This paper aims to analyze whether the domestic policy reforms in India would suffice, or there is a need to conform to stricter international standards as well. The paper is arranged along the following lines. First, the paper offers a brief review of the cooperation in the field of harmonization of vehicle regulations which is provided by the so-called WP.29 Forum. Second, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) standards and their membership along with Indian participation in the forum are presented. Third, reforms in India through the “Make in India” (MII) initiative and its trade in the auto-component segment are analyzed. Fourth, the possible non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on imports of auto-components in select partner countries is computed and presented. Fifth, the penetration pattern of partner countries in India’s automotive sector export value chain is analyzed. Finally, based on the observations, key policy conclusions are drawn both from global and Indian perspectives.,This paper blends expertise in law and economics and enables readers to have a finer understanding of the automotive sector which is one of the most internationalized product groups in world trade, characterized by not only cross-border movement of final products, but also of intermediate products like auto-parts and components as well as major global investment and relocation decisions. This paper focuses on India for four crucial reasons, which makes India both a key player (and potential disruptor) at global level and the rather complex approach chosen by the country vis-a-vis many regulations (including UNECE and WTO), reflecting its tendency to rely on domestic consolidation through measures such as the 2014 MII initiative.,The data analysis in the current paper indicates that after conforming to the UNECE 1998 standard, India’s relative trade with these countries has increased both in terms of auto-components and automobile products. Moreover, the value contribution from these partner countries in India’s exports is rising. On the other hand, the relative share of the UNECE 1958 countries in India’s trade basket has declined and a mixed trend is noticed for the common contracting parties (CPs). In addition, the share of the countries without accession to any of the UNECE agreements in India’s trade has shown an upward trend. The observation indicates that the divergence in automotive product standards might crucially influence India’s trade flows. It seems that in the short run, an orientation for exporting to UNECE 1998 partners and non-members emerges as a dominant strategy, underlining a specialization in medium-quality segment. Nevertheless, the long-term robustness of such a move deserves closer analysis, particularly by focusing on whether India may need to join the UNECE 1958 agreement to sustain its export growth. Before joining UNECE 1998, the sector has enjoyed protection through high tariff barriers. Given the differing perspective on opening-up, automobile sector earlier emerged as an obstacle in conclusion of EU–India Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA), which is being negotiated since 2007. However, after entry into an regional trade agreement (RTA), tariff preference in itself may not provide a country the requisite market access. The recent standard-setting exercises in ASEAN, a group with which India is deepening trade integration since 2010, may be considered as a case in point.,The analysis so far indicates that absence of participation in UNECE 1958 standard may restrict future options for India. Presently, Indian vehicle exports are reaching UNECE 1998 member countries (e.g., Ford India sending Ecosport to USA). It is also directed towards African and Latin American countries, presently not part of any agreement. However, the ASEAN countries, currently partnering India through free trade agreement (FTA), are increasingly moving towards UNECE 1958 standards. India’s sectoral trade surplus with ASEAN countries over 2009-2013 to 2014-2018 has declined from US$548.44mn to US$529.53mn, respectively. The potential challenges in reaching ASEAN and other UNECE 1958 member countries, in turn, may influence the relocation decisions of global auto majors in India, defeating the core purpose of MII initiative.,Given the scenario, a number of policy choices for India emerge. First, joining UNECE 1958 may not be a short-run option for India, but after evaluating the evolving trade pattern, in the long run, the country may consider adopting certain core 1958 standards, in line with its economic interests. Such a move may facilitate greater export flows from India to UNECE 1958 countries. The experience of Indonesia and Vietnam, who have conformed to select UNECE 1958 standards in spite of not being formally part of any agreement, deserves mention in this regard. Second, it is observed that India’s trade balance (TB) is not improving for several Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) member countries, in spite of obtaining tariff preferences through an existing trade bloc. Part of the poor performance has been explained by Indian exporters often using the most favoured nation route rather than the preferential route, to avoid the associated compliance-related complexities. The standards and mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) conformance provisions in ASEAN–India FTA are also found to be weaker vis-a-vis the comparable provisions for other ASEAN-centric bilateral RTAs with other RCEP members. This underlines the need for both rules of origin (ROO) reforms and agreement on MRAs, which may enhance the trade potential in general and in automotive sector in particular. In the short run, India should therefore attempt to enhance exports to the UNECE 1998 members and CPs, given the commonality in standards. However, in the long run, there is a need to explore harmonization with certain core 1958 standards, to promote exports in general and even within its RTAs in particular.,The automotive sector is one of the most internationalized product groups in world trade. It is known that harmonization of product standards with partner countries can facilitate bilateral trade flows. Presently, three agreements exist for harmonization of automotive standards relating to passenger and vehicle safety under the aegis of UNECE – UNECE 1958, UNECE 1997 and UNECE 1998. Through a series of reforms and launch of the MII initiative in 2014, India has deepened its presence in world automotive sector trade and aspires to play a bigger role in coming days. Moreover, India is a WTO member and has joined the UNECE 1998 standard in 2006, which means that several important conventions regulate and bind the country. The current paper intends to analyze whether the domestic policy reforms in India would suffice in promoting the exports from this sector, or there is a need to conform to stricter international standards. The data analysis reveals that India’s relative trade orientation is deepening towards the UNECE 1998 members and countries not part of any UNECE agreements. On the other hand, the relative trade share of the UNECE 1958 countries in India’s trade basket has declined and a mixed trend is noticed for the common CPs. The analysis indicates that the divergence in automotive product standards might crucially influence India’s trade flows in general and participation in international production networks in particular. The paper argues that in the long run, India needs to consider adherence to certain UNECE 1958 standards as well as speeding up the pending domestic reforms.

中文翻译：

---

全球汽车行业和产品标准

本文旨在分析印度的国内政策改革是否足够，还是有必要遵守更严格的国际标准。纸张按以下几行排列。首先，本文简要介绍了由所谓的WP.29论坛提供的车辆法规协调领域的合作。其次，介绍了联合国欧洲经济委员会（UNECE）的标准及其成员以及印度参加论坛的情况。第三，分析了通过“印度制造”（MII）计划在印度进行的改革及其在汽车零部件领域的贸易。第四，计算并介绍了选定合作伙伴国家/地区可能存在的进口汽车零部件的非关税壁垒。第五，分析了伙伴国家在印度汽车行业出口价值链中的渗透模式。最后，基于这些观察，从全球和印度的角度得出了重要的政策结论。本文融合了法律和经济学方面的专业知识，使读者对汽车行业有更深入的了解，汽车行业是印度最国际化的产品类别之一世界贸易，其特征不仅在于最终产品的跨境转移，还包括汽车零部件等中间产品的跨境转移，以及全球主要投资和搬迁决策。本文着眼于印度的四个关键原因，这使得印度既是全球范围的主要参与者（也是潜在的破坏者），而且该国针对许多法规（包括欧洲经委会和世界贸易组织）选择的是相当复杂的方法，反映了印度通过2014年MII计划等措施依靠国内整合的趋势。本文件中的数据分析表明，在符合UNECE 1998标准之后，印度与这些国家的相对贸易在汽车零部件方面均增加了和汽车产品。此外，这些伙伴国家对印度出口的价值贡献正在增加。另一方面，1958年UNECE国家在印度贸易篮子中的相对份额下降了，并且对共同缔约方（CP）而言，趋势是喜忧参半。此外，未加入联合国欧洲经济委员会的任何协定的国家在印度贸易中所占的份额也呈上升趋势。观察结果表明，汽车产品标准的差异可能会严重影响印度的贸易流量。似乎在短期内，向欧洲经委会1998年合作伙伴和非成员出口的方向已成为一项主要战略，突显了中等质量领域的专业化。尽管如此，这一举动的长期稳健性值得进一步分析，特别是着眼于印度是否可能需要加入UNECE 1958年协议以维持其出口增长。在加入1998年UNECE之前，该行业已经通过高关税壁垒获得了保护。鉴于对开放的看法不同，汽车行业较早地成为欧盟-印度双边贸易和投资协议（BTIA）缔结的障碍，该协议自2007年开始谈判。但是，在签订区域贸易协议（RTA）之后，关税优惠本身可能无法为一个国家提供必要的市场准入条件。印度自2010年以来正在与该组织加深贸易一体化的东盟国家最近制定标准的做法，可以被认为是一个很好的例子。迄今为止的分析表明，缺乏参加UNECE 1958标准可能会限制印度的未来选择。目前，印度的汽车出口量已达到1998年欧洲经委会的成员国（例如，福特印度公司将Ecosport派往美国）。它也针对非洲和拉丁美洲国家，目前不属于任何协议的一部分。但是，目前通过自由贸易协定（FTA）与印度成为伙伴的东盟国家正日益朝着UNECE 1958标准迈进。在2009-2013年至2014-2018年期间，印度与东盟国家的部门贸易顺差分别从5.844亿美元下降至5.953亿美元。反过来，到达东盟和其他1958年欧洲经委会成员国的潜在挑战可能会影响印度全球汽车专业人才的搬迁决定，从而违反MII倡议的核心目的。鉴于这种情况，印度出现了许多政策选择。首先，对于印度来说，加入UNECE 1958可能不是短期的选择，但是从长远来看，在评估了不断发展的贸易格局之后，该国可能会考虑根据其经济利益采用某些1958年核心标准。这样的举动可能会促进从印度到欧洲经委会1958年国家的更多出口。在这方面值得一提的是印度尼西亚和越南的经验，尽管它们并未正式成为任何协议的一部分，但它们仍然选择了UNECE 1958标准。第二，据观察，尽管通过现有的贸易集团获得了关税优惠，但印度的贸易平衡（TB）对于几个区域全面经济伙伴关系（RCEP）成员国并没有改善。印度出口商经常使用最受青睐的国家路线而不是优惠路线来解释部分不佳的表现，以避免相关的合规性复杂性。与与其他RCEP成员的其他以东盟为中心的双边RTAs的可比条款相比，在ASEAN-印度FTA中的标准和相互承认协议（MRA）一致性条款也被发现较弱。这突显了既需要进行原产地规则（ROO）的改革，又需要就MRA达成协议的要求，这可能会增强总体上的贸易潜力，尤其是在汽车行业。从短期看，因此，鉴于标准的共同性，印度应设法增加对UNECE 1998成员国和CP的出口。但是，从长远来看，有必要探索与1958年某些核心标准的协调，以促进整体出口，尤其是在其区域贸易协定之内。汽车行业是世界贸易中最国际化的产品类别之一。众所周知，产品标准与伙伴国家的协调可以促进双边贸易往来。目前，在欧洲经委会的支持下，已达成三项关于统一与乘客和车辆安全有关的汽车标准的协议-UNECE 1958，UNECE 1997和UNECE1998。通过一系列改革和2014年的MII倡议，印度已经加深了在世界汽车行业贸易中的影响力，并希望在未来的日子中发挥更大的作用。此外，印度是WTO成员，并于2006年加入了UNECE 1998标准，这意味着一些重要的公约对该国进行了规范和约束。本文旨在分析印度的国内政策改革是否足以促进该部门的出口，还是需要符合更严格的国际标准。数据分析表明，印度的相对贸易定位正在朝着1998年欧洲经委会成员国和不属于任何欧洲经委会协议一部分的国家加深。另一方面，1958年UNECE国家在印度贸易篮子中的相对贸易份额下降了，并且共同的CP出现了喜忧参半的趋势。分析表明，汽车产品标准的差异可能会严重影响印度的总体贸易流量，尤其是对国际生产网络的参与。该论文认为，从长远来看，印度需要考虑遵守某些欧洲经委会1958年标准，并加快即将进行的国内改革。