restrictions on an activity (e.g., no deposit taking allowed). Establishing 'mode-of-supply' weights on a sector-by-sector basis is another monumental task.<sup>9</sup> A final problem concerns quantification of the restrictiveness of the horizontal commitments, which although applying to particular modes of supply across all sectors, will affect particular sectors differently.

No attempt is made here to determine the restrictiveness or change therein of the policies<sup>affecting</sup> either scheduled or non-scheduled services.2' The focus is instead on scaling the sectoral<sup>conmmitments</sup> of GATS Members with a view to 'quantifying' two things: (1) the extent<sup>to which measures have been</sup> _bound;_ and (2) the share of sectors where the binding relates to 'free trade'. Abstracting from the<sup>lack</sup> of information on the economic impact of measures applied to services, even<sup>a qualitative assessment of</sup> the liberalization implied by the specific commitments is not possible. Unfortunately,<sup>the schedules do</sup> not reveal to what extent they imply liberalization, if at all. It _appears_ that<sup>virtually all comnmitments</sup> are of a standstill nature, i.e., consist of a binding of (part of) the status quo. This<sup>is the perception of</sup> negotiators, and in what follows this is assumed.<sup>2</sup> ' Given that liberalization<sup>in the sense of reducing</sup> discrimination and enhancing market access did not occur, the relevance of 'weighted'<sup>sectoral coverage</sup> indicators increases, as the key issue then is to determine the extent to which<sup>Members were willing to</sup> bind the status quo.

For purposes of evaluating the specific commitments, each GATS<sup>Member's specific</sup> commitments was entered into a spreadsheet. As there are 155 non-overlapping<sup>service sectors in the</sup> GNS classification list (see Annex 1) and four modes of supply, this implies 620<sup>possible commitments.</sup> As commitments apply to national treatment and market access separately,<sup>there are 1,240 data cells for</sup> each Member. Schedules were submitted by 96 Members. Two country<sup>groups were created for</sup> comparison purposes, one for 78 'developing countries', and one for 18 high<sup>income countries ('HIC').</sup> The latter includes OECD members, with the EU counted as one, Singapore,<sup>Hong Kong, and South</sup> Korea.<sup>22</sup> The 'developing country' group includes countries with a wide range<sup>of per capita incomes and</sup> substantial variation in service market size (GDP). Because of their relatively low per<sup>capita incomes</sup> this group includes a number of East European transition economies--the Czech Republic,<sup>Hungary,</sup> Poland, Romania, and the Slovak Republic. Annex 3 lists GATS Members that submitted<sup>schedules,</sup> defines the membership of the two groups, and reports the number of commitments by Member.

**'9** In what follows use is only made of a subjective weighing scheme to determine the possible impact of-sensitivity to--incorporating this into the analysis.

**20** The GATS schedules can be used to generate some information on the _relative_ restrictiveness of the policy regimes maintained by Members. Annex 2 reports the results of calculations in this regard, which<sup>were used in</sup> Brown, Deardorff and Stem (1995).

**21** As mentioned earlier, the only area where liberalization may occur is in financial services, where discussions are to be concluded by the summer of 1995.

**22** The intention was to include countries that are, or are soon expected to be, OECD members.

14