Countertrade
Creating incentives

Countertrade agreements may account for some 10-20% of world trade but are traditionally regarded as a form of bilateralism and therefore inefficient. In Discussion Paper No. 946, Research Fellow Dalia Marin and Monika Schnitzer identify circumstances in which countertrade may improve efficiency by solving contractual problems that would otherwise prevent the realization of gains from trade. It does little to overcome the need for hard currency, since barter accounts for only a small proportion of the total, and the greater part of countertrade takes the form of counterpurchase agreements, each involving sequential deals requiring payment in foreign exchange. Such agreements may however reduce the contractual hazards and incentive problems that characterize the exchange of industrial countries' technology-related and investment goods and for developing countries' consumption goods and raw materials. An exporter of complex, sophisticated products cannot easily specify all aspects of their quality and may thus be tempted to undersupply it and blame adverse circumstances in the receiving country for unsatisfactory performance. Equally, if the latter's low creditworthiness prevents it from financing the deal with a simple loan, the exporter is unsure whether it will be paid.

In Marin and Schnitzer's model, the second deal serves as a `hostage' to deter cheating or default in first, provided the contract is designed so that profits fall for either party that fails to fulfil its obligations. This tying of trade flows can therefore induce efficient technology spillovers and provide creditworthiness to countries with high outstanding debt. The second deal is essential for the trade gains of the first to be realized, so countertrade may be optimal even if the second deal could be carried out more efficiently with a third party. Marin and Schnitzer test various implications of their theory on a data sample of 230 countertrade contracts signed between OECD firms and trade organizations located in Austria and East European or LDC partners during 1984-8, and their empirical results provide support for their model. They note in conclusion that countertrade may help to promote investment and growth in Central and Eastern Europe by reducing the damaging effects of poor creditworthiness and the low foreign direct investment that reflects high levels of political uncertainty.

Tying Trade Flows: A Theory of Countertrade

Dalia Marin and Monika Schnitzer

Discussion Paper No. 946, May 1994 (IT)