Vol 1, No 4, pp 359-369, 1984 Copynght © 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd Printed m USA 0736-5853•84 $3 00 + 00
A TRADE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES Geza Feketekuty and Kathryn Hauser with the assistance of Pippa Ma/mgren Abstract-This article illustrates how the principles and tools of trade policy
provide a framework for dealing with trade-distortive actions while ensuring a stable and predictable environment in which trade and technological innovation can prosper. It describes why communication has become a trade issue, what trade policy is all about, and some typical trade problems in telecommunications. The article concludes with a discussion of possibdities of longer-term rule-making efforts in international telecommunications. Computer chips, communication satellites and burgeoning advances in telecommunications technologies and applications are transforming the world's economy. These new technologies have made services the most dynamic sector of our economy. They are opening new possibilities for automating production and integrating manufacturing activities in different parts of the world. They are generating an unprecedented investment b o o m in communications equipment and facilities. These technological advances are spawning international trade opportunities in information-based s e r v i c e s everything from database and data-processing services to teleconferencing. Communication has thus become one of the hottest new topics in the international trade field. Billions of dollars of international trade (see Figures 1 and 2) have come to depend on the rapidly expanding communications industry, and on the government rules that regulate communications activities. Trade policy officials have been prodded and pulled into communications issues which previously were the exclusive domain of communications engineers and regulatory officials. In this article we explore how the concepts of trade analysis may find increasing application to communication issues, the type of problems in the communication field that may lend themselves to the application of these concepts and the involvement of trade officials, and the relationship of trade policy concerns to traditional means of international cooperation in the communications field. WHY
Trade policy traditionally concerned itself with government measures - principally tariffs and q u o t a s - affecting international trade in goods. As repeated rounds of negotiations reduced explicit protective barriers at the border, the concern of trade officials has been
Geza Feketekuty is the SemorAss,stant U S Trade Representauve, responstble for Services and Trade Pohcy Development. Kathryn Hauser is the Director of Telecommumcatlons Services m the Office of the U S. Trade Representative. Ptppa Malmgren was a student intern m the Office of the U S. Trade Representative from January-June 1984 359
G Feketekuty, K. Hauser, and P. Malmgren
i I I 0.7
I l I
I I I
Exports (s) 0.5
I I 0.3
U.S. Department of Commerce
* - Estlmated Ftgure 1 U S Expo~s of Telecommumcatuons Equtpment (SIC 3661), 1978-1983 ($, bllhons)
U.S. Department of Co,luaerce
* - Estlmated Figure 2 U S Expo~s of Telecommumcattons Equipment as a Percent of Shipments (SIC 3661) 1978-1983
A trade perspective
directed increasingly toward other governmental measures that affect international trade. During the last major round of trade negotiations, for example, key elements of the negotiations dealt with the use of subsidies, government procurement regulations, and the application of domestic product, health and sanitary standards to internationally traded goods and agricultural products. Because of their distortive nature, such nontariff measures can significantly hamper trade flows of both goods and services. In recent years, as services became more and more important in domestic and international economic activities, trade officials have been pressed by business interests to focus on barriers to international trade in services. Communication plays a central role in international trade of services because it is the primary distribution channel for such trade. Many internationally traded services, such as advertising, accounting, financial services and insurance, have been made possible or substantially more efficient, practical and profitable by the worldwide communications network. The value of services trade has been growing rapidly in recent years. U.S. exports of information-based services, for example, are estimated to be in excess of $30 billion, and total U.S. exports of services were in the range of $60 billion in 1982.' (Data collection is particularly poor in the services field, and these figures have been extrapolated from aggregate data available from the IMF and include inter-company exports of information services. USTR estimates that the magnitudes are large and appear to be rising rapidly.) Because of the sheer volume of service transactions as indicated in Figure 3, changes in the way communications networks operate can significantly affect the international competitive position of many service industries. For example, government regulations can intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against or handicap foreign suppliers of services. Such regulations include those affecting the cost of transmitting a message, the type of electromc information that can be transmitted, or the type of equipment that can be connected to the communications network. When trade issues like these arise, trade officials may be asked to intervene by addressing the adverse impact of communication regulations on international trade. In addition to its central role in international trade in services, commumcation services are crucial to the future international operation of multinational companies. Major advances in communications and data processing technologies have opened the way for linking manufacturing processes in different parts of the world. Some examples of these are: systems design and engineering in South Korea, component manufacturing in Brazil, assembly in Mexico, and marketing and distribution in the United States. In
1.75 1.50 -
.75 .50 1975 Source:
Internatlonal Monetary Fund
Figure 3 U S Exports of Communication Services 1975-1982 (in SDR's) billions
G. Feketekuty, K. Hauser and P. Malmgren
general, the decline in the cost of communications and the improved quality of communications has made possible new gains in efficiency for global enterprises. Many of these firms have been making large investments in new communication facilities to take advantage of these developments. International communications are increasingly important commercial issues for multinational manufacturing enterprises, with major implications for competitiveness and profitability. The growth of communications has also increased potential trade in communications equipment (see Figure 4), and has made the long-standing trade barriers in this area as a matter of major concern. The total world-wide market for communication equipment is now on the order of $60 billion. Estimates by Arthur D. Little, Inc., are that sales of hardware alone will grow to $88.4 billion by 1988. 2 This translates into investments in plant and equipment by the U.S., Japan, and France on the order of 9°7o of total gross domestic product over the coming years. With this volume of sales at stake, there is considerable concern about non-tariff barriers which restrict trade in communications equipment. Of particular concern are technical standards that discriminate against foreign suppliers of equipment and government procurement regulations that limit competition to domestic suppliers of equipment. The concern has become particularly pressing in the United States because the deregulation of the U.S. communications industry has opened the American market to foreign competition without a corresponding increase in export opportunities for U.S. suppliers in the major markets abroad. Communication services themselves are an important international economic activity. The merging of computer and communications technologies has given way to the international provision of electronic information services, computer services and communications services. The variety of offerings includes database services, teletext, videotext, dataprocessing services, and teleconferencing. Statistics collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicate strong growth potential for such services in the future. Information jobs worldwide increased sixfold, from 10 to 60 million during the past decade. 3 This translates into estimates of international trade in communication services approaching $50 billion by the end of the decade. The close relationship of communications and international trade is illustrated by the growth in services trade; the operation of multinational companies; the expansion of communications equipment, trade and investment; and the innovation of new international 65.3 45.1 30.4
Ftgure 4 World Telecommumcat=ons Equipment Market, 1977-1987 ($, bllhons, 1977 market pnces)
A trade perspective
communication services. Government regulations that intentionally or unintentionally serve to reduce services trade by impeding the flow of information can seriously affect international trade relations. The business community frequently calls upon trade policy officials to investigate government regulations in the communications field that create barriers to trade, with a view toward determining how adverse impacts on trade could be minimized. WHAT TRADE POLICY IS ALL ABOUT The goal of trade policy is to promote and facilitate trade. Trade policy officials pursue this goal through three principal activities: (1) ongoing consultations with officials of other governments aimed at the resolution of trade problems; (2) bilateral and multilateral negotiations aimed at the mutual reduction of trade barriers; and (3) negotiation of bilateral and multilateral trade rules and procedures to establish a predictable and stable environment for trade. Trade officials maintain regular contacts with their foreign counterparts in an effort to resolve trade problems. As a rule, trade problems are brought to the attention of trade officials by affected businessmen. More often than not, trade problems arise from government regulating activities. In some cases, there is a basic misunderstanding of the regulations; in other cases, officials never considered the trade effects of the regulations; and in still other cases, regulations are used explicitly for protectionist purposes. The aim of trade officials is to clarify any misunderstandings and, where possible, to separate any adverse trade effects from legitimate regulatory objectives. A second major activity of trade policy officials is the negotiation of international agreements on the reduction of trade barriers. The principal forum for the international negotiation of such agreements is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Through repeated rounds of negotiations, the 89 member countries of the GATT have significantly reduced the tariffs and quotas which restricted world trade after World War II. More recently, negotiations have focused on non-tariff barriers. In addition to multilateral negotiations in the GATT, the U.S. has negotiated bilateral agreements with individual countries to eliminate trade barriers. Negotiations are currently under way, for example, on a free trade agreement with Israel (covering services as well as goods) and sectoral free trade agreements with Canada (including an agreement covering information services). A third major activity of trade officials is the negotiation of international rules and procedures that serve to guide governments in administering policies affecting trade. Such rules and procedures place internationally agreed limits on barriers to trade and provide procedures for resolving any disagreements arising over the application of the rules. The most comprehensive set of agreements is provided by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), though many regional and bilateral trade agreements also contain such rules and procedures. GATT rules governing trade relations are based on a few basic substantive and procedural principles. The first is that trade barriers or restrictions should be explicit and negotiable. The second is that policy measures which are not explicitly identified as trade barriers should be administered in a non-discriminatory fashion, i.e., that imported goods should be treated no less favorably under domestic laws and regulations as domesticallyproduced goods. This is the so-called national treatment principle. A related principle is that governments should seek to design and implement domestic regulations in such a way that they achieve the desired domestic policy goals with the least distortion of in-
G. Feketekuty, K. Hauser, and P Malmgren
ternational trade. Another principle is that government-owned enterprises should maintain an arms-length relationship vis-a-vis the government, placing them in the same commercial position as competing private enterprises. A key procedural principle is that governments should make available information of all regulations affecting importers, giving them adequate notice. Second, governments should provide importers the same guarantees of due process available to domestic producers, including the right to comment on proposed rules, access to officials responsible for administering the rules, and access to domestic courts and other dispute settlement procedures. A third principle is that governments should be willing to consult with one another when trade problems arise to resolve the issues involved in a mutually satisfactory manner. And finally, trade disputes that cannot be resolved through bilateral consultations should be submitted to an agreed dispute settlement process.
SOME TYPICAL TRADE PROBLEMS IN THE COMMUNICATION AREA A few examples of trade problems encountered in both hardware equipment and in communication services can help illustrate the role that trade policy officials can play in facilitating trade. Since communication services have traditionally been provided by monopolies in most countries, most communications equipment has traditionally been produced by the monopolies themselves or by a limited number of domestic firms with close links to the domestic monopoly. The list of PTTs that have such close relationships includes the Germans with Siemens, the Dutch with Phillips, the Swedish with Erickson, the Japanese with NEC, the British with GEC and Plessey, and the French with CGE and Thomson Brandt. In this country, Western Electric produced most of the equipment used in the old Bell system. Deregulation of the communications industry in the United States opened the U.S. market for telecommunications equipment to wide ranging competition, including competition from imports. Since most foreign markets have remained closed, there has been growing concern in the United States about the lack of an equitable trading situation in the United States. This has led to a number of U.S. initiatives to open up foreign markets. One such effort took place in 1980, when U.S. trade officials asked Japan's telecommunications monopoly, NTT, to adopt competitive bidding procedures. Subsequent negotiations resulted in a bilateral agreement that has lead to a gradual increase in U.S. exports of telecommunication equipment. Another example in this area concerns discussions over the so-called "interconnect market." Interconnect refers to products which can be purchased by individuals and attached to the communications network, such as telephone and modems (equipment to connect computers to telephones). Every country regulates the type of products which can be sold in the interconnect market in order to protect the network from devices that might harm it. Judicial changes in the United States have significantly opened the American market for privately-owned interconnect equipment. The movement towards deregulation began in 1968 with the "Carterfone" decision by the FCC. In 1975, the FCC established a registration program for all types of interconnect equipment, except private branch exchanges (PBXs), key systems and main stations. The list of equipment was expanded in 1976 and 1978. By 1980, more than 900 companies, both domestic and foreign, had entered the new market and were competing with the traditional telephone company suppliers in providing terminal equipment.
A trade perspective
Other countries have not opened their interconnect markets to the same degree as the U.S., and this has placed U.S. suppliers of interconnect equipment at a disadvantage. One aim of trade policy officials is to attain similar treatment for U.S. interconnect equipment manufacturers with regard to access to foreign interconnect markets. The Japanese interconnect market was the first the U.S. Government attempted to gain access to, under the auspices of bilateral discussions on the implementation of the non-tariff barrier codes negotiated during the Tokyo Round. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the Standards Code) was particularly relevant to the interconnect issue since most barriers are related to product standards or certification questions. The U.S. sought to ensure that interconnect equipment trade was covered by the basic principles of the Standards Code. The principles include: non-discriminatory treatment, direct and complete access to markets, published and readily available information about regulations, and consultation and dispute settlement. The U.S. and Japan held detailed discussions of the discriminatory Japanese policies that precluded imported products and rejected test data generated in the territory of the exporting country. The two countries reached agreement in December 1980 that Japan will provide access to foreign manufacturers in its interconnect market. Discussions are currently underway with a number of countries to extend these rules and procedures to other markets for interconnect equipment. Canada, the U.K. and other European countries have expressed interest in opening their interconnect equipment markets to foreign competition. If agreement could be reached, it would set the stage for a more general application of non-discriminatory trade principles to communication issues. In the area of communication services, many trade problems seem to revolve around the availability and cost of leased lines. It has been a long-standing practice of communication authorities to provide a single company or group of companies a private communication line for their own data communication requirements. These private lines are generally leased at an economical flat monthly rate, hence the name "leased lines." Companies with large telecommunications requirements prefer the cost-efficient leased lines, which provide a continuously open channel for communication and can be used to meet special needs or conditions. Indeed, leased lines account for the largest share of growth in communication volume among major companies. In recent years several European PTTs have suggested that they might charge for the use of private leased lines on a modified volume-sensitive basis instead of a flat rate. This suggestion reflects the concern of many PTTs that they are not capturing all of the revenue they might or are losing control over the use of the telecommunications network by allowing companies to determine how their leased lines will be used. A related issue involves the use of leased lines by data-processing or database vendors. The ability of such firms to freely use leased lines as a distribution channel can be critical to making their services competitive and economically viable. PTTs, however, fear that the firms might use leased lines for general communication purposes. Certain PTTs require or have contemplated requiring foreign vendors of data-processing services supplied by leased lines to perform some intermediate processing of data in local computer centers in order to make it available to subscribers over the local-switched network. This practice protects the local data-processing industry, discriminates against foreign dataprocessing companies and assures the P T T of higher revenues. Trade channels proved to be particularly helpful in resolving problems concerning leased lines encountered by two American data-processing services companies, Control Data and Tymshare, Inc., m Japan. Beginning in 1976, the two companies wished to offer their services in Japan via international leased lines. Japanese telecommunications authorities feared that these services would minimize expansion of a public data network
G. Feketekuty, K. Hauser, and P Malmgren
in J a p a n and the revenue it would provide. After a delay of three years, Japan's international record carrier, Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co. (KDD), granted the companies licenses but only on the condition that they connect their leased lines to only one computer center in the United States. This prevented the companies from providing competitive services because their data and software were housed in various centers throughout the country and economies of scale made it uneconomical to provide access to only a small part of their data. The case was partially resolved when, through trade channels, the U.S. was able to persuade the Japanese Ministry o f Posts and Telecommunications to permit one of the companies to access multiple centers in exchange for guarantees that subscribers would not be able to use the lines for communication purposes. Another case concerns regulations by the West G e r m a n P T T , the Bundespost, which prevent subscribers to foreign information services direct access to international leased lines. Foreign vendors of data-processing services supplied via international leased lines must undertake some intermediate processing of data in a G e r m a n computer center in order to make it available to subscribers over the local-switched network. This requirement seriously limits the ability of foreign information-based firms to choose the most cost-effective telecommunications and data processing technologies and services for its operations and sales in West Germany. The Bundespost's motivations for this policy are clearly to maintain its monopoly over telecommunications, increase its revenues and protect West Germany's data-processing industry. ''s At the request of certain affected firms, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has pursued informal consultations with the West G e r m a n G o v e r n m e n t on the issue. Working through the Economics Ministry, USTR argued that the international trade implications of this restriction were not only contrary to international trade principles but also likely to have a negative impact on direct foreign investment in West G e r m a n y . This dialogue is continuing and, although the trade restrictions are still in place, there are some signs that the Bundespost will not take further restrictive measures in the near future.
MULTILATERAL RULE-MAKING EFFORTS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS In addiuon to the examples cited above to resolve specific trade problems in the communication area, U.S. trade officials have taken a number of initiatives to develop a set of principles, rules and procedures for facilitating trade in information goods and services. Possible trade agreements in this area are not meant as substitutes for traditional mechanisms for establishing international cooperation on communication issues. Rather, the aim is to achieve complementary avenues for facilitating trade in information goods and services and for resolving trade problems. The driving force behind the involvement of trade policy officials is, of course, the billions of dollars of information goods and services that are at stake. Indeed, the telecommunications sector, broadly defined, will be the growing segment in our economies for m a n y years to come. The principal initiative taken by the United States in the area of trade in information services was a proposal put forward in 1982 in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for a "Data Declaration" to be adopted by member countries. The Declaration would commit m e m b e r governments to take best efforts to ensure that domestic regulatory policies do not unnecessarily restrict the open international flow of data. While recognizing the sovereign right of individual governments to safeguard social objectives, the Declaration would commit governments to pursue the objectives in each of these areas in a manner that would minimize interference and assure access to information flow.
A trade perspective
After two years of discussion within the OECD's communication policy working party on transborder data flow, the Data Declaration has been re-worked to downplay the phrase free flow of information, because of confusion over its meaning, and highlight the concept of right of access to information. This reformulation better reflects the economic transformation brought about by the computer and communications boom. If adopted, the new Statement of General Intent would be a positive step toward the development of international rules covering transborder data flow. The economic importance of such flows is certain to gain strength in the coming years. Transborder data flow concerns only one aspect of the communication trade issues confronting governments. The OECD is also examining the more general issues of trade in services. It is analyzing trade flows in particular services' sectors, such as insurance, banking and construction/engineering, as well as considering principles and procedures that might serve as the basis for a more liberal international regime for trade in services more generally. Since effective communication is the underpinning of trade relations and an increasingly important component of international economic activity, it is a welcome development that the OECD is now examining international telecommunications services trade to supplement its already well advanced work on trade in telecommunications hardware. This work will make an important contribution to the formulation of principles that could lead to international trade rules for services. Communication trade issues may also be considered in the broader work now under way on trade in services in the principal international trade organization, the GATT. Except to a very limited extent, the rules of the General Agreement do not apply to trade in services, and hence the G A T T does not cover most of the issues arising in connection with communication. This situation is gradually changing, however. When the trade ministers of the 88 (now 89) G A T T member countries met in late November 1982, they agreed that interested member countries should undertake national studies of trade in services. Once presented to the G A T T , these studies will serve as a basis on which decisions will be taken concerning next steps. At the 1984 annual meeting of G A T T members, decisions will likely be made on whether to extend the existing G A T T rules to establish new international trade rules for services. In thinking about the possible nature of any future G A T T agreements covering trade in services, including trade in information and communication services, it may be instructive to examine the G A T T Standards Code in greater detail. As mentioned earlier in connection with interconnect market issues, the Standards Code deals with the application of technical regulations and product standards in the areas of safety, health, consumer or environmental protection, and other areas. Its aim is to assure that government regulations in these areas do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. There is a clear analogy between the regulation of product standards and the regulauon of telecommunications and information. In both cases, governments have determined that regulation is necessary to achieve certain social, cultural or national security goals. The sovereign right of governments to regulate certain economic activities is not questioned. The manner in which governments go about developing regulations is not an issue. Indeed, the Standards Code explicitly encourages the activities of international standardization bodies. The promulgation of regulations is not an issue. Trade concerns arise only when regulations are administered in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. The Standards Code applies three fundamental trade policy principles to international standardization activities which are equally applicable to the regulation of communications. The first principle is non-discrimination. Parties must ensure that technical regulations and standards are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to creating obstacles to international trade. In the telecommunications and information sector this would mean
G. Feketekuty, K. Hauser, and P. Malmgren
that countries could no longer exclude foreign manufacturers or service providers in the marketplace. PTTs would have to follow open, non-discriminatory procedures for the procurement of equipment and services. PTTs would no longer be able to require local processing of data, because this restriction discriminates against foreign competitors. The second principle is national treatment. Parties must treat products imported from another country no less favorably than they treat their own domestic products. In a telecommunications and information context, countries would not be able to give preferences to national firms or discriminate among foreign suppliers. Transparency is the third fundamental trade principle applied to international standardization activities and directly relevant to telecommunications and information. Parties are required to follow open procedures for determining the conformity of products with technical regulations and to provide information about the regulations themselves. To some extent, current international cooperation in the telecommunications and information field calls for a certain amount of openness about government regulations. Trade relations among all countries could benefit greatly from common acceptance of a requirement to publish all laws, regulations or administrative rulings on telecommunications and information policy. Multilateral cooperative efforts would be enhanced further if there were a central collection point for such information within each government and in an international organization. The trade principle of transparency would set out this type of obligation. The trade principles of non-discrimination, national treatment and transparency could help place international trade in telecommunications and information on a firmer footing. Application of these principles would reduce the likelihood that regulations could be used for protectionist ends. They also would increase international cooperation in this field. The Standards Code also represents a good example of the relationship that can be established between a trade agreement and a longstanding international organization designed to establish international cooperation at a technical level. International cooperation on product standards has long been the goal of the International Standards Organization (ISO) headquartered in Brussels. In negotiating the Standards Code, countries clearly recognized that technical cooperation on individual standards and efforts to harmonize them would remain the province of the ISO. The Standards Code in the GATT was designed to complement these activities by providing a framework for avoiding and resolving trade problems arising from the application of standards.
BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS TO ASSURE FREE TRADE IN INFORMATION SERVICES
Bilateral agreements The GATT and OECD offer good possibilities for discussing commercial issues in the communication field in the coming years. Efforts in these organizations might well be complemented by specific bilateral negotiations to assure open trade in information services. Some useful first steps to bring trade principles into the discussion about telecommunications matters are being taken on a bilateral basis between the United States and Canada. The Royal Bank of Canada has proposed to the Canadian Government that it initiate consultations with the United States aimed at forging an open-ended bilateral arrangement regarding traded computer services. The Royal Bank has proposed that suppliers and users of computer services in one country be assured access to the markets and services available in the other country. The proposal contains a comprehensive national treat-
A trade perspecttve
ment provision that would guarantee such rights, an understanding on appropriate methods and levels of government assistance, and a consultation and amending process: ' The concept o f free trade in computer services is being considered as part of a broader Canadian initiative to strengthen trade ties with the United States. The Canadian Government has proposed discussions with the U.S. on the projects for free trade in certain sectors. "Traded Computer Services and other Aspects of Informatics" is one sector currently under consideration by both governments. While no final decisions have been made about the scope and coverage of such an arrangement, the mere fact that the proposal has been made signals the importance of the telecommunications and information sector in the world economy and the potential of trade liberalization in this area.
CONCLUSIONS The rapidly changing technologies and innovative applications of telecommunications and information services have created a boom in the trade and investment of telecommunications goods and services. To the extent that existing regulations, or the threat of new regulations, directly or indirectly inhibit that trade, trade policy officials will be asked to intervene. Trade theory and practice cannot displace the long-standing international cooperation on communication matters, but they can complement them by highlighting the effects of domestic regulatory policies on broader economic relations. Trade rules provide a framework for dealing with distortive actions while ensuring a stable and predictable environment in which trade and technological innovation can prosper. Discussion of communications issues from a trade perspective could help reduce barriers to trade and bring about a greater understanding of the impact of domestic regulatory measures on international trade relations. This approach could facilitate longer-term efforts to apply on a multilateral basis certain trade principles to the communication field, as well as to bring trade in services into the international framework governing trade in goods.
REFERENCES 1. 2. 3 4
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) U S Nattonal Study on Trade m Servtces, January 1984 TelecommumcaUons: The global battle. Busmess Week (October 24, 1984), p 127 Naisbett, J. Megatrends. Warner Books, New York (1982). Snow, S. Telecommumcauons and media policy in Germany' Recent developments Journal o f Commumcattons 32, 18-23 (1973). 5 Muller, J Potenual for compeUUon and the role of PTT's. Telecommumcattons Pohcy, 18-23 (March 1981) 6. Frazer, R C. Trade and technology: It's Canada's move. Speech by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Royal Bank of Canada, prepared for delivery to the Canadian Club of Toronto, November 7, 1983 7. Grey, R. C. Traded computer services: An analyses of a proposal for Canada/U S A agreement. Monograph.