trace and track the implementation of data localization and associated measures. One is **ECIPE’s Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index (DTRI)** (see Ferracane et al, 2018) and the other one is **OECD’s Digital Services Restrictiveness Index (DGSTRI)** (see Ferencz, 2019). They are therefore both relevant to measure the extent to which regulations in the area of data flows form a potential restriction for trade in services.

In particular, ECIPE’s DTRI covers specifically for various regulatory measures related to data. The regulation measures are split into two parts. The first part covers measures that impact the free mobility of data across countries; the second part deals with the domestic regulatory policies related to the domestic use of data inside a jurisdiction as provided in Ferracane et al. (2018), which also provides explanation of the full list of measures that fall inside the scope of the two parts, including how each measure has been weighted against each other. In addition, the DTRI includes several measures containing categories of restrictions related to cloud computing and digital standards as discussed in the conceptual part above. Ferracane et al. (2018) also provides a list of standards-related policy measures to internet technologies which therefore could have an impact on trade in services performed over the internet. However, it remains unclear to what extent these regulatory measures classify as a TFiS measure.

The OECD’s DGSTRI, which is specifically developed for measuring barriers in digital services trade as opposed to measures affecting all areas of digital trade (including internet technologies) as done by ECIPE’s DTRI, also covers measures on the cross-border mobility as well as standards on payment securities. Measures related to the cross-border mobility of data in the OECD’s DGSTRI are, however, recorded under a broader category of measures that also include regulations related to telecommunications and digital infrastructure, as well as restrictions on the use of communication services. The policies explicitly dealing with data flows are therefore harder to discern. Moreover, the index does not cover the domestic use of data as done by ECIPE’s DTRI.

Other measures relevant for the TFiS conceptualization of measures relate to the ones specifically mentioned regarding Mode 2 and Mode 3 (see above). However, available databases that contain relevant measures on these points such as visa procedures and insurance coverage are scarce and often non-existing yet. Nonetheless, there are two databases that express some cost dimension of visas, which are the Henley Passport Index and the Passport Index by Arton Capital. Given that these two indexes are broad-brushed and do not necessarily take stock of the level of visa fees (although they do cover when visa fees are exempted for their ranking), or the length and complexity of visa procedures, it is hard to exactly differentiate which components of these indexes qualify for a TFiS measure.

# **_Sector-specific measures_**

The main databases that document sector-specific measures in services that would fall under TFiS are both the World Bank’s and the OECD’s **Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI)** . Both sources record restrictions in specific services sectors of which the OECD’s covers for a wider range of services and categories of measures.<sup>11</sup> More importantly, the OECD’s STRI also incorporates various supplementary 11 The World Bank STRIs have a greater focus on discriminatory policies than the OECD and cover a wider set of developing countries. However, the OECD includes more categories of measures that are non-discriminatory in nature and related to the business operations and / or domestic regulations, such as competition and transparency.

12