Comparing the estimated gaTT/WTO coefficients with non-reciprocal trade agreements, we find that for both exports from recipient countries to developed countries and exports in the opposite direction, the impact on GATT/WTO is greater than for non-reciprocal agreements, and the difference between estimated coefficients is statistically significant at 1%. Necessity: they have become an increasingly important feature of the multilateral trading system in recent years, in part due to the stagnation of global negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Many observers believe that THE RTAs are deepening market integration and complementing WTO efforts to liberalize international markets. Other observers, while acknowledging that ATRs can open markets, argue that these agreements also distort trade and discriminate 33 countries. WTO members also stated that ATRs can complement the multilateral trading system, not replace it. Director-General Roberto Azevédo said that many key issues – such as trade facilitation, liberalisation of services and subsidies for agriculture and fisheries – can only be addressed comprehensively and effectively if everyone has a place at the negotiating table. In addition, a multilateral system ensures the participation of the smallest and weakest countries and contributes to the integration of developing countries into the global economy. In addition, the increase in RTA has come to an end to the overlapping phenomenon of membership. This can hinder trade flows when traders struggle to meet multiple sets of trade rules. As the scope of the ATR extends to areas of action that are not regulated multilaterally, the risk of inconsistencies between the various agreements may be increased. Most of the previous ATRs involved tariff liberalization and related rules, such as trade defence, standards and rules of origin. Increasingly, ATRs have adopted the liberalization of services as well as obligations on service rules, investment, competition, intellectual property rights, e-commerce, environment and work. This could result in regulatory confusion and implementation problems.
The Reciprocal Tariff Act (adopted on 12 June 1934, Chapter 474, 48 Stat. 943, 19 U.C No. 1351) provided for the negotiation of customs agreements between the United States and various nations, including Latin American countries.  The law served as an institutional reform to allow the president to negotiate with foreign nations a reduction in tariffs in exchange for a reciprocal reduction in U.S. tariffs. This has led to a reduction in tariffs. The list of developed countries includes countries that have never benefited from unilateral trade preferences in Australia, Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States and Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (after joining the European Union in 2004), as well as Bulgaria and Romania (after joining the European Union in 2007). The reference specifications contain only a forgery for all preferential (reciprocal) trade agreements.
In order to examine the problems raised in this paper, we argue with the variable „dummy“ PTA in three different ways by interacting with the mannequins, whether or not the exporter and/or importing countries are beneficiaries of non-reciprocal preferential trade agreements. First, we will divide this mannequin into two models depending on whether the exporter is a beneficiary country (PTAXben) or a developed country (PTAXdev).