country-specific standards are barriers to trade. In this regard, Moenius (2004) finds that bilateral share standards are favorable to trade while country-specific standards reduce imports for non-manufactured goods and increase imports for manufactured goods in Europe.

In a similar study focusing on agricultural products, Moenius (2006a) refutes that country-specific standards always block trade since they provide essential information about markets and that European harmonized standards always expand trade as they also reduce the variety of goods being traded. In conclusion, Moenius work suggests that “importer standards tend to hinder trade in simple goods (including agricultural products) and promote trade in complex goods (like machinery)”<sup>11</sup> .

The first article to consider the differentiated trade impact of “idiosyncratic” national standards versus international standards is Swann et al. (1996). Using data from 1985 to 1991, the authors regress British net exports on count data of country-specific standards and international standards in United Kingdom and Germany for 88 manufacturing industries. The results indicate that UK-specific standards have a stronger positive effect on British net exports than international standards.

Otsuki et al. (2001) is the first case study to directly address the role of internationally harmonized standards as opposed to purely European standards on trade flows. They employ a gravity model to estimate the impact of European aflatoxin standards on imports of groundnut products from Africa during 1988-1998. Results suggested that European standards set at the most restrictive level would involve trade flows significantly lower than when international standards are adopted.

Regarding the role of EU directives in trade, Chen and Matoo (2008) find that such agreements increase trade among EU members but not necessarily with non-members. The authors used a detailed panel dataset that identifies the industries influenced by each Directive to concluded that developing countries may be the worst affected since their firms are likely to be less prepared to comply with stricter standards. Although this article does not directly address the role on international harmonization in standards, it sheds light on the differentiated impact of EU standardization on third countries. In a closely related article, Baller (2007) also finds evidence that the effect of harmonization on third countries is positive for industrialized countries and mixed for developing countries.

Using a new World Bank database of EU product standards in the textiles, clothing, and footwear sector (EUSDB database), Czubala et al. (2007) consider the impact of international harmonization as opposed to purely European standardization at the intensive margin. The authors use a gravity model to examine the role of EU standards on African exports during the period 1995-2003. They find robust evidence on the negative impact of standards on trade, however, they find that internationally harmonized standards are less trade restrictive than purely European standards. The policy implications of this result suggest that it is indeed appropriated for the TBT Agreement to champion the use of international standards whenever possible and that it is no just technical regulations that can have a significant impact on trade.

> 11 Moenius (2006a), page 3.

7