Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access published online on May 11, 2009
Journal of International Economic Law, doi:10.1093/jiel/jgp019
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Oxford University Press 2009, all rights reserved
Foreign Professionals in the United States: Regulatory Impediments to Trade
Correspondence: World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC. E-mail: amattoo{at}worldbank.org; dmishra{at}worldbank.org. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank. The authors are grateful to Ashish Narain for significant contributions to the paper, to Vikas Tiwari for valuable research assistance, and to Sumanta Chaudhuri, Jayant Dasgupta, Carlo Gamberale, Krishna Gupta, Dale Honeck, Abdul-Hamid Mamdouh, Gopal Pillai, Claude Trolliet, an anonymous referee, participants in the OECD-World Bank Expert Group Meeting on Domestic Regulation and Trade in Professional Services, 15–16 February 2007, Paris, and two anonymous referees for their comments.
Received for publication 31 March 2009.
| Abstract |
|---|
Changes in demographics and patterns of investment in human capital are creating increased scope for international trade in professional services. India, one of the largest exporters of skilled services, and the United States, one of the largest importers of skilled services, are two countries that mirror these broader global trends. The scope for mutually beneficial trade is today inhibited not only by quotas and discriminatory taxation, but also by a number of domestic regulatory requirements—including qualification and licensing requirements. To illustrate the nature and implications of these regulatory impediments, this article focuses on the regulatory requirements that Indian professionals face in the US market. It explores the consequences of regulatory discrimination and the economic cost of regulations, and presents some illustrative estimates. The article concludes by examining how the trade-inhibiting impact of regulatory requirements could be addressed through bilateral and multilateral negotiations.