This paper examines developments in government procurement arrangements across the Tasman to assess the extent to which recent trade, especially preferential agreements, of Australia and New Zealand containing government procurement commitments have contributed to any reform in these policies. It argues that (preferential) trade agreements have had little or no impact on any such reforms, and that in the case of Australia, such commitments have not prevented procurement arrangements from going backwards. Transparent price preferences favouring local content have been largely replaced by hidden and more costly discretionary discriminatory measures. In sharp contrast to Australia, New Zealand seems to have maintained a relatively open and non-discriminatory government procurement regime based not on commitments in trade agreements but rather on unconditional MFN unilateral reforms. The central policy message is trade agreements cannot substitute for unilateral reforms.
展开▼
