## _wp1677

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp1677](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp1677.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp1677.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp1677.pdf.json)

---

### Tables and Figures inventory
- Tables:
  - 1. Baseline regression: Total Factor Productivity
  - 2. Baseline regression: Labor Productivity
  - 3. Complementarity between tariff and FDI liberalization: Total Factor Productivity
  - 4. Complementarity between tariff and FDI liberalization: Labor Productivity
  - 5. Robustness checks for baseline regressions: alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 6. Robustness checks for baseline regressions: interpolated tariff data and changes in sample
  - 7. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: TFP; alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 8. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: LP; alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 9. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: TFP; interpolated tariff data and changes in sample
  - 10. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: LP; interpolated tariff data and changes in sample

- Figures:
  - 1. Effective Tariff and Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Tariff Rates
  - 2. Changes in Aggregates Tariff Barriers over 1997-2007
  - 3. Output and Input Tariff Rates
  - 4. Heterogeneity in Tariff Rate Changes across Sectors
  - 5a. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and Output Tariff Rates
  - 5b. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and Input Tariff Rates
  - 6. Potential Productivity Gains from Eliminating Remaining Tariff Barriers

### Context and scope
- Coverage:
  - 18 sectors across 18 advanced countries.
  - Annual sectoral input, output, prices, and TFP over the period 1991–2012 (from EU KLEMS and World KLEMS).
  - OECD’s FDI Regulatory restrictiveness Index used for 22 sectors and 8 years: 1997, 2003, 2006-2014.
- Tariff measures constructed:
  - Effective output tariff at product level computed as a weighted average of MFN, preferential tariff, and non-MFN rates, with weights equal to the share of imports from partner j in country i’s total imports of product p (weights treated as constant based on the initial year).
  - Aggregation from HS6 to 2-digit sector level using import-share weights.
  - Effective input tariff for sector s computed as a weighted average of output tariff rates across all sectors, taking full input-output linkages into account (domestic inputs produced using imported inputs included).

### Main empirical findings
- Input vs. output tariff effects:
  - Input tariff liberalization has a significant and robust impact on sector-level Total Factor Productivity (TFP) that is much stronger than the effect of output tariff liberalization.
  - Quantitative estimate: "a one percentage reduction in input tariffs raises TFP levels by about two percent."
- Complementarities with FDI:
  - The effect of both output and input tariff liberalization is greater when barriers to FDI are lower, indicating complementarities between trade and FDI liberalization.
- Robustness summary:
  - Results robust to alternative lags of output and input tariff variables, different measures of productivity, different time periods, alternative clustering strategies for standard errors (country-sector or country-year), and alternative competitive-pressure measures (effective rate of protection a la Corden (1966)).

### Empirical set-up and econometric results
- Empirical specification:
  - Levels OLS estimating ln(TFP)ist on lagged output and input tariff rates (lags l = 1 to 4 tested), including country-sector fixed effects and country-year fixed effects.
  - Complementarity tests include interactions: tariff × (FDI Barriers)is, where (FDI Barriers)is is the average OECD indicator of FDI restrictiveness in country i and sector s over the sample period (direct effect absorbed by country-sector FE).
  - Estimation uses an unbalanced panel for 1991-2012 with standard errors clustered at the country-year level.
- Key econometric findings:
  - Output tariffs alone: point estimates negative but statistically insignificant across lags when included without input tariffs.
  - Input tariffs: consistently strong and statistically significant negative effect on productivity.
    - Depending on lag structure, a one percentage point decline in input tariffs increases the level of TFP by 1.5 to 2.2 percent, with an average semi-elasticity of close to 2.
  - Labor productivity (LP) results:
    - Replacing TFP with labor productivity yields confirmatory results: output tariff effect insignificant once controlling for input tariffs; input tariff effect magnitudes close to TFP regressions.
  - FDI complementarity details:
    - Input tariff reductions have a larger impact on TFP when barriers to FDI are low.
    - With tariff × FDI restrictiveness interactions, output tariffs show a significant direct negative effect on TFP that was absent without interactions.
    - Quantitatively: when FDI restrictiveness is at the 75th percentile, the impact of a one percentage point fall in input tariffs on TFP ranges from 0 to 1 percent depending on lags; when FDI restrictiveness is at the 25th percentile, it ranges from 3 to 4 percent.

### Robustness checks (high level)
- Findings robust to:
  - Alternative output tariff measure: effective rate of protection (accounts for protection on inputs and outputs).
  - Alternative input tariff measure: indirect tariff from immediate linkages only (disregarding indirect linkages through domestic inputs).
  - Interpolating missing tariff observations.
  - Excluding service-related sectors.
  - Restricting sample to pre-crisis period (1991-2007).
  - Excluding countries that joined the EU mid-sample (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia).
  - Alternative clustering methods.
- Across robustness tests:
  - Estimated coefficients on input tariffs remain stable and close to baseline results.
  - Output tariff effects remain generally weak unless interacted with FDI restrictiveness.

### Quantitative projections and back-of-the-envelope calculations
- Historical contribution (1997-2007):
  - Input tariffs fell on average by 0.5 percentage points over 1997-2007 in the sample; using a baseline semi-elasticity of 2, this translates into an average productivity gain of about 1 percent.
- Potential gains from full tariff elimination:
  - Aggregate productivity could rise, on average, by around 1 percent across advanced economies.
  - Country-specific examples:
    - "about 0.2 percent in Japan"
    - "7.7 percent in Ireland."
  - Applying the same semi-elasticity of 2 to latest sector-level effective input tariff rates suggests larger potential gains for emerging and low-income economies:
    - Example: India could boost TFP level by around 18 percent on average across sectors.
- Note on complementarities:
  - Simultaneous reductions in barriers to FDI amplify the productivity impact of tariff liberalization.

### Data sources, mapping, and dataset contributions
- Data sources and processing:
  - TRAINS database used for preferential tariff beneficiary lists and raw tariff rates (available at HS8 level); raw HS8 rates averaged to HS6 level to match UNComtrade trade data.
  - Input-Output (IO) matrices from national IO tables compiled by the OECD used to derive shares of imported and domestic inputs (α and β shares) for calculating input tariffs.
  - Mapping of OECD FDI restrictiveness indicators to TFP and tariff data via a correspondence table (Annex referenced).
- Dataset advances:
  - First comprehensive dataset of effective import tariffs across countries, sectors and time, aggregating bilateral imports at the individual product level and accounting for MFN, preferential and non-MFN rates.
  - Improves on prior studies that typically consider MFN rates only.
- Sector and country coverage notes:
  - Resulting matched dataset largely consists of 13 manufacturing sectors, plus services, agricultural and mining sectors.
  - Annex 1 sample of countries lists 18 advanced economies included in the baseline.

### Stylized facts and sectoral heterogeneity
- Effective tariff rates vs. MFN:
  - Effective tariff rates tend to be lower than simple average MFN rates when aggregated to the country-year level; most observations lie below the 45 degree line.
  - Deviations depend largely on the coverage and depth of regional and bilateral preferential trade agreements.
- Tariff change patterns:
  - Changes in tariffs over 1997–2007 show different patterns across countries; some countries experienced larger declines in effective rates (e.g., Australia and Korea), while some advanced EU members experienced larger declines in MFN rates.
- Input vs. output tariff correlation and TFP:
  - Input and output tariff rates (deviations from country-sector averages) are positively correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.49.
  - Input tariff rates show a slightly stronger negative correlation with log TFP (deviation from country-sector averages) than output tariff rates.
  - Sector outliers around zero concentrated in "Coke and chemical products" and "Electrical and optical equipment."
- Substantial variation across sectors even within similar-country groups (illustrated by sector-level median input tariff changes among advanced EU countries).

### Policy implications and concluding remarks
- Core policy implications:
  - Trade liberalization in upstream industries (input tariff reductions) matters more for sector-level productivity than liberalization in the sector itself.
  - Benefits from tariff liberalization likely understate total gains because non-tariff barriers (especially in services) are not captured; easing non-tariff barriers could yield additional, potentially larger, productivity gains.
  - Coordinated liberalization across policy areas (trade and FDI) increases payoffs due to complementarities.
  - Results support further liberalization efforts to raise productivity and output in advanced economies and indicate even larger potential gains in emerging and low-income countries with higher remaining tariff barriers.
- Research implications:
  - Results generalize firm-level findings to a cross-country cross-industry time-series framework capturing within-firm productivity effects and reallocation across firms.
  - Future research could investigate complementarities between trade liberalization and other structural reforms (FDI, product market, labor market).

*Source: _wp1677 - References*

### References .............................................................................................................

### _wp1677 - References

### Tables and Figures inventory
- Tables listed (by number and title):
  - 1. Baseline regression: Total Factor Productivity
  - 2. Baseline regression: Labor Productivity
  - 3. Complementarity between tariff and FDI liberalization: Total Factor Productivity
  - 4. Complementarity between tariff and FDI liberalization: Labor Productivity
  - 5. Robustness checks for baseline regressions: alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 6. Robustness checks for baseline regressions: interpolated tariff data and changes in sample
  - 7. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: TFP; alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 8. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: LP; alternative output and input tariff measures
  - 9. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: TFP; interpolated tariff data and changes in sample
  - 10. Robustness checks for tariff-FDI complementarity regressions: LP; interpolated tariff data and changes in sample

- Figures listed (by number and title):
  - 1. Effective Tariff and Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Tariff Rates
  - 2. Changes in Aggregates Tariff Barriers over 1997-2007
  - 3. Output and Input Tariff Rates
  - 4. Heterogeneity in Tariff Rate Changes across Sectors
  - 5a. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and Output Tariff Rates
  - 5b. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and Input Tariff Rates
  - 6. Potential Productivity Gains from Eliminating Remaining Tariff Barriers

### Context and scope
- Coverage:
  - 18 sectors across 18 advanced countries.
  - Annual sectoral input, output, prices, and TFP over the period 1991–2012 (from EU KLEMS and World KLEMS).
  - OECD’s FDI Regulatory restrictiveness Index used for 22 sectors and 8 years: 1997, 2003, 2006-2014.

- Tariff measures constructed:
  - Effective output tariff at product level computed as a weighted average of MFN, preferential tariff, and non-MFN rates, with weights equal to the share of imports from partner j in country i’s total imports of product p (weights treated as constant based on the initial year).
  - Aggregation from HS6 to 2-digit sector level using import-share weights.
  - Effective input tariff for sector s computed as a weighted average of output tariff rates across all sectors, taking full input-output linkages into account (domestic inputs produced using imported inputs included).

### Main empirical findings
- Input vs. output tariff effects:
  - Input tariff liberalization has a significant and robust impact on sector-level Total Factor Productivity (TFP) that is much stronger than the effect of output tariff liberalization.
  - Quantitative estimate: "a one percentage reduction in input tariffs raises TFP levels by about two percent."

- Complementarities with FDI:
  - The effect of both output and input tariff liberalization is greater when barriers to FDI are lower, indicating complementarities between trade and FDI liberalization.

- Robustness:
  - Results robust to alternative lags of output and input tariff variables, different measures of productivity, different time periods, alternative clustering strategies for standard errors (country-sector or country-year), and alternative competitive-pressure measures (effective rate of protection a la Corden (1966)).

### Quantitative projections and back-of-the-envelope calculations
- Potential aggregate productivity gains from full elimination of remaining tariffs:
  - Aggregate productivity could rise, on average, by around 1 percent across advanced economies.
  - Country-specific examples: "about 0.2 percent in Japan" and "7.7 percent in Ireland."
  - Korea and Ireland estimated to have larger potential gains driven by: comparatively high remaining tariffs in Korea; the importance of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries for Ireland.

### Contributions to the literature and dataset construction
- Dataset advances:
  - First comprehensive dataset of effective import tariffs across countries, sectors and time, aggregating bilateral imports at the individual product level and accounting for MFN, preferential and non-MFN rates.
  - Improves on prior studies that typically consider MFN rates only.

- Empirical contribution:
  - First assessment of output and input tariff liberalization at the sector level across countries, capturing aggregate impacts including within-firm productivity changes and resource reallocation across firms (entry and exit).

### Data sources and mapping
- Tariff data sources and processing notes:
  - TRAINS database used for preferential tariff beneficiary lists and raw tariff rates (available at HS8 level); raw HS8 rates averaged to HS6 level to match UNComtrade trade data.
  - Input-Output (IO) matrices from national IO tables compiled by the OECD used to derive shares of imported and domestic inputs (α and β shares) for calculating input tariffs.
  - Mapping of OECD FDI restrictiveness indicators to TFP and tariff data via a correspondence table (Annex referenced).

- Sector composition:
  - Resulting matched dataset largely consists of 13 manufacturing sectors, plus services, agricultural and mining sectors (see Annex 2 and Annex 3 for sector descriptions and data coverage).

*Source: _wp1677 - References*

### Annex 4. In the absence of a comprehensive annual time series for the FDI restrictiveness

### Annex 4. In the absence of a comprehensive annual time series for the FDI restrictiveness

### Stylized facts
- Effective tariff rates tend to be lower than simple average MFN rates when aggregated to the country-year level; most observations lie below the 45 degree line.
- Deviations between simple average MFN rates and effective tariff rates depend largely on the coverage and depth of regional and bilateral preferential trade agreements.
- Changes in tariffs over 1997–2007 show different patterns across countries; some countries experienced larger declines in effective rates (e.g., Australia and Korea), while some advanced EU members experienced larger declines in MFN rates.
- Input and output tariff rates (deviations from country-sector averages) are positively correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.49; variation around the fitted line indicates collinearity is not severe.
- There is substantial variation in tariff rates across sectors even within similar-country groups (illustrated by sector-level median input tariff changes among advanced EU countries).
- Input tariff rates show a slightly stronger negative correlation with log TFP (deviation from country-sector averages) than output tariff rates; a number of outliers around zero are concentrated in “Coke and chemical products” and “Electrical and optical equipment.”

### Empirical set-up and econometric results

A. Empirical specification
- Estimated equation (levels, OLS) relates ln(TFP)ist to lagged output and input tariff rates (lags l = 1 to 4 tested), including country-sector fixed effects and country-year fixed effects to control for sector-specific and country-wide time-varying factors.
- Specification extended to test complementarities between tariffs and FDI barriers by including interactions: tariff × (FDI Barriers)is, where (FDI Barriers)is is the average OECD indicator of FDI restrictiveness in country i and sector s over the sample period (direct effect absorbed by country-sector FE).
- Estimation uses an unbalanced panel for 1991-2012 with standard errors clustered at the country-year level. Robustness checks include alternative tariff measures, sample variations, interpolation of missing tariff years, and alternative clustering.

B. Key econometric findings
- Output tariffs alone: point estimates negative but statistically insignificant across lags when included without input tariffs.
- Input tariffs: consistently strong and statistically significant negative effect on productivity.
  - Depending on lag structure, a one percentage point decline in input tariffs increases the level of TFP by 1.5 to 2.2 percent, with an average semi-elasticity of close to 2.
- Replacing TFP with labor productivity (LP) yields confirmatory results: output tariff effect insignificant once controlling for input tariffs; input tariff effect magnitudes close to TFP regressions.
- Complementarities with FDI restrictiveness:
  - Input tariff reductions have a larger impact on TFP when barriers to FDI are low.
  - When interacted with FDI restrictiveness, output tariffs show a significant direct negative effect on TFP that was absent without interactions.
  - Presence of foreign firms (lower FDI barriers) magnifies productivity impacts of tariff liberalization via both input and output channels.
  - Quantitatively: when FDI restrictiveness is at the 75th percentile, the impact of a one percentage point fall in input tariffs on TFP ranges from 0 to 1 percent depending on lags; when FDI restrictiveness is at the 25th percentile, it ranges from 3 to 4 percent.

C. Robustness checks (summary)
- Findings robust to:
  - Alternative output tariff measure: effective rate of protection (accounts for protection on inputs and outputs).
  - Alternative input tariff measure: indirect tariff from immediate linkages only (disregarding indirect linkages through domestic inputs).
  - Interpolating missing tariff observations.
  - Excluding service-related sectors.
  - Restricting sample to pre-crisis period (1991-2007).
  - Excluding countries that joined the EU mid-sample (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia).
  - Alternative clustering methods (results available upon request).
- Across robustness tests, estimated coefficients on input tariffs remain stable and close to baseline results; output tariff effects remain generally weak unless interacted with FDI restrictiveness.

### Policy implications
- Historical contribution: input tariffs fell on average by 0.5 percentage points over 1997-2007 in the sample; using a baseline semi-elasticity of 2, this translates into an average productivity gain of about 1 percent.
- Potential further gains:
  - Back-of-the-envelope calculation: full elimination of remaining tariffs could raise aggregate productivity by around 1 percent on average across advanced economies.
  - Estimated country-specific potential gains vary widely: from a 0.2 percent gain in Japan to a 7.7 percent gain in Ireland, depending on current sector-level tariff rates and sector importance.
  - Applying the same semi-elasticity of 2 to latest sector-level effective input tariff rates suggests larger potential gains for emerging and low-income economies; e.g., India could boost TFP level by around 18 percent on average across sectors.
- Complementarities: simultaneous reductions in barriers to FDI amplify the productivity impact of tariff liberalization, highlighting the value of coordinated liberalization across policy areas (trade and FDI).
- Broad implication: benefits from tariff liberalization likely understate total gains because non-tariff barriers (especially in services) are not captured; easing non-tariff barriers could yield additional, potentially larger, productivity gains.

### Concluding remarks
- Main result: trade liberalization in upstream industries (input tariff reductions) matters more for sector-level productivity than liberalization in the sector itself.
- Results generalize firm-level findings to a cross-country cross-industry time-series framework capturing within-firm productivity effects and reallocation across firms.
- Findings support further liberalization efforts to raise productivity and output in advanced economies and indicate even larger potential gains in emerging and low-income countries with higher remaining tariff barriers.
- Results emphasize complementarities between trade liberalization and reforms in other areas (FDI, product market, labor market); future research could investigate complementarities between trade liberalization and other structural reforms.

*Source: Annex 4 of the referenced IMF working paper (empirical results, tables, and figures summarized above).*

### REFERENCES

### _wp1677 - REFERENCES

### References
- Aghion, Philippe, Nick Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Peter Howitt. 2005. “Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (2): 701-28.  
- Aghion, Philippe, Robin Burgess, Stephen J. Redding, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. 2008. “The Unequal Effects of Liberalization: Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in India.” American Economic Review, 98(4): 1397-1412.  
- Amiti, Mary, and Jozef Konings. 2007. “Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia.” American Economic Review 97 (5): 1611-38.  
- Amiti, Mary, and Amit Khandelwal, 2013, “Import Competition and Quality Upgrading.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2): 476-490.  
- Bacchetta, Marc, and Cosimo Beverelli. 2012. “Non-Tariff Measures and the WTO.” VOX-EU.  
- Bourle, Renaud, Gilbert Cette, Jimmy Lopez, Jacques Mairesse, and Giuseppe Nicoletti. 2013. “Do Product Market Regulations in Upstream Sectors Curb Productivity Growth? Panel Data Evidence for OECD Countries.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5): 1750-1768.  
- Corden, Max. 1966. ‘‘The Structure of a Tariff System and the Effective Protective Rate.’’ Journal of Political Economy 74 (3): 221–37.  
- Ethier, Wilfred. 1982. “National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade.” American Economic Review, 72 (3): 389-405.  
- Fernandes, Ana. 2007. “Trade Policy, Trade Volumes and Plant-level Productivity in Colombian Manufacturing Industries.” Journal of International Economics, 71 (1): 51-72.  
- Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman. 1991. “Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth.” Review of Economic Studies 58 (1): 43-61.  
- Halpern, László, Miklós Koren, and Adam Szeidl. 2015. “Imported Inputs and Productivity.” American Economic Review, 105 (12): 3660-3703.  
- Helpman, Elhanan and Oleg Itskhoki, 2014, “Firms, Trade and Labor Market Dynamics.” unpupblished manuscript, Princeton University.  
- Helpman, Elhanan and Paul Krugman. 1985. Market Structure and Foreign Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.  
- Kasahara, Hiroyuki, and Joel Rodrigue. 2008. “Does the Use of Imported Intermediates Increase Productivity? Plant-level Evidence.” Journal of Development Economics, 87 (1): 106-18.  
- Markusen, James. 1989, “Trade in Producer Services and in other Specialized, Intermediate Inputs.” American Economic Review 79 (1): 85-95.  
- Melitz, Marc. 2003. “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71(6): 1695–725.  
- Melitz, Marc, and Gianmarco Ottaviano. 2008. “Market size, trade, and productivity.” The Review of Economic Studies 75(1): 295-316.  
- Pavcnik, Nina. 2002. “Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants.” Review of Economic Studies, 69 (1): 245-76.  
- Staiger, Robert. 2015. “Non-Tariff Measures and the WTO.” Unpublished working paper. Dartmouth College, Hanover.  
- Topalova, Petia, and Amit Khandelwal. 2011. “Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93 (3): 995-1009.

### Annex 1. Sample of Countries
- 1Australia
- 2Austria
- 3Canada
- 4Czech Republic
- 5Germany
- 6Spain
- 7Finland
- 8France
- 9United Kingdom
- 10Hungary
- 11Ireland
- 12Italy
- 13Japan
- 14Korea
- 15Netherlands
- 16Slovenia
- 17Sweden
- 18United States

### Annex 2. Description of Sectors
- DescriptionISIC Rev 4. Code
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishingA
- Mining and quarryingB
- Food products, beverages and tobacco10-12
- Textiles, wearing apparel, leather and related prodcuts13-15
- Wood products16-18a
- Paper products; printing and reproduction of recorded media16-18b
- Coke and refined petroleum products19
- Chemicals and chemical products20-21
- Rubber and plastics products22-23a
- Other non-metallic mineral products22-23b
- Basic metals and fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment24-25
- Electrical and optical equipment26-27
- Machinery and equipment n.e.c.28
- Transport equipment29-30
- Other manufacturing; repair and installation of machinery and equipment31-33
- Electricity, gas, and water supplyD-E
- Professional, scientific, technical, administrative and support service activitiesM-N
- Arts, entertainment, recreation and other service activitiesR-S

### Annex 3. Baseline Sample Data Countries and Sectors
- ISIC Rev. 4 Sector CodeCountry
  - A
  - B
  - 10-12
  - 13-15
  - 16-18
  - 19
  - 20-21
  - 22-23
  - 24-25
  - 26-27
  - 28
  - 29-30
  - 31-33
  - D-E
  - M-N
  - R-S
- Australia
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 9
  - 1', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
  - 91', 93''-07'
- Austria
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - -
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - -
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
- Canada
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 9
  - 3', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
  - 93', 95'-10'
- Czech Republic
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
- Germany
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
- Spain
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
- Finland
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - -
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - -
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
  - 95'-12'
- France
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
- United Kingdom
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
- Hungary
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - -
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
  - 96'-07'
- Ireland
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - -
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
  - 94'-07'
- Italy
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - -
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
  - 94'-09'
- Japan
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - -
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - -
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
  - 95'-09'
- Korea
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
  - -
  - 96', 99',02', 04', 
    06'-10'
- Netherlands
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - -
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - -
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
  - 94'-12'
- Slovenia
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06
    '
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
  - 99', 01'-06'
- Sweden
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - -
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - -
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
  - 95'-11'
- United States
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'
  - 91'-09'

### Annex 4. Concordance between FDI restrictiveness indicators and the baseline data
- FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness IndexISIC Rev 4. Code
  - Agriculture, Fisheries, and ForestryA
  - Mining & Quarrying (incl. Oil extr.)B
  - Food and other10-12; 13-15; 16-18
  - Oil ref. & Chemicals19; 20-21; 22-23a
  - Metals, machinery and other minerals22-23b; 24-25; 28
  - Electric, electronics, and other26-27
  - Transport equipment29-30
  - ElectricityD-E
  - ConstructionF
  - Business servicesM-N

*Content extracted from _wp1677 - REFERENCES.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp1677.pdf_