|UDC 339.543||DOI: https://doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2020(109)01|
Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor, Professor at the Department of World Economy, Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
19, Kyoto str., Kyiv, 02156, Ukraine
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Head of the Customs and Tariff Regulation Department of the Customs Payments Administration of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine
8, Lviv Square, Kyiv, 04053, Ukraine
CONTRADICTIONS OF TARIFF LIBERALIZATION IN THE CONDITIONS
Background. The excessive openness of domestic markets, as required by the World Trade Organization, poses additional threats to countries with weak economies. It causes the necessity to improve the mechanisms of liberalization of the conditions of foreign trade of the states, taking into account the tendencies of transformation of the world system of foreign trade relations.
Analysis of recent research and publications. In the scientific community, the recognition of neo-protectionism as the main tendency of formation of foreign trade relations of states in the modern geo-economic space is widespread. In such circumstances, the problem of ensuring a reasoned level of customs protection of national markets becomes particularly important.
The aim of the article is to improve the methodological tools for assessing the level of tariff liberalization of foreign trade of the state and its testing on the example of Ukraine’s foreign trade activity.
Materials and methods. In the process of research the methods of analysis and synthesis, the index method and the graphical modeling method are used. The research is based on scientific publications and materials of the World Trade Organization.
Results. The methodical approach to the estimation of the level of openness of foreign trade of the state based on calculation of absolute and relative coefficients of tariff liberalization by commodity sections of the foreign trade nomenclature is offered. The calculation of the proposed coefficients makes it possible to estimate the level of openness of the state's foreign trade by separate commodity sections of the foreign trade nomenclature, both in the context of compliance with the WTO requirements on related tariffs (absolute liberalization ratio) and in the dynamics compared with the previous period.
In order to assess the level of tariff liberalization of Ukraine’s foreign trade in accordance with the proposed approach, the calculation of absolute and relative coefficients of trade liberalization by commodity sections of UCGFEA in dynamics was calculated.
Conclusion. Overall, the level of tariff liberalization of Ukraine's foreign trade should be considered to be WTO-compliant and have the prospects of further simplification. Considering the spread of neo-protectionist tendencies in the foreign trade relations of the states, the necessity of the development of mechanisms of moderate and selective tariff liberalization of Ukraine's foreign trade is grounded.
Keywords: liberalization, foreign trade, tariff, neo-protectionism, coefficient of liberalization, foreign trade nomenclature.
- Dadush, U. Resurgent Protectionism: Risk and Possible Remedies. Rebuilding Global Trade: proposals for a fairer, more sustainable future. Retrieved from http://ictsd.net/downloads/2009/03/g20-web.pdf [in English].
- Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (n.d.). Is Good for the Poor. ideas.repec.org. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2587.html [in English].
- Choudhri, E. U., & Hakura, D. S. (n.d.). International Trade and Productivity Growth: Exploring the Sectoral Effects for Developing Countries. imf.org. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0017.pdf [in English]. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451843521.001
- Nugent, J. B. (n.d.). Trade liberalization: Winners and Losers, Success and Failures. uoit.ca. Retrieved from http://uoit.ca/sas/International%20Trade/ TradeWinnersLosers.pdf [in English].
- Panchenko, V. H., & Reznikova, N. V. (2016). Neoprotektsionizm yak instrument usunennia vnutrishnoi superechnosti liberalizmu [Neo-protectionism as a tool for eliminating the internal contradictions of liberalism]. Efektyvna ekonomika - An efficient economy. № 1. Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=5781 [in Ukrainian].
- Onyshchenko, V. P., & Hashchytskyi, O. A. (2014). Liberalizatsiia ta efektyvnist torhovelnoi polityky [Liberalization and effectiveness of trade policy]. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, pravo - Zovnishnja torgivlja: ekonomika, finansy, pravo, 1 (72). 5-13 [in Ukrainian].
- Demir, M., & Sepli, A. (2017). The Effects of Protectionist Policies on International Trade. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, (Vol. 3), 2, 136-158 [in English]. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.136158
- Park, S.-C. (2018). U. S. Protectionism and Trade Imbalance between the U.S. and Northeast Asian Countries. International Organisations Research Journal, (Vol. 13), 2, 76-100 [in English]. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-02-05
- Kaliuzhna, N. H. (2019). Mizhderzhavni torhovelni konflikty yak uosoblennia polityky neoprotektsionizmu. Problemy systemnoho pidkhodu v ekonomitsi [Interstate trade conflicts as a personification of the neo-protectionism policy. Problems of systematic approach in economy]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac'. Nacional'nyj aviacijnyj universytet - Collection of scientific works. National Aviation University, (Vol. 1 (69), part 1, (pp. 30-36) [in Ukrainian].
- Duhinets, H., & Pavlyshyna, K. (2019). Sanktsii u zovnishnii torhivli [Sanctions in foreign trade]. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, pravo - Foreign trade: economics, finance, law, 6 (107), 5-17 [in Ukrainian].
- Melnyk, T. M. (2009). Taryfne rehuliuvannia u konteksti chlenstva Ukrainy v SOT [Tariff regulation in the context of Ukraine's WTO membership]. Visnyk KNTEU - Visnyk KNTEU, 2, 5-11 [in Ukrainian].
- World Trade Organization. Statistics Database (n.d.). stat.wto.org Retrieved from http://stat.wto.org/TariffProfile/WSDBTariffPFView [in English].