20 GDP. Such an agenda means reforms: in order to take the right decisions when redesigning their strategies, service providers need clarity and predictability on how their markets will operate. History shows that introducing pro-growth domestic reforms is hugely bolstered by opening — or reopening — domestic markets to foreign competitors. This is why a “sleeping” Doha is not a reason for not starting negotiations now on how to improve market access in services. This paper argues that the two largest world economies, the United States and the EU, should launch bilateral negotiations on services. The expected gains for consumers and the opportunities for service providers are huge in both sides of the Atlantic because their services sectors are likewise huge and because the protection still prevailing in many services areas is still high.

The EU severe debt problem requires urgently the design and implementation of domestic pro-growth reform agendas in Europe. Opening markets to foreign competitors has always been a way to boost and buttress such agendas. A “Sleeping Doha” Round leaves preferential trade agreements (PTAs) as the only channel for opening markets to foreign competition. In this context, this paper examines two questions: do the PTAs currently negotiated by the EU fit well the EU quest for growth? If not, what would be the appropriate PTAs?

2
vues

0
téléchargements
There is no doubt that trade and climate policies can be mutually destructive. But there are three strong reasons to suggest that they can also be mutually supportive: they have a common problem, common foes, and common friends. Mutual support would be much stronger if the world regimes for these two policies shared a few common principles. The climate community should feel at ease with the broad WTO principles of ‘national treatment’ and ‘most-favoured nation’, and rely on them in building its own treaty and institutions. The trade community should grasp the opportunity to benefit from the better disciplines on adjustment policies that it is hoped the climate community will design. These conclusions should put the many pending problems into a more positive perspective, and persuade negotiators to find pragmatic compromises, as was the case with the GATT. Using this perspective, the paper focuses on a few key issues, such as the definition of carbon border taxes and the reasons to ban carbon tariffs. Other cases of mutual support are examined. For instance, the climate community should not repeat the mistakes of the world trade regime in dealing with the developing and least developed countries.

5
vues

0
téléchargements
The Aid for Trade (AfT) initiative has been hailed as highly successful in raising the profile of trade as a tool for development. Developing countries have increasingly mainstreamed trade in their development strategies, while donors have responded by mobilising additional resources for trade-related programmes and projects (together referred to as operations). The AfT initiative however requires a better assessment of its outcomes and impacts in terms of trade performance, poverty reduction, growth and development (...).

Now the Doha Round is in its tenth year, it is still far from clear whether a deal will be concluded this year. Neither is clear what are the reasons of the current deadlock. Deep division also remain on how to conclude a possible Doha deal. Apart from this negotiation stalemate, what do trade experts think about Doha? This policy brief analyses these questions using mainly data from the CUTS forum debate on the Doha Round among trade experts and academics. The results show that also among experts huge divisions remain on these issues.

Suivant