Suchergebnisse

Recent studies suggest that intermediaries like merchants facilitate international trade by reducing fixed trade costs for producers that trade through them instead of exporting or importing directly. This study argues that customs brokers–a type of intermediary rarely studied in economics before–play a similar role by reducing fixed costs of clearing goods through customs for firms that use them instead of selfdeclaring. Using panel data of Norwegian trade transactions, the paper shows that the majority of manufacturing producers participating in international trade use such brokers, and that the brokers typically handle large trade values on behalf of several different produces. In an econometric analysis, the author finds that the share of a producer's market specific trade that is self-declared rather than handled by brokers increases with the traded value. This is in line with predictions from theoretical models on trade intermediaries and holds after controlling for observed as well as unobserved factors at the producer, country and product level. Results are similar for exporting and importing, indicating that brokers facilitate both modes of trade. ; publishedVersion

Vi studerer samvariasjon mellom internettbruk og internasjonal handel. Vi finner at i mange mellom- og lavinntektsland er bedrifter mer tilbøyelige til å eksportere eller importere hvis de bruker internett som et kommunikasjonsmiddel. Effektene er store: probit-regresjoner indikerer at deltakelse i internasjonal handel er ca. femti prosent større for bedrifter som bruker internett sammenlignet med de som ikke gjør det. Dette er tilfelle både for eksport og import. Funnene har viktige implikasjoner. Bedrifters evne til å delta i internasjonal handel er viktig i en globalisert økonomi. Dermed kan politikk rettet mot å bedre internettinfrastrukturen potensielt være spesielt viktig for lands utviklingsmuligheter.
Abstract in English:Firms, International Trade and the InternetThis study of the relationship between internet use and international trade finds that in many low and middle income countries, firms are more likely to engage in exports or imports if they use the internet as a communication tool. The effects are large: probit regressions indicate that trade participation is approximately 50% greater for firms that use the internet as a means of communication compared with those that do not. This holds true for exports as well as for imports. Our findings further suggest that the association between trade participation and the use of the internet is particularly important for large firms and for firms with foreign owners. Our findings have important implications. In a globalized economy, firms' ability to engage in international trade is crucial for success or failure. Countries' policies to support development of the internet are therefore potentially very important for their development prospects.

Utenlandske investeringer er en viktig del av økonomien i mange land. Det gjelder også Norge, hvor utenlandskontrollerte foretak sysselsetter 21 prosent av arbeidstakerne i privat næringsliv. Samtidig vet vi at strømmene av investeringer internasjonalt er i endring, med vekst i aktiviteten fra stater som tidligere har investert lite utenlands. Det gjelder spesielt Kina, men også India, Russland og noen andre ikke-tradisjonelle investorland. I denne artikkelen studerer vi hvordan Norges posisjon som destinasjon for investeringer endrer seg. Vi diskuterer utviklingen i lys av etablerte teorier innen samfunnsøkonomi og statsvitenskap.
Abstract in English:Norway as a Destination for Foreign Investment: Trends and ExplanationsForeign investment is an important component of the economy of many countries. This is the case for Norway too, where foreign-controlled enterprises employ 21 percent of the workers in the (private) business sectors. We know that foreign investment flows are changing, with increased activity from countries that have traditionally invested little abroad. This is true for China, especially, but also for India, Russia, and some other non-traditional investor countries. In this article, we study how Norway's position as a destination for investment is changing. We discuss the developments in relation to established theories within economics and political science.

This study analyzes TTIP, its implications for Norway and Norway's trade policy choices. TTIP will hardly be concluded under Obama's presidency, but the agreement could become a reality within a few years. TTIP aims at comprehensive cooperation in the regulatory area. In the short term there will be limited harmonization of standards but regulatory cooperation between different systems. In the long term, the goal is stronger cooperation in the regulatory area. TTIP will from what we know not lead to a lowering of European health regulations or a "race to the bottom". If TTIP is realized and Norway remains outside, the EEA Agreement will be little affected and the overall economic impact is moderate. If Norway joins TTIP, there will be a significant real income gain, with estimates ranging from 2236 to 6772 NOK per capita in the various scenarios. There is considerable variation across sectors. With Norway outside TTIP there will be a moderate negative impact for a majority of the sectors, especially some manufacturing sectors that face tougher competition in the EU and USA export markets. The oil industry will benefit from increased demand and higher prices. If Norway joins TTIP, a clear majority of industries will benefit; especially business services and a number of other service industries. The public sector gains from TTIP, mainly due to cheaper inputs. TTIP will contribute to the dismantling of import protection for Norwegian agriculture and without compensating measures, production and employment will be reduced. TTIP will still allow some import protection and this margin of maneuver, which depends on future negotiations, is important for the outcome. With a larger margin of manoeuvre and unchanged budgetarty support, most of Norway's agriculture can be maintained. With less margin of manoeuvre, it will be more challenging. Norwegian accession to TTIP may occur in the form of a standard trade agreement in which Norway or EFTA are formally equal to the EU and the United States. Alternatively, Norway may participate in a European pillar as in today's "Open Skies" agreement on air traffic. If TTIP succeeds in establishing comprehensive regulatory cooperation, the latter solution is most likely. Such a solution implies that Norway will become more closely integrated with the European Union also in trade policy towards third countries. Norwegian entry into TTIP implies that we have to accept the established rules and negotiate bilaterally with the EU and the USA on market access. The negotiations with the USA will apply to all aspects of market access, while negotiations with the EU will apply only to areas in which the EEA agreement is not already deeper. The negotiations with the EU for TTIP entry will thus include, among other issues, tariffs for seafood and agriculture. As an alternative to membership in TTIP, Norway or EFTA may initiate a trade agreement with the USA. Such an agreement would likely be less extensive in the regulatory area. Such an agreement will also provide an economic gain for Norway, but less than accession to TTIP. For Norway as a whole, accession to TTIP creates a real income gain between 12.5 and 35 billion NOK according to various scenarios, while a free trade agreement with the United States results in a gain of about 7.4 billion NOK. TTIP also includes negotiations on so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), whereby foreign-owned companies can sue a state if they are unfairly or inappropriately treated. Such rights also exist in national law but international tribunals have to some extent extended the interpretation of what is considered unfair. The European Union has proposed a solution in TTIP with a permanent court as well as rules that discipline the interpretation of the principles, and thus avoids that ISDS unduly interferes into the states' "right to regulate". This and many other issues are analysed in this report and six background papers.