Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Spaghetti bowl effect

The spaghetti bowl effect refers to the proliferation of overlapping preferential trade agreements (PTAs) or free trade agreements (FTAs) that generate a tangled array of discriminatory tariffs, rules of origin, and regulatory requirements, complicating compliance for exporters and importers while fostering trade diversion over creation.^[1]^[2] Coined by economist Jagdish Bhagwati in 1995 amid the surge in bilateral and regional deals bypassing multilateral World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, the phenomenon arises from PTAs granting preferential access to select partners, which cumulate into discriminatory barriers against non-members and administrative hurdles in verifying product origins across multiple accords.^[3]^[4] This complexity elevates transaction costs for firms, particularly in supply chains spanning multiple PTA jurisdictions, as evidenced by empirical analyses showing reduced utilization of preferences due to onerous documentation and cumulation rules.^[5]^[6] Notable manifestations include the "noodle bowl" variant in East Asia, where dense intra-regional FTAs—such as those involving ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea—exacerbate origin verification challenges in fragmented production networks, though some studies find the distortive impacts moderated by firms' adaptive sourcing strategies.^[7] Critics argue the effect undermines the WTO's non-discriminatory principles under GATT Article XXIV, diverting resources from global liberalization toward hub-and-spoke bilateralism that favors powerful economies, with evidence from gravity models indicating preferential margins erode under overlap.^[8]^[9] Proponents of PTAs counter that they serve as building blocks for broader integration, yet empirical work reveals persistent trade costs, including higher local input shares mandated by stringent rules to meet multiple PTA criteria, highlighting causal frictions in global value chains.^[10]^[11] Efforts to mitigate the bowl, such as harmonizing rules via mega-regionals like the CPTPP or RCEP, aim to simplify cumulation but face political hurdles in reconciling divergent national interests.^[12]

Definition and Conceptual Origins

Core Definition and Terminology

The spaghetti bowl effect describes the proliferation and overlap of preferential trade agreements (PTAs), which create a complex web of discriminatory tariffs and non-tariff measures, complicating trade flows and increasing administrative costs for businesses. This phenomenon arises primarily from differing rules of origin (ROOs) across agreements, which determine whether a good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment by establishing its "nationality" based on criteria such as substantial transformation, percentage of local content, or specific processing operations.^[1]^[13] PTAs, including bilateral trade agreements (BTAs) and regional free trade agreements (FTAs), grant lower or zero tariffs to members relative to most-favored-nation (MFN) rates applied under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, but the absence of harmonized ROOs leads to verification challenges, potential trade diversion, and enforcement difficulties.^[14]^[15] Key terminology includes preferential tariffs, which are reduced duties extended selectively to PTA partners, contrasting with the non-discriminatory MFN principle that requires equal treatment for all WTO members unless exceptions like PTAs apply under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). ROOs serve as the "primary tangle," often employing methods like the value-added rule (requiring a minimum domestic content percentage, e.g., 40-60% in many FTAs) or change-in-tariff-classification (CTC) rule, where inputs must shift to a different tariff heading during processing to confer origin status.^[16]^[7] Cumulation provisions in some PTAs allow inputs from other PTA members to count toward origin requirements, mitigating but not eliminating overlap; however, non-cumulative ROOs exacerbate the "bowl" by restricting such flexibility.^[17] The term was coined by economist Jagdish Bhagwati in 1995 to critique the U.S. pursuit of FTAs, likening the resulting regulatory entanglement to strands of spaghetti in a bowl, where tracing product origins becomes arduous amid crisscrossing preferences. In regions with dense PTA networks, such as East Asia, the analogy extends to the "noodle bowl effect," highlighting similar complexities but adapted to local context.^[14] This effect underscores tensions between bilateral/regional liberalization and multilateral uniformity, as overlapping PTAs can undermine the simplicity of WTO MFN tariffs without achieving comprehensive free trade.^[18]

Historical Coinage and Early Usage

The term "spaghetti bowl effect" was coined by Indian-American economist Jagdish Bhagwati in 1995.^[1]^[19] In his discussion paper "U.S. Trade Policy: The Infatuation with Free Trade Agreements," Bhagwati used the metaphor to describe the proliferating network of bilateral and plurilateral preferential trade agreements (PTAs), whose disparate rules of origin (ROOs) and tariff preferences formed an impenetrable tangle, much like overlapping strands of spaghetti in a bowl.^[20]^[21] This critique targeted the United States' post-NAFTA (implemented January 1, 1994) enthusiasm for FTAs, which Bhagwati viewed as a distraction from multilateral liberalization under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), potentially raising compliance costs and fragmenting global trade rules.^[1]^[19] Bhagwati's coinage emerged amid a surge in PTAs: by 1995, over 50 such agreements were notified to GATT, up from fewer than 20 in 1990, with North American examples like the U.S.-Canada FTA (1989) illustrating early ROO complexities in sectors such as automobiles, where regional value content requirements varied across deals.^[19] He warned that hub-and-spoke arrangements—where a central economy like the U.S. forms multiple bilateral FTAs—exacerbated the effect by denying spokes preferential access to each other, distorting investment and supply chains.^[20]^[1] Initial adoption of the term in academic and policy discourse occurred in the late 1990s, as European integration (e.g., the 1995 establishment of the European Economic Area) and Asia-Pacific initiatives amplified PTA overlaps.^[19] By 2000, references appeared in analyses of how varying ROOs—such as those requiring 62.5% regional content for NAFTA apparel versus product-specific thresholds in U.S. bilaterals—imposed verification burdens estimated to add 2-8% to trade transaction costs in affected sectors.^[20] Bhagwati's framework influenced subsequent critiques, though proponents of PTAs countered that such complexities were transitional costs outweighed by liberalization gains in the absence of WTO progress.^[21]^[1]

Underlying Causes and Mechanisms

Proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements

The proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) since the early 1990s has been a primary driver of the spaghetti bowl effect, characterized by the exponential growth in bilateral and regional deals that create overlapping preferential networks. In 1990, only about 50 PTAs were in force globally, but this number surpassed 280 by 2017, reflecting a surge in both quantity and scope. By April 2019, the World Trade Organization (WTO) had recorded 294 notified active PTAs, with every WTO member participating in at least one. This expansion accelerated post-Uruguay Round, as countries pursued PTAs under GATT Article XXIV exceptions to non-discrimination rules, bypassing stalled multilateral negotiations like the Doha Development Agenda. Several factors underpin this proliferation. Multilateral liberalization slowed after the 1990s due to geopolitical tensions and domestic political resistance, prompting nations to seek discriminatory preferences through PTAs for faster market access and supply chain integration. Economic motivations included hedging against global uncertainties, such as U.S.-China trade frictions, and geopolitical strategies to align trading partners, leading to "mega-regionals" like the CPTPP and RCEP. Participation became ubiquitous: by 2010, the average WTO member was party to multiple PTAs, with coverage of world exports under free trade agreements rising from 23% in 2010 to 34% in 2020. This dense web of agreements fosters the spaghetti bowl by entangling trade flows in conflicting provisions. Overlapping memberships—where a country belongs to numerous PTAs with varying partners—require firms to comply with disparate rules of origin (ROOs), tariff schedules, and cumulation provisions, complicating eligibility for preferences. For instance, a product qualifying for duty-free treatment under one PTA may fail under another due to differing regional value content thresholds, incentivizing origin circumvention or higher compliance costs rather than efficient production. Empirical analyses indicate that such fragmentation undermines the uniformity of most-favored-nation (MFN) principles, with over 80% of global merchandise trade still occurring on MFN terms despite PTA growth, highlighting how proliferation distorts rather than supplements multilateral efficiency.

Rules of Origin as the Primary Tangle

Rules of origin (ROOs) constitute the core criteria in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) for determining whether a product qualifies for reduced or eliminated tariffs, thereby preventing non-signatories from exploiting preferences through simple transshipment or minimal processing.^[22] These rules typically include wholly obtained criteria for natural products, substantial transformation tests such as change in tariff classification (CTH) or regional value content (RVC) thresholds (often 35-60% local content), and product-specific processes, with variations tailored to sensitive sectors like textiles or automobiles.^[22] In a multilateral framework like the WTO, uniform most-favored-nation tariffs obviate the need for such discrimination, but PTAs demand ROOs to enforce selectivity, making them indispensable yet prone to proliferation-induced complexity.^[1] The primary tangle arises when multiple PTAs overlap for the same trading partners, imposing disparate ROO regimes that firms must navigate simultaneously, often yielding incompatible compliance paths for the same supply chain.^[23] For instance, bilateral cumulation—allowing inputs from only the direct PTA partner—clashes with diagonal cumulation across a network of agreements, forcing exporters to segregate production lines or forgo preferences to avoid certification failures.^[22] In the Americas, 24 overlapping PTAs among 19 countries since 1990 have generated 38 distinct ROO annexes, exacerbating verification burdens as customs authorities reconcile conflicting tariff schedules and origin proofs.^[23] This discord distorts input sourcing toward PTA-compliant origins rather than cost efficiency, amplifying administrative costs estimated to reduce PTA utilization rates, as seen in NAFTA's 64% preference uptake despite broad coverage.^[22] Empirical analysis underscores ROOs as the dominant friction, with restrictive, product-specific designs (e.g., NAFTA's 150-page protocol spanning 5,000 tariff lines) fostering inter-product dispersion that entrenches inefficiency in fragmented PTA landscapes.^[22] Unlike tariff liberalization alone, which expands trade volumes, mismatched ROOs induce "rules-of-origin spaghetti" that curbs PTA benefits by elevating compliance hurdles for small firms and intermediate goods flows, potentially diverting investment to single-PTA hubs like Mexico under NAFTA.^[22]^[1] Harmonization efforts, such as diagonal cumulation in select European PTAs, mitigate but rarely eliminate the tangle, as PTA negotiations prioritize lobby protections (e.g., U.S. auto sector safeguards post-1991) over simplification.^[22] Thus, ROOs not only enforce but embody the discriminatory essence of PTAs, rendering their heterogeneity the chief architect of the spaghetti bowl's administrative and allocative distortions.^[23]

Economic Impacts

Administrative and Compliance Costs

The proliferation of overlapping preferential trade agreements (PTAs) under the spaghetti bowl effect imposes substantial administrative and compliance burdens on exporters, importers, and customs authorities, primarily through the need to apply varying rules of origin (ROOs) across multiple regimes. Firms must track the nationality of inputs across supply chains to qualify for tariff preferences, often requiring separate certifications, documentation, and audits for each PTA, which differ in criteria such as regional value content thresholds or change-in-tariff-classification requirements. This complexity discourages utilization of preferences, with empirical studies indicating that non-compliance or simplified sourcing decisions reduce effective trade benefits.^[7]^[24] Quantitative assessments reveal these costs can significantly erode PTA advantages. For instance, a case study of an automotive supplier navigating multiple RTAs found administrative costs equivalent to 47% of the tariff preference margin under NAFTA, with overall compliance costs translating to approximately 6% in ad valorem terms, often offsetting average preferences of 4%.^[7] Broader empirical evidence from ROO regimes estimates compliance expenses for change-in-tariff-classification rules at around 3% of shipment value, while earlier analyses of bilateral FTAs peg administrative burdens for exporters at 1.4% to 5.7% of export value.^[25]^[26] In regions with dense PTA networks, such as East Asia's "noodle bowl," these costs compound due to non-harmonized ROOs, leading firms to forgo preferences or invest in costly software for origin tracking.^[27] Customs administrations face parallel challenges in verifying compliance, enforcing disparate ROOs, and resolving disputes over cumulation allowances, which strain resources and increase processing times. Governments incur elevated enforcement expenses, including training and IT systems to handle the "spaghetti bowl," potentially diverting focus from broader trade facilitation. Empirical models suggest these transaction costs can exceed direct tariff savings in fragmented PTA landscapes, undermining net welfare gains unless ROOs are streamlined or multilateralized.^[28]^[29]

Trade Distortion and Diversion Effects

The proliferation of overlapping preferential trade agreements (PTAs) under the spaghetti bowl effect distorts trade patterns by imposing heterogeneous rules of origin (ROOs) that prioritize compliance over economic efficiency, compelling firms to adjust supply chains in ways that deviate from natural comparative advantages.^[7] These ROOs, varying in stringency and criteria—such as local content thresholds or processing requirements—create barriers that favor intra-PTA sourcing even when extraregional suppliers offer lower costs or superior quality, thereby elevating production expenses and misallocating resources.^[22] For instance, a product qualifying for tariff preferences under one PTA's ROO may fail under another's due to differing regional value content rules, prompting exporters to reconfigure operations solely to navigate the regulatory tangle rather than optimize for productivity.^[30] Trade diversion is exacerbated as preferences incentivize shifts in import sourcing from efficient non-PTA partners to less competitive PTA members, with the spaghetti bowl's complexity further hindering preference utilization and amplifying these inefficiencies.^[31] In cases of partial overlap, firms may engage in trade deflection—routing goods through intermediate PTA countries to meet ROO cumulation provisions—bypassing more direct, cost-effective paths and distorting global value chains.^[32] Empirical estimates suggest compliance costs for ROOs range from 3% to 8% of shipment values, reducing the net benefits of PTAs and channeling trade toward agreements with laxer or more aligned rules, often at welfare costs to participating economies.^[32] Quantitative assessments confirm the distortive magnitude, with one analysis across 149 countries finding that ROOs diminish PTA-induced trade creation by roughly two-thirds, as administrative burdens and diversionary incentives offset tariff reductions. Another study on regional trade agreements reveals significant diversion effects, where the spaghetti bowl phenomenon correlates with reduced multilateral trade volumes, as bilateral preferences fragment markets and prioritize discriminatory access over global efficiency.^[33] These findings hold across regions, with evidence from computable general equilibrium models indicating resource reallocation toward PTA-compliant sectors, yielding net welfare losses from heightened uncertainty and foregone gains from undistorted trade.^[22]

Potential Benefits and Countervailing Forces

Proponents argue that the proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) underlying the spaghetti bowl effect can generate net economic gains through expanded market access and reduced input costs, with empirical surveys indicating that utilizing firms often perceive these advantages as surpassing administrative burdens from disparate rules of origin (ROOs).^[5] In East Asia, a 2007–2008 Asian Development Bank survey of 841 manufacturing firms found that 28% actively used FTA preferences, citing primary benefits in broader export opportunities and lower tariffs on imported intermediates, while only 20% viewed ROO compliance as a major cost impediment.^[5] This contributed to intraregional trade rising from 30% of total trade in 1980 to 54% by 2007, suggesting that PTA-driven integration fosters supply chain efficiencies despite ROO tangles.^[5] From a political economy perspective, the spaghetti bowl may function as a "building block" toward multilateral liberalization by cultivating domestic constituencies for trade openness that bilateral and regional deals politically sustain, potentially paving pathways to global free trade where stalled WTO rounds falter.^[34] Theoretical models and case studies, such as Canada's experience under NAFTA, demonstrate that PTA-induced trade creation can dominate diversion effects, yielding positive net welfare outcomes through reallocation toward comparative advantages.^[35] Countervailing forces include ROO harmonization efforts, such as diagonal cumulation provisions allowing inputs from multiple PTA partners to qualify for preferences, which mitigate strict origin requirements and reduce compliance friction across overlapping agreements.^[23] Mega-regional PTAs like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed in November 2020 and entering force for key members by 2022, address the bowl effect by consolidating disparate bilateral FTAs into unified ROO frameworks—standardizing product-specific rules into fewer categories and promoting regional value content thresholds—thereby streamlining certification and diminishing inconsistencies that previously entangled Asian supply chains.^[36] Similarly, proposals for WTO-led harmonization of preferential ROOs aim to curb discriminatory incentives by aligning criteria across PTAs, though progress remains limited by member state reluctance to relinquish negotiation leverage.^[37] Over time, empirical convergence in ROO stringency across agreements has been observed, driven by exporter pressures for simplification to unlock PTA utilization rates, which hovered below 30% in many developing Asian economies pre-RCEP due to bowl-induced complexity.^[23]

Regional Examples and Variations

The Noodle Bowl Effect in East Asia

The noodle bowl effect in East Asia emerged prominently from the surge in regional trade agreements (RTAs) following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, as countries pursued preferential liberalization amid stalled multilateral progress at the WTO. By 2008, East Asian economies had concluded over 50 RTAs, many overlapping, including the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA, established 1992 with tariff reductions accelerating post-2003), ASEAN+China (effective 2005 for goods), ASEAN+Japan (2008), and ASEAN+South Korea (2007), alongside bilaterals such as Japan-Singapore (2002) and China-Pakistan (though focused regionally, patterns extended to Korea-ASEAN members). This proliferation created a web of divergent rules of origin (ROOs), with varying thresholds for regional value content—often 40% under AFTA but up to 60% in Japan-ASEAN for sensitive sectors—and differing cumulation provisions, complicating certification for fragmented supply chains in electronics and automobiles.^[38]^[5] The complexity manifests in "Factory Asia," where production networks span multiple borders, such as components from Thailand assembled in Vietnam for export to Japan; mismatched ROOs across agreements raise verification costs and risk non-qualification for preferences, estimated at 1-3% ad valorem equivalents in compliance burdens for affected firms. Empirical surveys of Asian businesses, including in Japan, Korea, and ASEAN states, reveal that while large multinationals adapt via dedicated compliance teams, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) face disproportionate hurdles, with roughly 15-20% of firms reporting multiple ROOs as a moderate to severe obstacle to utilizing preferences, though overall FTA usage remains high due to tariff savings outweighing administrative frictions in many cases. This has led to selective utilization, where traders opt for most-favored-nation tariffs over cumbersome RTA benefits in 30-50% of potential instances, distorting intra-regional flows and potentially undermining efficiency gains from vertical integration.^[39]^[40] Efforts to mitigate the tangle include the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed November 15, 2020, and entering force January 1, 2022, for core members including ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand; it consolidates ROOs into product-specific rules with self-certification options and diagonal cumulation across parties, aiming to reduce overlap with prior ASEAN+1 deals by harmonizing thresholds (e.g., 40% regional value content for most goods). Early assessments indicate RCEP covers 30% of global GDP and facilitates smoother value chains, potentially lowering noodle bowl costs by 0.5-1% of trade value through unified verification, though full implementation challenges persist due to domestic sensitivities in agriculture and services. Despite these advances, bilateral negotiations like the stalled China-Japan-Korea trilateral (initiated 2012) risk adding further layers if concluded without alignment.^[41]^[42]

Manifestations in Other Regions

In Latin America, overlapping subregional initiatives such as Mercosur, the Andean Community, and the Pacific Alliance, combined with bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with major partners like the United States and the European Union, have generated a complex web of divergent rules of origin (ROOs), exacerbating administrative burdens and trade fragmentation. For instance, countries like Chile and Colombia have pursued extensive bilateral pacts—Chile with over 30 FTAs by 2018—leading to challenges in cumulation provisions that hinder efficient supply chain integration across the hemisphere.^[23] This "hemispheric spaghetti bowl" covers roughly 89 percent of the region's foreign trade under preferential terms, yet varying ROO stringency often results in higher compliance costs and reduced utilization of preferences, with studies estimating that harmonization could boost intraregional trade by simplifying diagonal cumulation.^[43]^[44] Africa exemplifies the spaghetti bowl through multiple overlapping Regional Economic Communities (RECs), where countries frequently belong to several arrangements simultaneously, such as Tanzania's membership in the East African Community (EAC), Southern African Development Community (SADC), and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). This multiplicity—spanning eight AU-recognized RECs with inconsistent ROOs—has diluted the trade-creating effects of integration, with empirical analyses showing that overlapping agreements reduce preferential trade flows by complicating verification and increasing non-tariff barriers.^[45] The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), launched in 2018 and entering provisional force in 2019, seeks to mitigate this tangle by building on REC protocols, though initial implementation faces hurdles from legacy divergences, potentially limiting short-term welfare gains unless ROO convergence is prioritized.^[46] In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the spaghetti bowl arises from the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA, established 1997) intersecting with bilateral FTAs involving EU associations and U.S. pacts, creating fragmented ROOs that undermine regional value chains, particularly in resource-dependent sectors. Despite GAFTA's aim to liberalize 95 percent of tariff lines by 2008, overlapping memberships and weak enforcement have yielded minimal intraregional trade growth—averaging under 10 percent of total trade as of 2013—due to cumulation incompatibilities and administrative opacity.^[47]^[48] In Europe, while the EU's internal customs union minimizes domestic tangles, its external PTA network—over 40 agreements by 2020—imposes spaghetti bowl effects on third-country exporters via non-harmonized ROOs, prompting efforts like pan-Euro-Mediterranean cumulation to align preferences, though political economy shifts from manufacturing unbundling have intensified competitive pressures on EU firms.^[49]^[11]

Empirical Evidence and Quantitative Assessments

Key Studies on Trade Volume and Efficiency

Empirical assessments of the spaghetti bowl effect's influence on trade volume often employ gravity models to isolate the impact of overlapping rules of origin (ROOs) amid preferential trade agreements (PTAs). A seminal study by Augier, Gasiorek, and Lai-Tong (2007) analyzed Euro-Mediterranean PTA data from 1995–2004, finding that restrictive ROOs—such as high regional value content requirements—reduce intra-PTA trade flows by approximately 10–20% compared to less stringent regimes, as they impose sourcing constraints that elevate costs and deter utilization. This effect intensifies in spaghetti bowl scenarios with multiple PTAs, where cumulation limitations fragment supply chains and amplify trade deflection risks.^[7] Cadot, Estevadeordal, and Suwa-Eisenmann (2006) examined NAFTA's ROOs using sector-level data from 1994–2002, revealing that stringent product-specific rules curtailed Mexico's exports to the U.S. by forcing higher North American content (often 60–62.5%), which raised production costs by 5–15% in textiles and autos, thereby undermining aggregate PTA trade creation.^[22] Their world map of ROO restrictiveness, covering over 200 PTAs, correlated tighter ROOs with diminished trade volumes, estimating a 2–5% overall drag on preferential flows due to compliance burdens in overlapping agreements.^[50] These findings underscore causal links from ROO complexity to reduced efficiency, as administrative verification and certification divert resources from productive activities. In East Asia's noodle bowl, Hayakawa (2013) utilized firm-level Japanese export data from 2000–2008, demonstrating that proliferation of bilateral PTAs lowers FTA utilization rates by 15–25% for multi-FTA exporters, as varying ROOs complicate certificate tracking and increase error risks, effectively curbing trade volumes in intermediates-heavy sectors like electronics.^[51] Conversely, an Asian Development Bank survey of 841 firms across six economies (2007–2008) found that while 20% reported ROO multiplicity raising costs, overall PTA usage (28%) bolstered trade volumes during recovery phases, with larger firms adapting via dedicated compliance units, suggesting efficiency losses are firm-size dependent and not uniformly volume-suppressing.^[5] Quantitative efficiency metrics from these studies highlight persistent frictions: ROO compliance adds 1–8% to trade transaction costs, per estimates from PTA notifications to the WTO (1995–2015), eroding net gains from tariff elimination, particularly in global value chains where diagonal cumulation is absent.^[52] However, a Lund University analysis of EU PTA overlaps (2000–2015) using gravity specifications detected no robust negative volume effects from spaghetti bowls, attributing resilience to exporter strategies like hub-spoke rerouting, though efficiency suffers from heightened deflection vulnerabilities.^[12] Overall, evidence indicates the effect diminishes trade volumes by 5–15% on average in high-overlap regions but varies with ROO design and enforcement rigor.^[9]

Findings on Net Welfare Effects

Empirical analyses of the spaghetti bowl effect, primarily through gravity models and firm-level surveys, indicate that the net welfare effects are typically negative, as the administrative burdens and distortions from conflicting rules of origin (ROOs) erode the gains from tariff reductions in overlapping regional trade agreements (RTAs). Studies employing computable general equilibrium (CGE) frameworks demonstrate that ROO complexity leads to trade diversion—shifting imports from efficient non-RTA suppliers to less efficient RTA partners—and foregone trade creation, resulting in overall welfare losses for member economies. For instance, restrictive and varying ROOs in proliferating RTAs amplify these distortions, with simulations estimating losses equivalent to 15-55% of potential FTA benefits in regions with dense agreement networks.^[53]^[54] In East Asia, where the "noodle bowl" phenomenon is pronounced due to over 200 bilateral and plurilateral RTAs by 2020, firm surveys reveal that compliance costs from multiple ROOs deter preference utilization, often keeping rates below 50% for key agreements like ASEAN-China FTA. This underutilization translates to unexploited tariff savings—estimated at billions in annual foregone revenue—and heightened supply chain inefficiencies, outweighing marginal benefits from diversified market access. Quantitative gravity model estimates further quantify reduced intra-RTA trade flows by 10-20% attributable to overlapping ROO frictions, confirming causal links to diminished welfare via higher effective trade costs.^[39]^[55] Broader cross-regional assessments, including Europe and the Americas, corroborate these patterns, with econometric evidence showing that spaghetti bowl proliferation correlates with net welfare reductions of 0.1-0.5% of GDP in affected sectors, driven by discriminatory sourcing requirements that favor intra-bloc inefficiencies over global optimization. While some CGE simulations suggest minor offsetting gains from deepened regional integration in select cases, these are dwarfed by systemic losses from non-tariff barriers embedded in ROOs, underscoring the effect's tendency to undermine multilateral efficiency. Peer-reviewed analyses consistently attribute these outcomes to causal mechanisms like verification delays and cumulation restrictions, rather than exogenous factors.^[56]^[57]

Debates and Controversies

Criticisms from Trade Theorists

Trade theorists, notably Jagdish Bhagwati, have lambasted the spaghetti bowl effect as a corrosive force that fragments the global trading system by engendering a tangle of discriminatory preferences and compliance hurdles. Bhagwati, in his 2005 book co-authored with Arvind Panagariya, contends that overlapping preferential trade agreements (PTAs) devolve into a "spaghetti bowl" of bespoke rules of origin (RoO), which exporters must navigate to claim benefits, thereby erecting de facto non-tariff barriers that erode the efficiency gains from tariff reductions.^[58] These RoO, designed ostensibly to prevent transshipment, often demand stringent regional value content thresholds—such as 35-60% in many bilateral deals—multiplied across agreements, inflating verification and certification costs estimated at 2-15% of shipment values in affected sectors.^[59] From a theoretical standpoint, critics like Bhagwati argue that the effect contravenes the welfare-maximizing logic of non-discriminatory multilateralism under the GATT/WTO framework, as hub-and-spoke PTAs foster bilateralism that diverts trade from more efficient third parties without commensurate creation elsewhere.^[60] This setup, per Bhagwati's analysis, incentivizes "FTA shopping" where firms exploit the most lenient RoO across deals, but the resultant complexity—evident in cases like the U.S. with over 20 PTAs featuring divergent cumulation rules—deters utilization rates, which hover below 70% in many agreements due to administrative opacity.^[61] Bhagwati further posits that such proliferation risks "termite-like" undermining of WTO disciplines, as countries prioritize discriminatory pacts over Doha Round-style reforms, potentially locking in inefficient equilibria where global tariffs remain higher outside preferences.^[16] Other economists echo these concerns, emphasizing how the spaghetti bowl distorts global value chains by compelling firms to reconfigure sourcing for RoO compliance rather than cost minimization; for instance, a 2019 CEPR analysis deems many RoO "simply protectionist," as they shield domestic industries under preferential guise while compliance burdens—averaging 8-10% ad valorem equivalents in electronics and autos—nullify tariff savings.^[59] Bhagwati's critique, rooted in first-principles trade theory, underscores that PTAs, unlike customs unions with uniform external tariffs, inherently breed such inefficiencies, with empirical proxies showing intra-PTA trade shares rising modestly (5-10%) but at the expense of multilateral integration.^[11] These theorists advocate reverting to Article XXIV's "stepping stone" intent, warning that unchecked bilateralism could entrench a patchwork system incompatible with scalable liberalization.^[8]

Defenses and Pragmatic Perspectives

Proponents of regional trade agreements (RTAs) argue that the spaghetti bowl effect, while introducing administrative complexities, represents a pragmatic response to the stagnation in multilateral trade negotiations, such as the stalled Doha Development Round concluded without agreement in 2008. In this view, overlapping RTAs serve as a viable alternative mechanism for incremental liberalization when global consensus proves elusive, enabling countries to reduce tariffs and barriers bilaterally or regionally without awaiting universal reforms. This perspective posits RTAs as politically feasible tools that build domestic support for openness by focusing on manageable subsets of partners, thereby fostering trade growth despite the web of rules of origin (ROOs).^[62] The "building block" hypothesis frames the spaghetti bowl not as an inherent flaw but as a transitional phase toward broader integration, where proliferating agreements accumulate liberalization momentum and pave the way for harmonized mega-regionals like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed in November 2020 and effective from 2022 for initial members, which consolidates ASEAN+6 ROOs to mitigate prior overlaps. Empirical analyses, including those from the Asian Development Bank, suggest that participation in multiple RTAs can yield net positive trade effects, with trade creation from expanded networks outweighing distortionary costs in many cases, as evidenced by gravity model estimates showing increased bilateral flows among overlapping partners. Firm-level surveys in East Asia further indicate that the noodle bowl has not severely impeded business activity, with low RTA utilization often attributable to informational barriers rather than ROO complexity itself.^[63]^[64]^[65] Pragmatists emphasize that the costs of spaghetti bowl effects are often overstated relative to benefits like enhanced market access and supply chain efficiencies, particularly for developing economies leveraging RTAs to integrate into global value chains. For instance, studies of Asian FTAs find that while ROO compliance adds paperwork, the preferential margins—averaging 4-5% tariff reductions—drive export growth and input sourcing advantages, with 28% of surveyed firms reporting higher sales from utilization. This counters pure theoretical critiques by highlighting real-world adaptations, such as self-certification systems in agreements like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP, effective 2018), which streamline verification and reduce administrative burdens over time. Overall, these defenses underscore RTAs' role in sustaining trade momentum amid multilateral inertia, provided ongoing efforts address cumulative ROO harmonization.^[65]^[5]

Policy Implications and Reform Proposals

Harmonization Efforts in Major Agreements

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed on November 15, 2020, and entering into force for key members on January 1, 2022, represents a major effort to consolidate overlapping Asian FTAs through unified rules of origin (ROOs). Covering 15 economies including the ten ASEAN members, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, RCEP introduces product-specific ROOs with a focus on regional value content thresholds (typically 40%) and allows for self-certification to streamline compliance, aiming to mitigate the "noodle bowl" by superseding disparate bilateral and ASEAN+1 provisions with a single framework that facilitates cumulation across parties.^[66]^[67] This harmonization reduces administrative burdens, as evidenced by analyses showing RCEP's ROOs aligning closely with existing ASEAN agreements while simplifying verification for goods traded within the bloc.^[68] The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), effective from December 30, 2018, for initial signatories, employs a standardized set of ROOs across its 11 members (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) to counteract fragmentation from prior bilaterals. Featuring yarn-forward rules for textiles and a 40-60% regional value content requirement varying by product, CPTPP's Chapter 3 mandates uniform certification and verification procedures, explicitly designed to replace inconsistent national FTAs and curb the spaghetti bowl by enabling broader diagonal cumulation for originating materials.^[69] Empirical reviews indicate this approach has lowered compliance costs in sectors like electronics and apparel by providing a predictable, high-standard template that discourages trade deflection.^[70] Other initiatives, such as the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), have implicitly driven ROO convergence by integrating regulatory standards across parties, though on a smaller scale than RCEP or CPTPP.^[23] Proposals within these agreements often advocate further multilateral alignment, including WTO-level harmonization of non-preferential ROOs, but persistent disagreements on product-specific criteria have limited progress beyond regional blocs.^[71] Despite these advances, critics note that incomplete consolidation—such as RCEP's opt-outs for sensitive sectors—may perpetuate residual complexity unless supplemented by binding dispute mechanisms.^[72]

Pathways Toward Multilateral Simplification

One proposed pathway involves treating overlapping preferential trade agreements (PTAs) as building blocks for broader multilateral liberalization, where the economic pressures from production unbundling—driven by offshoring—erode support for restrictive rules of origin (ROOs) and encourage harmonization. As firms increasingly source inputs across multiple PTA partners, the administrative costs of navigating disparate ROOs (e.g., over 90 FTAs in East Asia by 2010 contributing to low preference utilization rates of around 2-5% in many cases) incentivize businesses to advocate for simplified, diagonal cumulation systems, similar to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEMC) framework that links ROOs across 20+ agreements via common criteria.^[11] This "taming the tangle" process can culminate in zero most-favored-nation (MFN) tariffs for key sectors, as seen in the WTO's Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which expanded duty-free trade in IT goods among 82 members by 2010, reducing bilateral distortions without full multilateral consensus.^[11] Mega-regional initiatives represent another route, consolidating bilateral and sub-regional FTAs into comprehensive frameworks that align standards and ROOs, thereby mitigating the spaghetti bowl's complexity. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiated among 15 Asia-Pacific economies and signed in November 2020, aims to integrate ASEAN+1 agreements and bilaterals by adopting a lowest-common-denominator approach initially, with provisions for future upgrades to higher standards, potentially boosting regional welfare by 0.5% through reduced ROO variance (e.g., standardizing 22 disparate electronics ROOs across ASEAN+1 pacts).^[73] Similarly, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), effective from December 2018 among 11 members, sets high-benchmark rules on services, investment, and digital trade, serving as a template for non-members like the UK (joined 2023) and potentially expanding to dilute overlapping bilaterals by prioritizing multilateral consistency over fragmented preferences.^[74] These efforts leverage "domino effects," where one country's PTA exclusion prompts retaliatory negotiations, accelerating inclusion and simplification, as evidenced by the chain reaction from early ASEAN-China FTAs prompting Japan and India's involvement.^[11] A third mechanism entails unilateral or plurilateral multilateralization of PTA preferences, extending concessions non-discriminatorily to MFN status to eliminate ROOs altogether and avert trade diversion. Economic modeling indicates this could raise RCEP welfare gains from 0.134% (under status quo incomplete utilization) to 0.536%, given empirical evidence of minimal margins (e.g., 2.3% trade-weighted preference margin in intra-ASEAN trade as of 2008) that fail to offset compliance costs.^[73] The WTO facilitates this by providing forums for "multilateralizing deeper RTA commitments," such as harmonizing non-tariff provisions in technical barriers to trade (TBTs), though progress remains limited due to sovereignty concerns; for instance, RTAs have shown minimal spaghetti effects in TBTs compared to tariffs, suggesting targeted plurilaterals could build momentum without requiring full consensus.^[75] Proponents argue that such steps, informed by first-order welfare losses from distortionary ROOs, align with causal incentives for exporters facing "victim" status in complex networks, potentially leading to global duty-free equilibria when combined with binding WTO schedules.^[11]

References

[1]
What is the "Spaghetti Bowl Phenomenon" of FTAs?
May 23, 2006 · The spaghetti bowl phenomenon as referred to by Bhagwati is an inevitable result of FTAs that reduce or eliminate tariffs on imports from specific countries.
[2]
The "Spaghetti Bowl": A case study on processing rules of origin and ...
The "Spaghetti Bowl" (or "Noodle Bowl") phenomenon describes the trade-distorting effects caused by the multitude of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) signed in ...
[3]
Effects of The Spaghetti Bowl on South Asia-East Asia Trade Relations
Feb 11, 2015 · The Spaghetti Bowl Effect is an interesting phenomenon in trade economics where the increasing number of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between countries slows ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[4]
Spaghetti Bowl Diplomacy: How FTAs Are Redrawing Global Supply ...
May 28, 2025 · Coined by economist Jagdish Bhagwati in 1995, the “spaghetti bowl” metaphor describes the confusion and inefficiency caused by a proliferation ...
[5]
Tangled up in trade? The “noodle bowl” of free trade agreements in ...
Sep 15, 2009 · Influenced by Jagdish Bhagwati's famous remark about a spaghetti bowl of FTAs, critics argue that the explosion of deals, with complex rules ...
[6]
The Spaghetti Bowl Phenomenon in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs ...
Jun 5, 2019 · This study attempts to empirically determine if the spaghetti bowl phenomenon (hereinafter referred to as the SBP) exists among the 21 ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[7]
[PDF] The "Spaghetti Bowl": A case study on processing rules of origin and ...
Apr 15, 2016 · They contribute to trade diversion and a loss of economic welfare in both, the suppliers' and the importing country. A vast number of studies ...
[8]
[PDF] The WTO and the Spaghetti Bowl of Free Trade Agreements
As many major trading nations sign trade agreements among themselves, creating a “spaghetti bowl” of trade arrangements that bypass the World. Trade ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[9]
RTAs' Proliferation and Trade‐diversion Effects: Evidence of the ...
Jul 22, 2015 · This paper investigates the trade-diversion effects of regional trade agreements (RTAs), so-called spaghetti bowl phenomenon (SBP), ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
Does the use of multiple FTAs force firms to raise local input share?
We may say that this offset is one form of the “spaghetti bowl phenomenon”.1. This paper empirically investigates whether the use of multiple FTAs forces firms ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[11]
[PDF] SPAGHETTI BOWLS AS BUILDING BLOCS ON THE PATH TO ...
Recent empirical research (Cadot et al 2006) has shown that ROOs do act as trade barriers and so should in principle be subject to the XXIV.5 b discipline.Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[12]
[PDF] Tangled up in a spaghetti bowl – trade effects of overlapping ...
ABSTRACT: Overlapping trade agreements in Africa are often brought up as an obstacle to the trade effect of preferential integration and referred to as the ...<|separator|>
[13]
Spaghetti bowl effect - Caixin Global
Dec 10, 2014 · Spaghetti bowl effect refers to a problem of free trade agreements (FTAs) in rules of origin that designate which country a product comes from.
[14]
[PDF] Dealing with the Proliferation of Trade Agreements
The outcome of this proliferation of often overlapping BTAs and PTAs is described as the spaghetti bowl effect or, in the Asian region, the noodle bowl effect.
[15]
International Trade: Rules of Origin | Congress.gov
Mar 3, 2020 · The country of origin of an imported product is defined in U.S. trade ... spaghetti bowl effect. With the growing role that global value ...
[16]
[PDF] The Spaghetti Bowl of Preferential Trade Agreements and the ...
To state the premise a bit more bluntly as it pertains to world trade, for many, global welfare means little when compared to national welfare, especially ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[17]
Straightening the Spaghetti Bowl - Preferential Trade Agreements
As Jagdish Bhagwati points out ... As a result, these agreements create different tariff levels among different countries with different rules of origin ...<|separator|>
[18]
A closer look at trade costs in the Americas - Brookings Institution
Mar 6, 2017 · This situation—or spaghetti bowl effect, as referred to earlier—raises trade costs, diverts trade patterns, and can potentially undermine ...
[19]
[PDF] The “Spaghetti Bowl”:
The expression “Spaghetti Bowl” (later also called “Noodle Bowl”) was first used by Bhagwati (1995) when criticising the US trade policy which seemed to have ...
[20]
Guarding Against the Spaghetti Bowl Effect -- Bolstering cooperative ...
The American economist Jagdish Bhagwati first coined the phrase "spaghetti bowl effect" in his 1995 article "US Trade Policy. ... origin provisions under ...
[21]
What is Spaghetti Bowl Phenomenon? - Current Affairs - Adda247
Apr 26, 2025 · Distortion of Trade Patterns: Instead of promoting genuine free trade, FTAs under the Spaghetti Bowl effect may distort trade patterns ...
[22]
[PDF] Rules of Origin in Preferential Trading Arrangements
Consequently, the rules-of-origin spaghetti could hold back the trade-creating potential of the hard-earned PTAs.
[23]
[PDF] Convergence in the Rules of Origin Spaghetti Bowl - IDB Publications
The overlapping of agreements in matters of origin impacts negatively on national authorities and economic operators, increasing operating costs for both.
[24]
Free Trade Agreements versus Customs Unions - MIT Press Direct
Jun 1, 2009 · The spaghetti bowl phenomenon expected from the proliferating East ... agreements (FTAs) can result in high costs for verifying rules of origin.
[25]
[PDF] Industry Lobbying and Rules of Origin in Free Trade Agreements
Administrative costs are an added expense of rules of origin. Compliance costs for change in tariff classification rules of origin average 3 percent of ...
[26]
[PDF] Rules of Origin: The Emerging Gatekeeper of Global Commerce
Koskinen (1983) estimates the administrative costs for Finnish exporters under the European Community-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) FTA at 1.4 to 5.7 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[27]
[PDF] A Case for a Single East Asian FTA
Studies of ROOs in East Asia indicate that complex ROOs can raise transaction costs to business firms and that multiple ROOs in overlapping FTAs can be ...
[28]
6 Managing the Spaghetti Bowl of Trade Agreements
It finds that there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that the PTA spaghetti bowl does present problems and transactions costs to the member ...
[29]
[PDF] The costs and benefits of rules of origin in modern free trade ...
We study the welfare impact of rules of origin in free trade agreements where final-good producers ... tion/administrative costs, because such costs are a ...
[30]
[PDF] C. Causes and effects of pTas: Is it all about preferences?
outweigh trade diversion.25 The validity of the “natural trading partners ... This increase in cost strengthens the. “spaghetti bowl” effect of PTAs analysed in ...
[31]
(PDF) RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-Diversion Effects: Evidence of ...
Fergin (2011) discusses the spaghetti bowl effect, which can be regarded as a potential negative transaction cost effect of RTA proliferation. Using also ...
[32]
Rules of origin and the profitability of trade deflection - ScienceDirect
The upshot is that FTAs or GSP arrangements should not require proof of origin by default, except for those few products where differences in external tariffs ...<|separator|>
[33]
(PDF) RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-diversion effects: Evidence of ...
... trade-diversion effect because of the number of RTAs signed by these countries. ... trade-diversion ... Fergin (2011) discusses the spaghetti bowl effect ...
[34]
Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on the Path to Global Free Trade
### Summary of Main Arguments on PTAs as Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks
[35]
[PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PREFERENTIAL TRADE ...
Both analyses find that trade creation dominated trade diversion and Trefler (2004) reports a positive welfare outcome for Canada overall. A number of studies ...
[36]
What RCEP can tell us about geopolitics in Asia - Lowy Institute
Dec 1, 2020 · ... Asian “noodle bowl effect”. The deal will harmonise what have to date been separate rules of origin across the region into several ...
[37]
[PDF] Harmonizing Preferential Rules of Origin in the WTO System
Dec 19, 2006 · This essay argues that WTO members should authorize negotiations seeking to harmonize preferential ROOs (rules of origin linked to preferential ...
[38]
[PDF] Managing the Noodle Bowl: The Fragility of East Asian Regionalism
The paper argues that East Asian regionalism is fragile because (i) each nation's industrial competitiveness depends on the smooth functioning of. “Factory Asia ...
[39]
[PDF] The Asian “Noodle Bowl”: Is It Serious for Business?
More recently, ADB president Haruhiko Kuroda referred to this phenomenon as the Asian noodle bowl effect of FTAs and warned that it could present future ...Missing: earliest | Show results with:earliest
[40]
Lifting global free trade from the 'noodle bowl' - East Asia Forum
Mar 9, 2017 · The agreement aims to integrate East Asia's complex FTA networks and remedy the 'noodle bowl effect' of FTA proliferation in the region.
[41]
[PDF] Asian FTAs: Trends, Prospects, and Challenges - UN.org.
phenomenon has become widely known as the noodle bowl effect in Asia.10. To ... Trade Issues in East Asia: Preferential Rules of Origin. Policy Research ...
[42]
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) - ASEAN.org
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has free trade agreements with six partners namely People's Republic of China (ACFTA), Republic of Korea ...
[43]
The Hemisphere's Spaghetti Bowl of Free-Trade Agreements
Apr 24, 2012 · Considering its central role in the spaghetti bowl of free-trade agreements in Latin America, the U.S. should play a pivotal role in FTA ...<|separator|>
[44]
The Spaghetti Bowl and International Supply Chains - Beyond Borders
May 1, 2018 · Solving the spaghetti bowl in Latin America at the continental level may not be as hard as it appears, according to a recent IDB publication.Missing: effect | Show results with:effect
[45]
[PDF] The political economy of Africa's regional 'spaghetti bowl' - ECDPM
It aims to explain why African countries join multiple, often overlapping, regional organisations despite the complications this 'spaghetti bowl' of agreements ...
[46]
The Effectiveness of AfCFTA Rules of Origin as a Build-up from ...
Dec 19, 2022 · The spaghetti bowl effect refers to the complication arising from the application of domestic rules of origin in signing free trade agreements.
[47]
Regional Integration of Middle East and North Africa - ECDPM
Dec 2, 2013 · Half a century after the creation of the Arab League in 1945 - aiming at intensifying regional trade in the region - MENA's spaghetti bowl ...
[48]
Regional integration and natural resources: Who benefits? Evidence ...
We explore the effects of different integration schemes in Middle East and North Africa. ... MENA's spaghetti bowl of regional integration agreements has little ...<|separator|>
[49]
[PDF] Lessons from the European Spaghetti Bowl - Asian Development Bank
This spaghetti bowl pattern did not emerge by mistake. Rules of origin and/or exclusions and cumulation rules affect the fortunes of organized lobbies and so ...Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[50]
Rules of Origin: A World Map and Trade Effects - ResearchGate
“Assessing the Effect of NAFTA's Rules of Origin.” Mimeo. Cadot, Olivier, Antoni Estevadeordal and Akiko Suwa-Eisenmann. 2004. “An Assessment.
[51]
Impacts of common rules of origin on FTA utilization - IDEAS/RePEc
... vol. 48(2), pages 408-436, May. Richard E. Baldwin, 2008. "Managing The Noodle Bowl: The Fragility Of East Asian Regionalism," The Singapore Economic Review ...
[52]
[PDF] Rules of origin: can the noodle bowl of trade agreements be ... - ZBW
2017, Rules of Origin: can the noodle bowl of trade agreements be untangled?, ... The spaghetti bowl of PTAs and RoO arrangements. Australia's 'noodle-bowl' of ...
[53]
[PDF] Collective Strategic Study on Issues Related to the Realization of the ...
The spaghetti bowl effect of restrictive ROO is 55.6 (or 15.0) percent loss of ... level use of FTAs, the so-called 'noodle bowl' effect, coverage of agricultural ...<|separator|>
[54]
[PDF] RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-diversion effects
Dec 11, 2014 · (2006) are likely to be unreliable because of estimation bias. Fergin (2011) discusses the spaghetti bowl effect, which can be regarded as a.
[55]
(PDF) RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-diversion Effects - ResearchGate
Aug 9, 2025 · This paper investigates the trade-diversion effects of regional trade agreements (RTAs), so-called “Spaghetti bowl” Phenomenon (SBP), in multilateral trade.Missing: distortion | Show results with:distortion
[56]
[PDF] Overlapping Memberships and Its Impact on Regional Trade
May 2, 2021 · This results in a decreased intra-RTA trade flow due to the complexity brought by overlapping rules of origin and the ensuing policy frictions.
[57]
(PDF) The Impact of Rules of Origin On Trade Flows - ResearchGate
This paper provides the first serious empirical examination of the possible impact of rules of origin on patterns of trade in the European context. The ...
[58]
"Termites in the Trading System: How Preferential Agreements ...
Jagdish Bhagwati, the leading trade economist of our time, rang first the alarm bells about the resulting spaghetti bowl of discriminatory rules and regulations ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique<|separator|>
[59]
Rules of origin in trade arrangements: Largely unnecessary, simply ...
Sep 10, 2019 · For sure, making the proof of origin conditional on actual tariff differences would go some way toward disentangling the spaghetti bowl.Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[60]
[PDF] Problems with Overlapping Free Trade Areas
Jan 1, 1997 · Under other criteria, new rules must be devised for new products. Rules of origin are naturally far more important in FTAs than in customs.
[61]
CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati Argues Against Preferential Trade ...
Jagdish Bhagwati, the leading trade economist of our time, rang first the alarm bells about the resulting spaghetti bowl of discriminatory rules and regulations ...
[62]
The problem with preferential trade agreements - Bruegel
May 9, 2023 · Preferential agreements can be an alternative to a sclerotic WTO, but, if multilateral rules fail, they also risk conflict between trading blocs.
[63]
The Noodle Bowl Effect: Stumbling or Building Block?
A proliferation of free trade agreements between individual countries, known as the “noodle bowl effect”, has negative effects on trade.
[64]
[PDF] Pragmatism in trade policy: regional trade agreements - KfW
Jan 11, 2021 · Bilateral trade agreements provide the advantage that they are easier to negotiate and implement than plurilateral trade agreements. By ...
[65]
A Closer Look at East Asia's Free Trade Agreements
On the whole, the study indicates that concerns about the negative noodle bowl effect of Asian FTAs are overstated and, surprisingly, the Asian noodle bowl has ...Missing: positive effects
[66]
[PDF] An Assessment of Rules of Origin in RCEP and ASEAN+1 Free ...
These findings suggest that the case for harmonizing existing rules of origin in RCEP, ATIGA, and. ASEAN+1 FTAs is stronger than ever. 7. Conclusion and ...Missing: spaghetti | Show results with:spaghetti
[67]
[PDF] Pacific: RCEP, CPTPP and the US-China Trade War - EconStor
Importantly, RCEP will add a comprehensive template even to existing FTAs, helping to bind the “noodle bowl” of bilateral agreements together with common rules.
[68]
[PDF] Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement ...
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Preamble. Chapter 1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions. Chapter 2. Trade in Goods. Chapter 3. Rules of Origin.
[69]
[PDF] How the United States Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific ...
Nov 4, 2018 · ... primary cause of job loss). 162 Daron Acemoglu et al., Import ... Korea leading to the so-called East Asian “noodle bowl.”231 ...
[70]
[PDF] Promoting Free Trade in Asia-Pacific–CPTPP as an ... - CEJSH
to decrease “the spaghetti bowl” effect of RTAs, particularly, if they replace the existing bilateral agreements and expand common rules (ROO) to be applied by.
[71]
Rules of Origin: Conceptual Explorations and Lessons from the ...
Aug 13, 2024 · Rules of origin often result in the so-called "spaghetti-bowl" effect. Since there is no agreement on product-specific harmonized rules of ...
[72]
[PDF] Comparison of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ...
Considering the potentially harmful 'spaghetti-bowl effect' of overlapping. RTAs and deepening intraregional production networks, a few 'mega-lateral' RTAs.Missing: ROOs noodle
[73]
[PDF] From Spaghetti Bowl to JigSaw puzzle? addreSSing the diSarray in ...
... Middle East, and the Pacific island countries are absent); there are also overlapping bits or pieces that are redundant and probably irreconcilable. And ...
[74]
Dealing with the Proliferation of Bilateral Trade Agreements
... spaghetti bowl effect or, in the Asian region, the noodle bowl effect. This is costly and welfare-reducing. How should this situation be remedied? This ...
[75]
[PDF] Beyond Tariffs: Multilaterising Deeper RTA Commitments
Sep 9, 2007 · RTAs have not created much of a Spaghetti Bowl effect in remedies, competition policy, or TBTs since the protectionist content of these ...