Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Common external tariff

A common external tariff (CET) is a uniform duty levied by all member states of a on imports originating from non-member countries, ensuring that goods entering the union face identical external barriers regardless of the point of entry. This mechanism eliminates internal disparities that could otherwise distort flows within the while presenting a cohesive protective front against external competition. Essential to —which extend beyond areas by prohibiting members from negotiating independent external policies—the CET harmonizes quotas, preferences, and duties to prevent deflection, where low- members might serve as backdoors for non- goods. Prominent examples include the Union's Common Customs , which applies across its external borders and has evolved since the 1960s as part of the bloc's integration, initially involving a 20% in aligned national rates during the early phase. While enabling revenue generation and domestic industry protection, the CET can induce —shifting imports from more efficient global suppliers to less efficient -preferred sources due to the uniform barrier—potentially raising consumer costs and complicating global supply chains. Other implementations, such as the Economic Community of West African States () CET, illustrate its application in developing regions to foster regional cohesion amid varying national economic structures.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Mechanism

A common external tariff (CET) constitutes a unified of duties levied by member countries of a on imports from third countries outside the , ensuring identical protection levels across the bloc. This tariff replaces disparate national s, applying the same rates to specified goods regardless of the within the . The core mechanism of the CET operates within the framework of a , where internal barriers are eliminated among members, but external policy is harmonized to avert deflection. Without a CET, importers could route goods through the with the lowest pre-union , exploiting duty-free intra-union movement to access higher-protection markets, thereby eroding intended safeguards and distorting . By mandating uniform external duties, the CET channels imports through the economically optimal entry points—typically those with lowest transport costs—while preserving the union's power in negotiations and revenue pooling for common administration. Implementation involves negotiating tariff bands or rates, often derived from averages of members' prior schedules or optimized for and goals, with provisions for sensitive sectors via exceptions or phased adjustments. This structure fosters intra-union trade liberalization without external vulnerability, as evidenced in unions like the , where the CET includes common procedures and a single collection point to enforce . Empirical models indicate that CET design influences outcomes, with uniform rates minimizing dispersion to enhance efficiency, though heterogeneity in member import demands can complicate .

Theoretical Underpinnings and Economic Rationale

The theoretical foundations of the common external tariff (CET) within customs unions trace primarily to Jacob Viner's seminal 1950 analysis in The Customs Union Issue, which introduced the concepts of trade creation and trade diversion as mechanisms evaluating the welfare effects of preferential trade arrangements. Trade creation occurs when intra-union tariff elimination shifts production and consumption from higher-cost domestic suppliers to lower-cost partners, generating efficiency gains through specialization according to comparative advantage. Conversely, trade diversion arises when the CET induces a shift from more efficient non-member exporters (facing no or lower global tariffs) to less efficient member suppliers protected by the common barrier, potentially imposing net welfare losses unless offset by creation effects or terms-of-trade improvements. Viner's framework emphasized that customs unions deviate from nondiscriminatory free trade principles, rendering their desirability conditional on empirical specifics rather than theoretical optimality, with diversion risks heightened if the CET exceeds members' prior average tariffs. The economic rationale for adopting a CET centers on preserving the customs union's internal integrity by eliminating trade deflection, whereby imports from non-members would otherwise enter via the member with the lowest pre-union and circulate freely to higher- partners, undermining and collection. Uniform external tariffs simplify , obviating the need for complex required in areas, and enable leverage in multilateral negotiations, as a bloc's unified schedule amplifies against external suppliers. Proponents argue this structure fosters dynamic benefits, such as from enlarged markets and induced investment in union-wide industries, provided the CET is calibrated—often as a -neutral of members' existing rates—to minimize while safeguarding sectors or fiscal needs in developing contexts. However, critics within the Vinerian tradition caution that CETs can entrench inefficiencies if set politically rather than optimally, diverting resources from global efficiency and complicating unilateral paths. Empirical assessments remain contingent on union , with net gains probable only where creation dominates diversion, as evidenced in post-1950 extensions incorporating general equilibrium effects.

ECOWAS Implementation

Historical Development

The (ECOWAS), established by on May 28, 1975, envisioned including a with a common external tariff (CET) as a foundational element for regional liberalization. The original protocol on a , signed in 1979, set an indicative timeline for establishment within 10 years from January 1, 1990, though progress stalled due to divergent national tariff regimes and limited intra-regional . The revised ECOWAS Treaty of 1993 reinforced commitments to a , prompting harmonization efforts, particularly aligning with the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), which adopted its own CET in 2000 featuring four tariff bands. Negotiations accelerated in the late 1990s and early 2000s, with heads of state fast-tracking the CET framework in 1999–2000, but implementation faced delays from member state resistance, especially Nigeria's protectionist policies on key sectors like and . After over a decade of consultations, heads of state adopted the CET on October 25, 2013, at a summit in , , establishing a five-band structure (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and a temporary 35% for sensitive products) based on the nomenclature, with 85 tariff lines at 0% for essentials. The CET entered into force on January 1, 2015, marking the formal launch of the , though full compliance varied, with initiating application on that date amid domestic adjustments. Subsequent revisions addressed evolving needs; in April 2022, updated the CET to a 2022–2026 version, incorporating amendments while retaining core bands to enhance enforcement and reduce incentives. This reflected ongoing efforts to revenue protection—tariffs averaging 12–15% regionally—with goals, despite persistent non-tariff barriers.

Tariff Bands and Structure

The Common External Tariff (CET) is organized into five ad valorem duty bands, uniformly applied to imports from third countries and classified using a 10-digit tariff nomenclature based on the (HS) 2012 revision. This structure, adopted by heads of state on 25 October 2013, covers approximately 5,899 tariff lines across member states, with an average applied rate of 12.3%. The bands differentiate goods by economic role, prioritizing low or zero duties on essentials and inputs while imposing higher rates on finished and sensitive products to support revenue, industrialization, and protection of local sectors.
BandRateDescriptionTariff Lines
00%Essential social goods (e.g., basic foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals vital for public welfare)85
15%Primary necessity goods, raw materials, and capital goods (to enable low-cost access for and )2,146
210% and inputs (supporting value-added without excessive protection)1,373
320%Final consumer and (to shield domestic markets from )2,165
435%Specific sensitive goods for (primarily agricultural products competing with local nascent industries, comprising a limited set to avoid broad distortion)130
Classification adheres strictly to HS headings, with no national deviations permitted post-customs union formation, though temporary supplementary measures like safeguards, anti-dumping, or anti-subsidy duties can apply to address surges or unfair practices. The 35% band, in particular, targets roughly 55% of agricultural lines in higher protections (20% or 35%), reflecting a policy to nurture regional and agro-processing amid import vulnerabilities. This graduated approach facilitates intra-ECOWAS while externalizing common barriers, though implementation varies by member state capacity in revenue collection and enforcement.

Phased Rollout and Key Milestones

The Common External Tariff (CET) was adopted by member states on October 25, 2013, establishing a unified structure with tariff bands of 0% for essential social goods, 5% for raw materials, 10% for intermediate products, and 20% for final consumption goods. This adoption followed prolonged negotiations to extend the existing UEMOA CET, operational since 2000, across the broader region comprising 15 countries. Implementation commenced on January 1, 2015, initiating the core rollout phase, during which UEMOA's eight francophone members—Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo—aligned seamlessly with minimal disruption due to prior harmonization. Non-UEMOA states, including anglophone and lusophone members like Nigeria, Ghana, and Cabo Verde, undertook transitional adjustments to replace disparate national tariffs, with flexibility granted for sensitive sectors to mitigate domestic economic shocks. By mid-2015, initial tariff handbooks aligned with the CET were issued in key economies such as Nigeria, facilitating progressive application over a multi-year horizon rather than uniform simultaneity. Key subsequent milestones included periodic reviews and updates to maintain relevance amid global trade nomenclature changes. In 2017, the CET entered a five-year validation period (2017–2021), during which compliance monitoring revealed variances in enforcement across members, prompting capacity-building efforts. A major advancement occurred in April 2021, when ECOWAS tariff experts convened in Abidjan to integrate Harmonized System (HS) 2022 amendments, standardizing classification for over 5,000 tariff lines. Nigeria, as the largest economy, fully transitioned to the revised 2022–2026 CET edition on April 1, 2022, covering approximately 5,899 tariff lines and emphasizing revenue protection for industrial goods. This staggered rollout, emphasizing transitional flexibilities rather than rigid deadlines, achieved tariff structure harmonization across all members by 2022, though non-tariff barrier reductions lagged. Ongoing adaptations, such as quinquennial reviews, underscore the CET's evolutionary to balance goals with national fiscal imperatives.

Economic Analysis

Projected Benefits from Integration

The implementation of a common external tariff (CET) in is projected to foster deeper by harmonizing external tariffs, thereby redirecting flows toward intra-regional suppliers and reducing reliance on extra-regional imports. Economic models anticipate a 5% increase in imports from within ECOWAS, accompanied by a modest 1% decline in total imports, as uniform tariffs eliminate competitive distortions from disparate national policies. This shift is expected to promote specialization based on comparative advantages, enhance for regional producers, and improve bargaining power in global negotiations, ultimately supporting broader goals of the (AfCFTA). In , the largest economy, simulations using the World Bank's Tariff Reform Impact Simulation Tool (TRIST) project significant gains for consumers and producers upon full CET , including the removal of bans and special levies. Household consumption bundle prices are forecasted to fall by approximately 2.4%, driven by lower input costs, benefiting 60-75% of firms and enabling exporters to access a unified regional of over 400 million consumers. Imports overall are expected to rise by 3-5%, with opportunities concentrated in food and beverage sectors, fostering job creation and competitiveness despite initial fiscal adjustments from levy eliminations. Household projections further underscore these benefits, particularly in , where models indicate a net 6.9% increase, primarily from an 8.9% gain in expenditure due to pass-through reducing domestic prices. Poorer households are anticipated to experience disproportionately higher gains, as their higher shares of agricultural spending amplify benefits from lower , though rural areas may face offset losses in agricultural sales income. Across the region, these dynamics are modeled to yield marginal aggregate improvements and elevated producer profits in protected sectors, outweighing limited revenue shortfalls through formalized and enhancements.

Measured Impacts and Empirical Evidence

A gravity model analysis of intra-WAEMU trade flows post-2015 CET implementation reveals positive and statistically significant trade creation effects within WAEMU, with coefficients ranging from 2.085 to 2.191 (p<0.01), but mixed or insignificant results for broader , including a negative coefficient of -0.498 (p<0.01) in selection models, indicating no consistent enhancement of regional trade orientation or intensity. This suggests that while the CET has bolstered sub-regional integration in currency-union members, its impact on overall intra-trade remains unclear, potentially due to persistent non-tariff barriers and economic heterogeneity. Empirical data on intra-regional trade as a share of total show stagnation around 10-12% from 2015 to 2020, far below targets, with growth rates averaging under 5% annually despite CET harmonization. Ex-post econometric assessments in , a key economy, estimate net household welfare gains of 6.9% from CET-induced price changes, driven by 8.9% expenditure reductions outweighing 1.9% agricultural income losses, with a 74% pass-through to consumers favoring rural (16.3% gains) and lower-income households more than urban or affluent ones. Simulated scenarios for under full CET adoption (removing import bans and levies) project consumer price declines of 2.3-2.5%, import volume increases of 2.7-5.3%, and mixed producer outcomes where 60-75% of firms see profit gains from cheaper inputs, though textiles face losses. Fiscal effects vary: revenues could rise 10.3-13.8%, but total might fall 14.3-16.7% without compensatory levies, highlighting risks to import-dependent budgets. Sector-specific evidence, such as in , indicates CET bands (0-20%) reduce urban poverty more than rural but spur modest production and gains regionally, with improvements from lower consumption costs offset by import . Overall, while micro-level metrics show positives in adopting states like , macro-regional outcomes reflect limited aggregate growth acceleration, with ECOWAS GDP growth dipping below 3% in 2015-2016 before partial recovery, underscoring implementation gaps over structural reforms.

Challenges and Criticisms

Implementation Barriers

Implementation of the Common External Tariff (CET), endorsed in March 2013, has faced significant delays due to overlapping regional frameworks and slow harmonization efforts, with the of West Africa (UEMOA) advancing its own CET since 2006 while ECOWAS-wide adoption remains uneven. Member states exhibit divergent national tariff regimes, including extra levies and import bans—such as Nigeria's prohibitions on 24 product categories like textiles and food—which complicate alignment with the CET's four-band structure (0%, 5%, 10%, and 20-35%). These discrepancies stem from inadequate impact studies and conflicting interests, exemplified by the proposed 35% fifth band exceeding WTO bound rates in countries like (30%). Institutional capacity deficits exacerbate enforcement challenges, with lacking robust monitoring mechanisms and relying on goodwill, as the ECOWAS Court of holds no binding sanctions for non-compliance. administrations suffer from inefficiencies, ranking 146th out of 155 countries in the 2012 for customs processes, compounded by manual operations and under-resourced border controls that facilitate estimated at annually in alone. The CET Joint Management Committee (CCG) encounters operational hurdles, including missed deadlines, limited budgets restricting participation to two representatives per state, and exclusion of key stakeholders like sectoral ministries. Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) persist as a core impediment, with quantitative restrictions inflating product prices by nearly 50% and technical measures adding 1.2-1.7% per NTM, particularly in agro-food sectors; coordination of and technical barriers to trade (TBT) standards has harmonized only 27 ECOWAS-wide norms. Policy incoherence arises from non-recognition of certificates of origin across sub-regions and retained national taxes, such as Burkina Faso's 5% Degressive Protection Tax despite its 2006 abolition. Revenue concerns fuel resistance, as full CET adoption could reduce border by 14.3-16.7% in , prompting protective measures like surcharges and bans to safeguard domestic industries amid fears of job losses. Economic heterogeneity among members—Nigeria's market dominance versus least-developed countries—and linguistic divides (Anglophone vs. Francophone) hinder consensus, with Nigeria's internal distractions like prioritizing security over . Limited awareness of protocols like the ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation Scheme and weak national coordination bodies further stall rollout, as governments repeatedly extend deadlines due to non-implementation of directives. These barriers collectively undermine the CET's goal of uniform external tariffs, perpetuating fragmented trade regimes despite potential gains from regulatory convergence, estimated to boost intra- trade by 15% and incomes by US$300 million annually if addressed.

Economic and Distributional Costs

The implementation of a common external (CET) in imposes economic costs through deadweight losses associated with protectionist barriers, which elevate prices above competitive world levels and distort resource allocation across member states. The CET's structure, featuring bands up to 20% (or higher for sensitive items), reduces volumes of tariffed goods, curtailing and fostering inefficiencies in protected domestic industries via reduced competitive pressures. In , partial CET scenarios retaining bans and extra levies have been projected to raise the overall price basket by up to 0.7%, exacerbating these distortions despite net reductions in other areas. Fiscal costs arise from diminished tariff revenue flexibility and enforcement challenges, as harmonized rates prevent country-specific adjustments to revenue needs. simulations for indicate that full CET adoption, including removal of quantitative restrictions, could reduce total revenues by 14.3% to 16.7%, even as ad valorem collections rise modestly by 10.3% to 13.8%; this equates to a small but notable 3.7% of overall at risk. Porous s and uneven implementation have amplified , particularly for high- items like and textiles, eroding potential collections and straining resources across the region. Sectoral adjustment burdens further compound economic costs, with import-competing industries facing profitability erosion under CET . In 's textile and apparel sector, approximately 33% of firms—accounting for 28% of employment—experience profit declines, while 8% may become unprofitable, necessitating worker reallocation and potential spikes in affected areas like Akwa Ibom and Benue states. Agricultural producers similarly incur income losses from heightened import competition, estimated at 1.9% nationally in due to pass-through rates of 73-99% near ports, diminishing local sales and amid poor that limits consumption benefits. Distributionally, CET effects are regressive in protected segments, disproportionately burdening lower-income consumers reliant on tariffed final goods while favoring owners in shielded industries. Although overall household gains have been documented in (driven by cheaper agricultural imports), rural producers and port-proximate farmers suffer amplified losses from and price undercutting, with pass-through falling to just 11% at 100 km inland due to transport frictions. In , self-employed farming households register net declines under CET, highlighting vulnerabilities for export-oriented or informal rural groups unable to capitalize on intra-regional gains. These disparities underscore how CET rigidity can exacerbate by privileging urban consumers and industrial lobbies over dispersed agricultural stakeholders.

Sovereignty and Political Objections

The adoption of the Common External Tariff (CET) necessitates that member states relinquish individual authority over external trade barriers, harmonizing duties on non-regional imports into five bands (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 35%) to foster a , which inherently curtails national in tariff-setting to protect domestic priorities such as infant industries or revenue generation. This supranational framework, formalized in 2015, compels alignment with regional decisions, often conflicting with divergent national industrial policies; for instance, non-UEMOA states like negotiated an elevated 35% band for 130 "specific goods for " after resisting the initial 20% cap, underscoring tensions between regional uniformity and policy autonomy. Political resistance has manifested prominently in , the region's largest economy, where the Senate on November 29, 2016, passed a resolution urging suspension of both the CET and the Trade Liberalisation Scheme (ETLS), citing breaches of protocols that allegedly sabotaged local through unchecked imports of substandard goods, leading to job losses and factory closures. Proponents of suspension argued that the CET exposed Nigeria's weak industrial base to dumping from better-prepared neighbors, prioritizing over national economic safeguards despite Nigeria's pre-CET tariffs reaching 50-100% on sensitive items like . Similar objections arose during CET design negotiations, with disputes over tariff classifications—such as medicines deemed "" for versus "strategic" for local production—revealing ideological clashes between and . Implementation challenges have perpetuated these objections, as evidenced by the 2022 rollout of the updated CET (2022-2026) in , which prompted stakeholder backlash from groups like the Association of Nigeria Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA), decrying inconsistent levies (e.g., 15-20% on vehicles) as highhanded and detrimental to interests without adequate consultation. To mitigate sovereignty erosion, the CET permits temporary divergences on up to 3% of tariff lines ( lists of sensitive products), allowing limited retention of higher duties, though this flexibility has not quelled broader critiques of enforced . Recent political fractures, including the January 2024 withdrawal announcements by , , and from —citing supranational overreach—exemplify escalating objections, as these states seek to reclaim unilateral control over policies, including tariffs, free from CET constraints and enabling independent revenue measures like their imposed 0.5% on ECOWAS imports by April 2025. This defection highlights a causal tension: while CET aims to bolster power, it risks alienating members prioritizing sovereign fiscal tools amid domestic instability, potentially fragmenting the union's architecture.

Recent Developments

Tariff Updates and AfCFTA Alignment

State parties to the (AfCFTA) have advanced the submission of provisional tariff concession schedules, with 46 offers recorded by February 2024, detailing phased reductions to zero duty on 90% of tariff lines over five to ten years depending on development status. These schedules, uploaded via the AfCFTA Trade in Goods online portal, support intra-African liberalization while preserving individual external regimes, as the agreement operates as a rather than a . In December 2024, the AfCFTA Secretariat updated the e-Tariff Book, an online tool displaying applicable rates and for tariff lines between member states, facilitating compliance and reducing non-tariff barriers. This enhancement aligns with ongoing negotiations, where 82% of have been concluded, though full operationalization remains pending for many lines. By May 2025, updated guidelines emphasized annual cuts to meet the 90% liberalization target, with exclusions limited to 3% of sensitive products and 7% for infant industries. Country-specific implementations illustrate progress: Ethiopia's tariff schedule, approved by African Union heads of state in February 2024, was gazetted in August 2025 under Council of Ministers Regulation No. 574/2025, categorizing goods into immediate zero-duty (Category A, 60% of lines), phased reductions (Category B, 30%), and exclusions (Category C, 10%). Similarly, the (EAC) gazetted its provisional schedule in September 2022, integrating with its existing common external tariff structure of up to 35% on non-EAC imports to minimize trade deflection risks. Alignment between AfCFTA schedules and regional economic community (REC) common external tariffs, such as those in the EAC or , involves compatibility measures to avoid distortions, including variable geometry provisions allowing deeper REC integrations to prevail where conflicting with AfCFTA rules. However, discrepancies persist, as REC CETs vary (e.g., 0-20% bands in some versus AfCFTA's internal zeroing), prompting negotiations for harmonization to support eventual aspirations without a unified continental CET. Despite 47 ratifications by September 2024, effective alignment is constrained by incomplete tariff offers (41 submitted) and limited guided trade under the agreement since January 2021.

Effects of Regional Political Tensions

Regional political tensions, particularly in , have disrupted the uniform application of the AfCFTA's common external (CET) by prompting unilateral measures and border restrictions that contradict the agreement's goal of harmonized external trade policies. In early 2025, the (AES)—comprising junta-led , , and —imposed a 0.5% levy on imports from () members, escalating a rift stemming from the 2023 coups and subsequent AES withdrawal from ECOWAS. This action, intended to bolster intra-AES economic ties, risks fragmenting regimes across the region, as it deviates from AfCFTA's phased CET rollout adopted in 2022, which aims for five bands (0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, and over 30%) applied consistently by all 54 signatories. Such tensions exacerbate non-tariff barriers, including border closures and security disruptions, which hinder the CET's effectiveness in facilitating intra-African . The 2023 Niger coup, for instance, led to ECOWAS sanctions and temporary border shutdowns with neighbors, interrupting supply chains critical for CET-dependent exports like agricultural goods and minerals. Political instability in the Sahel has displaced over 3.2 million people since 2023, damaging and reducing cross-border volumes by fostering along key routes, thereby delaying CET verification and implementation timelines originally set for full operationalization by 2023-2025. Broader intra-state conflicts, such as Sudan's since April 2023, compound these effects by diverting resources from CET negotiations and enforcement, with affected states prioritizing domestic security over regional tariff alignment. This has slowed progress on AfCFTA protocols, including verification needed to prevent tariff evasion, as evidenced by stalled guided trade initiatives in conflict-prone zones. Analysts note that these tensions foster policy inconsistencies, potentially reversing intra-regional trade gains projected under CET, such as the anticipated 81% boost in continental exports.

References

  1. [1]
    Customs Union - Definition, Purpose, Advantages and Disadvantages
    Unlike in free trade agreements, a common external tariff is imposed on non-members of the union. When countries outside the union trade with countries in the ...What is a Customs Union? · Disadvantages of Customs...
  2. [2]
    Common external tariff: definition
    A common external tariff refers to the duty imposed on goods imported from non-member countries into a common market, customs union, or free trade area.
  3. [3]
    ECOWAS Common External Tariff (CET)
    Common External Tariff (CET) is a key feature of a Customs Union. CET is the application of the same customs duties, import quotas and preferences by a ...
  4. [4]
    Customs Tariff - Taxation and Customs Union - European Commission
    The 'Common Customs Tariff' (CCT) therefore applies to the import of goods across the external borders of the EU. The tariff is common to all EU members.
  5. [5]
    The EEC and GATT - Historical events in the European integration ...
    In 1960, the EEC therefore decided to reduce by 20 % its common external tariff on which the Six were to align their national tariffs.
  6. [6]
    Customs union | Institute for Government
    May 9, 2019 · Each has a common external tariff which covers the majority of trade, but most have exceptions. For example, where the EU's customs union covers ...
  7. [7]
    International Trade with Dr. Sanjay Paul - My E-town
    1. Forms of economic integration · No tariffs among members · Common external tariff toward non-members. Prevents trans-shipments by non-members.Missing: explanation | Show results with:explanation
  8. [8]
    Explainer: customs unions - UK in a changing Europe
    Feb 5, 2025 · It also establishes a 'common external tariff', meaning all members apply the same tariff to some or all goods imported from countries outside ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Common External Tariff Choice in Core Customs Unions
    May 1, 2025 · Customs unions are effectively trade policy contracts in which member countries commit to: (i) preferential tariff rates on intra-union trade, ( ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] PROCESS OF THE CUSTOMS UNION
    A common external customs tariff (CET). ii. Common customs regulations and procedures. iii. Single entry point where customs duties are collected. iv.
  11. [11]
    [PDF] On the optimality of Common External Tariffs in Africa - AgEcon Search
    We study the determination of a common external tariff by the East African Community (EAC). We use trade and tariff data at the HS6 level and a multi-sector ...
  12. [12]
    The Mainstream from Viner to the JCM Proposition - Oxford Academic
    This chapter deals with mainstream customs union theory. The central concepts are Jacob Viner's trade creation and trade diversion. Viner's analysis is ...
  13. [13]
    The assumptions of Jacob Viner's theory of customs unions
    The paper starts by presenting a method for the decomposition of the impact of a customs union into the familiar trade-diversion, trade-creation and consumption ...
  14. [14]
    The Theory of Customs Unions: Trade Diversion and Welfare - jstor
    Professor Viner goes on to conclude that, in some sense, trade creation may be said to be a ' good thing' and trade diversion a ' bad thing '*2. When a ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Reading Jacob Viner's The Customs Union Issue Paul Oslington
    He identified Viner as the pioneer of customs unions theory and developer of the concepts of trade creation and diversion. The subsequent literature was a ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] free trade agreements - versus customs unions
    Until NAFTA, analyses of preferential trading arrangements began by assuming a customs union with a common external tariff, and the differences between customs ...
  17. [17]
    Rules for the disposition of tariff revenues and the determination of ...
    This paper is about the determination of common external tariffs (CETs) in customs unions (CUs). We first examine how the relationship between preferences ...Missing: underpinnings | Show results with:underpinnings
  18. [18]
    What Do Trade Agreements Really Do? - Harvard University
    Free Trade versus Free Trade Agreements​​ Basic trade theory suggests that free trade is the optimal policy for an economy, provided compensatory policies can be ...
  19. [19]
    The common external tariff of a customs union: Alternative approaches
    Taking off from the work of Kemp and Wan who showed the existence of a common external tariff of CU that keeps the welfare of non-members unchanged while ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
    ECOWAS established its free trade area in 1990 and adopted a common external tariff in January 2015. In September 2016, USTR hosted ECOWAS officials for the ...
  21. [21]
    ECOWAS - tralac trade law centre
    The indicative timeline for the establishment of a Customs Union among the Member States was a period of 10 years with effect from 1 January 1990. While a Free ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
  22. [22]
    Initial Reflections on the ECOWAS Common External Tariff - ECDPM
    Nov 27, 2013 · Originally foreseen in 1975, and “fast tracked” in 1999 and 2000 by ECOWAS Heads of States and Governments, the CET is the next echelon on the ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Focus on the ECOWAS Common External Tariff - ECDPM
    Jan 1, 2014 · With the advent of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff (CET) starting in January 2015, 25 years after initially foreseen in the original 1975 ...
  24. [24]
    Publication: Implementing the ECOWAS Common External Tariff
    The common external tariff (CET) for Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was adopted at a Heads of State Summit in October 2013 in Dakar.
  25. [25]
    Nigeria - Import Tariffs - International Trade Administration
    Sep 5, 2025 · Nigeria began the implementation of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Common External Tariffs (CET) on January 1, 2015.
  26. [26]
    2021) to the new version (2022- 2026). This is in-line with WCO five ...
    Apr 11, 2022 · 11 Apr 2022 PRESS RELEASE ECOWAS COMMON EXTERNAL TARIFF (2022-2026) On Friday the 1st of April 2022, the Nigeria Customs Service migrated ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] WT/TPR/S/362 • WAEMU member countries - 6
    ... ECOWAS CET has a fifth band at a rate of 35% applicable to. 130 tariff lines. The average rate of the ECOWAS CET is 12.3%, compared to 12.1% for the. WAEMU CET.<|control11|><|separator|>
  28. [28]
    [PDF] ecowas common external tariff (cet) - Nigeria Customs Service
    ADOPTION OF A COMMON. NOMENCLATURE. WHILE THE FIRST SIX DIGITS ARE COMMON FOR. ALL WORLD COUNTRIES ADOPTING THE. HARMONISE SYSTEM NOMENCLATURE. 870324XXXX.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] RESTRICTED WT/TPR/G/427 17 May 2022 (22-3769) Page
    May 17, 2022 · Ghana has now adopted the Economic Community of. West African States (ECOWAS) Common External Tariff (CET) which has a five-band tariff ...
  30. [30]
    ECOWAS moves forward with implementation of HS 2022 ...
    Apr 21, 2021 · The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) held a regional meeting of tariff experts, from 12 to 16 April 2021 in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.Missing: phased timeline milestones
  31. [31]
    ECOWAS unveils 2022-2026 Common External Tariff (CET) edition
    The Nigeria Customs Service, NCS on Friday the 1st of April 2022, migrated from the old version of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff (2017- 2021) to the new ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Assessing the economic impact of the ECOWAS CET and economic ...
    The CET is predicted to contribute to regional integration by increasing imports from within the region and reducing those from outside the region. Imports ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Implementing the ECOWAS Common External Tariff
    ... bands under the ECOWAS common external tariff (CET), with rates ranging from 0 to 35 percent. The current trade weighted collected tariff rate is 10.5 percent, ...
  34. [34]
    Publication: Benefits of the ECOWAS CET and EPA Will Outweigh ...
    Overall, full implementation of the CET and EPA in Nigeria would result in limited fiscal losses, marginal welfare gains for consumers and higher profits for a ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] The welfare impact in Nigeria of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff
    The results show that the ECOWAS CET has net positive effects on household welfare, mainly due to the gains from the expenditure basket.
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Effects of the Common External Tariff on intra-regional trade
    The study analyzes the effects of common external tariffs on intra-WAEMU trade, finding that lack of economic diversification weakens trade. The study also ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] The Impact of Common External Tariffs on Household's Welfare in a ...
    The. ECOWAS CET had net positive effects on the welfare of households, largely due to the gains from the expenditure basket. The expenditure gains from the ...
  38. [38]
    (PDF) Impact of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff on the Rice ...
    This CET will have various effects on the regional rice economies. Urban poverty was more pronounced than rural poverty and intra-regional trade experienced a ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Political and Economic Constraints to the ECOWAS Regional ...
    The focus of this section is on the constraints and barriers to implementing economic integration and trade reform processes within the ECOWAS region that have ...Missing: obstacles | Show results with:obstacles
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Study on the coherence of trade policies in West Africa - Gret
    o The lack of ex ante and ex post impact studies on implementing CET; o The lack of overall vision at both the national and regional levels; o The weakness of ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Regional Integration and Non-Tariff Measures in the Economic ...
    January 2015 of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff. (CET). Historically, ECOWAS has grappled with the challenges of coordination of national non-tariff policy.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Common External Tariff and Household Welfare in Nigeria
    The results also show that for self-employed farmers, ECOWAS-CET negatively affects welfare of consumer households in Togo.
  43. [43]
    Senate Urges Federal Government To Suspend Ecowas Trade ...
    The Senate has urged the Federal Government to suspend the ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS) and ECOWAS Common External Tariffs (CET) which Nigeria ...
  44. [44]
    Senate Asks FG to Suspend Trade Liberalisation Scheme with ...
    Nov 30, 2016 · The Senate yesterday advised the federal government to suspend its trade liberalisation scheme and common external tariffs with the Economic ...
  45. [45]
    Row over ECOWAS Common External Tariff - The Nation Newspaper
    May 3, 2022 · The Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) dumped the old version of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff (CET 2017- 2021) to the new one (2022- 2026).
  46. [46]
    Breaking Up with ECOWAS - CSIS
    Feb 8, 2024 · The withdrawal itself was promoted by ECOWAS that has ostracized those countries. Those countries have to unite to work for themselves.
  47. [47]
    Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger impose 0.5% tariffs on Ecowas imports
    Apr 1, 2025 · Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger Military juntas have introduced a 0.5% levy on imported goods from ECOWAS member nations including Nigeria, adding ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Sovereignty Versus Supranationality: The ECOWAS Conundrum
    The goal is to get the Member States to introduce the regional mechanism for a Customs Union and Common External Tariff into the budgetary and fiscal policy ...
  49. [49]
    African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Legal Texts and ...
    As at February 2024, 46 tariff offers on trade in goods have been submitted by individual State Parties (Egypt, Mauritius, and São Tomé and Príncipe) and ...
  50. [50]
    African Continental Free Trade Agreement - Market Access Map
    Members are initially required to remove tariffs from 90% of goods per AfCFTA Tariff Modalities , eventually allowing free access to at least 97% of goods and ...Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024
  51. [51]
    The African Continental Free Trade Area
    This will be supported by the AfCFTA Trade in Goods online portal where Member States will upload their tariff offers covering 90% of the tariff lines.
  52. [52]
    Update of the AfCFTA e-Tariff Book provides essential trade ...
    Dec 3, 2024 · The AfCFTA e-Tariff Book effectively displays applicable tariff rates and RoO for any tariff line between AfCFTA member states, making it ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Current Status of the AfCFTA Implementation
    54/55 signatories, 36 state parties, 41 tariff offers, 34 service offers, 82% of Rules of Origin concluded, and trading started on 1 January 2021.
  54. [54]
    [PDF] African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) - TRALAC
    Tariff schedules must specify. Page 10. AfCFTA FAQ | Updated May 2025. 10 the annual tariff cuts to achieve zero rates of duty on 90% of tariff lines within the ...
  55. [55]
    Ethiopia Implements AfCFTA Tariff Concessions - Afriwise
    In fact, the AU heads of state approved Ethiopia's tariff schedule in February 2024, which clarified how Ethiopia would categorize its imports and phase out ...
  56. [56]
    EAC gazettes Provisional AfCFTA Schedule of Tariff Concessions
    The East African Community (EAC) has published in the EAC Gazette of 6 September 2022 the Legal Notice No. 321/2022 containing the Provisional Schedule of ...
  57. [57]
    East African Community trade rises 22% in 2024, topping $11bn
    Sep 30, 2025 · To further boost regional trade, the EAC has adopted a 35% common external tariff, now applied to all goods imported into the bloc. In 2022, ...
  58. [58]
    AfCFTA Update November 2024 - International Trade Administration
    Nov 1, 2024 · The summer and fall of 2024 saw several important milestones in Africa's regional economic integration via the African Continental Free ...
  59. [59]
    Significant Progress on AfCFTA Implementation Highlighted at the ...
    Sep 19, 2024 · With 54 countries having signed the agreement and 47 already ratified, the momentum for implementation is strong. The AfCFTA represents ...
  60. [60]
    Status of AfCFTA Ratification - tralac trade law centre
    Aug 13, 2024 · Start of trading under the AfCFTA Agreement began on 1 January 2021, however, no trade has as yet taken place under the AfCFTA regime.
  61. [61]
    Fresh setback for AfCFTA, ECOWAS protocol over tariff by Sahel ...
    Apr 1, 2025 · The emerging tariff war in the sub-region, experts fear, could reverse the resurging trend and changing pattern of trade in the zone with ...
  62. [62]
    Sahel bloc's import tariff on ECOWAS threatens West Africa trade ...
    Apr 1, 2025 · The Alliance of Sahel States (AES), comprising the junta-led nations of Mali, Niger Republic, and Burkina Faso, has introduced a 0.5 percent levy on imported ...Missing: rollout | Show results with:rollout
  63. [63]
    Wars in Africa are bad for the AfCFTA - tralac trade law centre
    Aug 13, 2023 · The recent coup in Niger serves as a stark reminder of how fragile the African trade and integration environment often is. Some borders with ...
  64. [64]
    Political Instability, Intra-state Conflicts, And Threats To AfCFTA ...
    Dec 15, 2023 · An additional 3.2 million Africans have been displaced due to conflict over the past year. This is impacting Africa's intra-trade potential.
  65. [65]
    'Political instability threatens AfCFTA implementation' | bilaterals.org
    Aug 9, 2024 · Political instability and policy inconsistencies, among others, constitute barriers that threaten the success of the African Continental Free Trade Area Trade ...Missing: CET | Show results with:CET
  66. [66]
    AfCFTA and Economic Integration in Africa - RSIS International
    Oct 4, 2024 · This political instability is a contributory factor to the slowing down of meaningful progress on the negotiations on protocols relating to ...
  67. [67]
    Africa's economic integration is threatened by political feuds and ...
    Jul 19, 2024 · Infrastructure deficits, weak institutions, political instability, and the difficulty of transacting in 42 different currencies have all held up ...Missing: impacting CET
  68. [68]
    'We are on our own'- Africa looks within to weather growing global ...
    Jul 18, 2025 · The World Bank estimates AfCFTA could increase Africa's intra-continental exports by 81% and proponents point to last year's 12.4% boost in ...<|control11|><|separator|>