Which Countries Have Free Trade Agreement With Pakistan
The authors explain that they have no competing interests. We enshrine the free trade agreement as the fourth critical variable, as it appears to be an alternative to trade restrictions and therefore has a positive impact on exports and imports. The trade agreement is seen as one of the best ways to open up foreign markets and remove barriers between countries. Liberalisation, trade facilitation and the improvement of the free trade agreement are more important measures to facilitate trade among members, including the abolition of tariffs (Okabe 2015). However, the free trade agreement regulates tariffs and other trade restrictions between two or more countries. Disdier AC, Fontagné L, Mimouni M (2008) The impact of regulation on agricultural trade: evidence from the SPS and TBT agreements. At J Agric Econ 90 (2): 336-350 Although more and more countries are embracing the idea of free trade, protectionism has recovered in the wake of the 1929 economic crisis and remains a reality today. Over time, the principle of learning through practice, national security or unfair competition has also been proposed to justify the use of protectionism. Liberalisation (free trade policy) and protectionism are two fundamental instruments for governments to control international trade, i.e. two different types of foreign trade policy.
Free trade policy is the minimum of state intervention in foreign trade, developed by the free forces of supply and demand, while protectionism provides for the protection of the internal market from international competition through the use of tariff and non-tariff instruments. Protectionism according to Nicita et al. (2013) refers to the government`s measure to promote local industry in the face of international competition. Baldwin (1970) defines as any measure (public or private) that leads to the allocation of internationally negotiated goods and services or to the production of those goods and services, in order to reduce potential real incomes. These two categories of trade policy are country-specific and reflect the extent of state intervention in international trade, while the market is, within the framework of liberalization policy, an essential regulatory authority for foreign trade, with protectionism virtually excluding the free functioning of market forces. In this study, we examined trade flows between Pakistan and its major trading partners. In 1995, Pakistan had a negative trade balance of $664 million. In 2017, Pakistan`s main export destinations are the United States ($3.56 billion), the United Kingdom ($1.63 billion), China (1.50 billion euros). USD, Germany ($1.28 billion) and Spain ($0.9 billion) and the countries of origin are China ($16.89 billion), the United Arab Emirates ($8.39 billion), the United States ($6.40 billion), Saudi Arabia ($3.06 billion) and Japan ($2.51 billion). The results of Tables 3 and 4 on trade policy variables indicate that the signs of coefficients are opposite in both models. In other words, if the coefficient is positive in one, it is negative in the other, and if it is significant in one, in the other, it is not. The results of this study on the impact of non-tariff barriers on Pakistani trade flows are mixed.
A positive influence of the NTB on high-income countries shows that high-income countries generally protect themselves against high-income countries. Developing countries are also increasingly protecting themselves from each other, so the NTB has a negative impact on Pakistan`s trade with Gulf countries and Asian countries such as Bangladesh and Afghanistan. This calls into question previous studies that claim that NTB has a negative impact on trade flows (Disdier et al. 2008). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any media, provided it provides recognition