Trade research 2017–2024
Trade discrepancies & data sharing agreements
Explore the relationship between bilateral trade discrepancies and the agreements that enable customs data sharing.
The evidence base
Partner Country Method · HS 2-digit
183 reporting countries
167,115 country-pair-year observations
14 agreement frameworks
Partner Country Method · HS 2-digit
The dashboard could not load. Please refresh the page and try again.
Box plot year
Exclude years
Year selection applies to the box plots. Exclusions also apply to time trends; headline metrics and other comparisons cover the full period.
Full-period overview
RTD = Relative trade discrepancy |M-X|/(M+X)
01 Data Sharing vs. Trade Discrepancy
Relative Trade Discrepancy by Data Sharing Status
Box plots with group difference statistics.
per group (0 = full data)
Relative Trade Discrepancy by Strength Level
Strength scoring methodology.
Scoring Note
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | No agreement |
| 1 | Framework / ad-hoc exchange |
| 2 | Structured periodic exchange |
| 3 | Customs union with integrated systems |
| 4 | Real-time transaction-level access |
02 Temporal Trends
Relative Trade Discrepancy Over Time
RTD by Strength Over Time
03 Agreement Framework & Distance
Agreement Framework Comparison
Median RTD by agreement type, with No Agreement baseline.
04 Country-by-Country Heatmaps
Relative Trade Discrepancy (Misinvoicing) Heatmap
Rows show exporters; columns show importers. Pale lilac indicates low discrepancy and deep purple indicates high discrepancy. An X marks a data sharing agreement. Countries are ordered by geographic proximity.
05 Largest Trade Gaps
Top Country Pairs - Sortable
Click headers to sort.
06 Relationship Between Distance and Trade Discrepancy
log(Capital Distance) vs. Relative Trade Discrepancy
Stratified sample per group with OLS trendline.
07 Countries with the Most Striking Evidence of Data Sharing Effect
Top 25 Countries: Mean RTD With vs Without Agreements
Largest drop in mean RTD. Min 10 pairs in each group.
Methodology & agreement definitions
Mirror-trade discrepancies are screening signals, not proof of misinvoicing. Associations with data sharing agreements do not establish a causal effect.
Relative Trade Discrepancy (Misinvoicing) = |M - X| / (M + X). CIF/FOB correction: M_adj = M / (1 + c).
- Source: UN Comtrade bilateral merchandise trade, 2017-2024.
- Method: Partner Country Method (PCM) at HS 2-digit level.
- Included: Only direct Import and Export; sub-components dropped.
- Excluded: Non-reporting jurisdictions, HS code 99, and aggregates (0/97/490/975).
- Coverage: 183 reporters and about 167,000 country-pair-year observations.
- Agreement coverage: 14 data sharing agreements across 5 strength levels over 8 years.
Strength Scoring
| Group | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| No Agreement | 0 | No agreement. |
| Framework / Ad-hoc | 1 | A legal instrument allows customs data exchange, but it is case-by-case, request-based, and not supported by a permanent interoperable system. |
| Structured Periodic Exchange | 2 | An operational system supports regular exchange of declaration data, often at transaction level, but exchange may be periodic, incomplete, or limited by compatibility and coverage issues. |
| Customs Union | 3 | Members share a common external tariff and integrated electronic customs systems with centralized or interoperable declarations and monitoring. |
| Real-time Transaction-level Access | 4 | Both customs authorities can query each other's shipment records online in real time at the individual transaction level. |
Agreement Definitions
| Agreement | Short | Strength | Explanation | Start | Members |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASEAN Customs Transit System (ASEAN Single Window) | ASEAN | 2 | Operational structured customs-document exchange across ASEAN states, though implementation maturity varies and the system is more trade-facilitation oriented than discrepancy-detection oriented. | 2018 pilot exchange, all 10 participating by end-2019 | Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam |
| Bilateral Customs Mutual Assistance / Data Exchange Agreement | Bilateral Agreements | 2 | Dedicated bilateral customs data-exchange arrangements that create a standing legal and administrative channel, but not a shared multilateral system. | Varies by agreement | Varies by bilateral pair |
| CAN Andean Community | CAN | 1 | Provides a cooperation framework for customs valuation, origin, and statistics, but not a shared real-time customs IT platform for systematic transaction matching. | 1969 for CAN, specific customs decisions later | Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru |
| Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) | CPTPP | 1 | Creates a legal customs-cooperation framework, but not a shared operational database or automated transaction-level platform. | 2018 | Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United Kingdom, Vietnam |
| East African Community Revenue Authorities Digital Data Exchange (RADDEx) | EAC | 2 | Supports systematic electronic exchange of customs data across EAC authorities, though operational quality and completeness vary across members. | 2012 for RADDEx 2.0 rollout | Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda |
| Eurasian Economic Union (Customs Union) | EAEU | 3 | Customs union with common tariff and integrated customs information exchange, offering a high degree of operational integration. | 2015 | Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia |
| The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement | EEA | 2 | Structured customs-related cooperation with the EU, but EEA states are outside the EU Customs Union and do not share the same customs integration depth. | 1994 | Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, plus EU states within the EEA framework |
| EU Customs Union (Union Customs Code) | EU | 3 | Highly integrated paperless customs framework supported by systems such as Surveillance, ICS2, and NCTS. | UCC entered into force 2013, substantive application from 1 May 2016 | 27 EU member states |
| EU-China Strategic Customs Cooperation Agreement (SCCA) | SCCA | 1 | Strategic customs cooperation with selective information exchange, but not a routine real-time operational matching system. | 2004 | European Union and China |
| GCC Customs Union | GCC | 3 | Customs union with common external tariff and progressively integrated customs procedures and data systems. | 2003 | Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates |
| ICE Trade Transparency Unit (TTU) agreements | ICE TTU | 2 | Operational exchange and comparison of declaration data to identify anomalies, though data-format mismatches and uneven partner capacity remain constraints. | 2004 | United States plus TTU partner countries |
| The Southern Common Market MERCOSUR INDIRA customs data exchange system | MERCOSUR | 4 | Real-time, online, transaction-level customs data access across member administrations; the strongest interoperability case in the list. | 2004 | Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay |
| SACU (Southern African Customs Union) | SACU | 3 | Oldest customs union with common external tariff and strong institutional integration, though IT harmonization is less advanced than in the EU. | 1910 | Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa |
| WCO-model Customs Mutual Administrative Assistance | WCO | 1 | Creates a legal basis for information exchange on request, but not a permanent shared database or automated exchange infrastructure. | 2004 revised model | Not a bloc; used by whichever bilateral pairs adopt the model |