OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index 2026

Recent developments in services trade policy

Stagnation in services trade reform compromises potential competitiveness and productivity gains amid AI boom and uncertain global trade context

In 2025, global trade faced continued uncertainty and structural transformation amid geopolitical tensions, policy volatility, strong demand for technology and rapid expansion of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Yet the global economy demonstrated resilience, with estimated gross domestic product (GDP) growth reaching 3.2% and global trade expanding by 4.2% (OECD, 2025[1]). Global services trade, particularly, showed a 9% year-on-year increase in the second quarter of 2025, driven by exports of goods-related services (WTO, 2025[2]).

Against this backdrop, the 2025 OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) shows that barriers to services trade remain high across countries and sectors, and the pace of reform slowed down in 2025 (Figure 5). New restrictions outweighed the effect of liberalisation and, overall, fewer reforms were observed than in 2024, indicating a stagnation of services policy modernisation amidst manufacturing-focused trade tensions.

Trade in services constitutes a central driver of economic development, contributing significantly to GDP and employment, and supporting a more sustainable, inclusive and digital global economy. Persistently high services trade barriers and stagnation in reform efforts, however, compromise potential competitiveness and productivity gains, as the digital transformation and the AI boom foreshadow a surge in cross-border commercial activity in services. AI could increase the value of cross-border flows of goods and services by nearly 40% by 2040, provided this is underpinned by efforts to bridge digital divides and improve regulatory coherence (WTO, 2025[3]). Current regulatory frameworks for services, many designed in the 1990s, are ill-equipped for advances in digital transformation, as technological change increasingly outpaces policy development. The absence of significant strategic modernisation risks aggravating the digital divide, and economies that fail to update their services regimes risk missing out on the productivity gains and value-added growth that AI is expected to deliver via enhanced services.

The 2025 update of the STRI also highlights that disparities in the level of services trade restrictiveness remain pronounced across countries and regions. Addressing these persistent asymmetries should be a priority in the context of action to reduce global imbalances. In 2024, OECD Member countries exported over USD 6 144 billion worth in services, representing an increase of more than 9% compared to 2023, while goods exports remained stable (World Bank Group, 2025[4]), emphasising the importance of services in trade balances. The United States is the world’s largest exporter of services (USD 1 152 billion), followed by the United Kingdom (USD 648 billion) and Ireland (USD 525 billion) (Figure 1). In 2024, among the top 10 services exporters, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, India, Singapore, and the Netherlands each sold more services to other countries than they bought, resulting in a trade surplus in services. On the other hand, Germany, the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), and Japan bought more services from abroad than what they sold, recording a services trade deficit (World Bank Group, 2025[4]).

Figure 1. The United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland are the world’s largest services exporters

Top ten services exporters (USD billion, 2024)

Source: World Bank Group (2025[4]).

Services trade barriers remain asymmetric across regions

The gap in the degree of services trade restrictiveness between OECD and non-OECD countries has continued to narrow over time, but significant differences remain in regional outcomes (Figure 2). In 2014, the average level of restrictiveness in non-OECD countries was more than 71% higher compared to OECD Member countries. By 2025, this gap declined; however, levels of services trade restrictiveness in non-OECD economies remain, on average, 55% higher than among OECD Member countries. These disparities maintain global asymmetries on the playing field and compound trade imbalances.

Over the period 2014‑25, the Asia-Pacific region recorded a notable decrease of more than 6.5% in overall level of restrictiveness. Several countries in the region undertook significant reforms during the past decade. Indonesia, for instance, saw its average STRI for all sectors drop by 24%, China by 18% and Thailand by 13%.

Conversely, Europe experienced an increase in restrictiveness by more than 5.7% on a most favoured nation (MFN) basis towards third countries over the same period. Recent policy developments in public procurement and foreign direct investment screening within the European Union (EU) contributed to the increase. For instance, many EU member states adopted new foreign direct investment mechanisms or amended existing ones in recent years in line with Regulation (EU) 2019/452. Many of these screening mechanisms have a broad sectoral coverage, affecting several services sectors.

 

Note: Access the interactive version of the graph: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/27329375/.

Source: OECD STRI database (http://oe.cd/stri-db).

Ongoing efforts to expand the coverage of the STRI suite of tools in Asia-Pacific and Latin America allow for a more comprehensive understanding of services trade policy developments on a regional level (Box 1).

Box 1. Expanding the STRI coverage in Asia-Pacific and Latin America

Recent years have marked an expansion of the OECD STRI data coverage across Asia-Pacific and Latin American economies, propelled by collaboration with regional fora: the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN ECLAC). These partnerships seek to support both domestic reform agendas and regional integration efforts by fostering dialogue on services trade policies.

Using the OECD STRI methodology, the APEC Index on the Regulatory Environment for Services Trade and the ASEAN STRI quantify services trade barriers across 23 Asia-Pacific economies, with sectoral coverage for each economy ranging between the completion of four priority sectors and full coverage of 22 services sectors. Work continues to expand the sectoral and economy coverage of both instruments.

APEC and ASEAN economies tend to have more restrictive regulatory frameworks for services trade compared to the OECD average. However, reforms have significantly opened up sectors such as courier services and insurance in the region during the past decade (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Asia-Pacific economies have undertaken significant services trade reforms since 2014

Percentage reduction in barriers to services trade since 2014 across Asia-Pacific economies

Note: The Asia-Pacific economies covered in the OECD STRI, the OECD Digital STRI, the APEC Index and the ASEAN STRI are Australia; Brunei; Cambodia; China; Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Malaysia; Myanmar; Nepal; New Zealand; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; the Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Vanuatu; and Viet Nam. Regulatory data for each economy is included to a varying degree of sectoral coverage. While the methodology and quantification in the APEC Index are the same as in the OECD STRI, the APEC Index reflects some APEC specific policies, particularly on the APEC Business Travel Card mechanism.

Source: OECD STRI database (http://oe.cd/stri-db), APEC Index (https://apecservicesindex.org/), and ASEAN STRI (https://oe.cd/ASEANSTRI).

In Latin America, the OECD’s close co‑operation with the UN ECLAC enabled the extension of STRI coverage beyond OECD membership, with a focus on services sectors with strong linkages to digital trade. Advanced coverage of 16 Latin American economies has been achieved in sectors such as computer services, telecommunications, logistics, and commercial banking (Figure 4). Work is underway to further expand this sectoral coverage in line with regional priorities.

 

Note: The Latin American economies covered by the STRI expansion exercise are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Regulatory data for each economy is included to a varying degree of sectoral coverage. Access the interactive version of the graph: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/27411233/.

Source: based on OECD STRI database (http://oe.cd/stri-db).

Services trade policy changes were unevenly distributed across sectors in 2025

The pattern of the liberalising and tightening policy changes in 2024‑25 underscores the uneven distribution of services trade policy changes across sectors (Figure 5).

The sector with the highest degree of reforms in 2025 was insurance services. These changes were driven by the removal of the limits on foreign ownership and the nationality requirements for members of the board of directors in India. Additionally, Brazil authorised mutual insurance, which was previously restricted to agricultural insurance, health insurance and work accidents. Moreover, in Norway, under the new Act on Financial Supervision, decisions by the financial supervisory authority can now be appealed.

Trade liberalisation was also identified in distribution, and certain logistics and transport services. From 2025, online tax registration and declaration is available to non-resident foreign suppliers in distribution services in Switzerland and Peru. In Germany, there is no longer any major state-owned company providing cargo handling services at road facilities, storage and warehouse services at rail facilities, and freight forwarding services. Finally, Indonesia removed the general requirement that the state hold at least 51% of shares in a state‑owned enterprise, opening opportunities for private participation in state-owned firms in many services sectors, including distribution, maritime transport, rail freight transport, road freight transport, and some logistics services.

In telecommunications, as of 2025 in Finland, Estonia and Peru, and 2024 in Latvia, there is no longer a dominant provider in the wholesale market for fixed telecommunication services via copper cable, and therefore, the telecommunications regulator no longer imposes ex ante obligations in the market segment. This deregulation of the copper market segment did not affect the STRI values but reflects the broader shift from copper to fibre-optic networks. Moreover, in Norway, contacts for the provision of universal telecommunication services are now allocated through a competitive process.

New sector-specific trade restrictions affected particularly the cluster of physical infrastructure services consisting of construction, architecture and engineering services. Among changes that contributed to this outcome, Finland introduced a licensing requirement for certain activities undertaken by construction engineers and architects. Certain characteristics of the license and the licensing process contribute to uncertainty for services providers – for instance, the license is valid for a limited duration, and there is no time limit for the licensing authority to provide its decision on applications.

Tightening changes were also observed in audiovisual services. In Hungary, Hungarian subtitling became mandatory, increasing costs for firms in broadcasting and motion pictures. In Peru, a publicly owned entity started operating in motion pictures, and the export of Peruvian audiovisual content and the import of inputs for works classified as Peruvian was exempted from taxes and duties, favouring domestic suppliers.

Among other new sector-specific restrictions, the United States suspended the duty-free de minimis treatment for all shipments of articles, except for certain exemptions, regardless of value, country of origin, mode of transportation, or method of entry, affecting distribution, courier and logistics services providers. In commercial banking, Sweden introduced caps on contractual and default interest rates for consumer credit.

Finally, the adoption of new foreign direct investment screening mechanisms in Greece and Ireland contributed to an increased degree of services trade restrictiveness across most sectors of the economy due to the broad scope of application of the new instruments.

Annex A provides a chronological overview of services trade policy changes adopted in each country in the STRI sample between 2014 and 2025.

Figure 5. Insurance services saw the highest degree of reforms in 2024-25

Changes in the STRIs per sector, 2024-25

Note: Sum of all the restrictions (increase in values) and liberalisation (decrease in values) across all the measures over the period considered.

Source: OECD STRI database (http://oe.cd/stri-db).

Despite the introduction of recent restrictive measures in audiovisual services, the motion picture services sector continued to rank among the most open among all 22 sectors covered by the STRI, alongside distribution and sound recording services (Figure 6). Air transport, legal services, and accounting and auditing services remained the most restrictive on average across the STRI country scope.

Figure 6. Air transport, legal services and accounting services continue to have the highest barriers

Minimum and maximum STRI values by sector, 2025

Note: The STRI takes values between zero and one, one being the most restrictive. The STRI database records measures on a most favoured nation (MFN) basis towards third countries. Preferential trade agreements are not taken into account. Air transport and road freight cover only commercial establishment (with accompanying movement of people).

Source: OECD STRI database (http://oe.cd/stri-db).

New policies affected services trade via commercial presence and temporary movement of natural persons

Several policy changes affected services traded via commercial presence (mode 31) in 2024‑25. Greece and Ireland adopted new foreign investment screening mechanisms with broad sectoral coverage and Hungary amended its legal framework for screening. Reforms in Indonesia and India opened new opportunities for foreign suppliers to participate in key services sectors via commercial presence. Indonesia lifted caps on private participation in state-owned enterprises in various sectors, while India did the same in the insurance sector, also allowing full foreign equity participation in privately owned insurance firms and removing nationality requirements for directors in insurance services, increasing flexibility for firms to appoint directors of their choice.

Services supplied via the temporary presence of natural persons (mode 4) were also affected by both tightening and liberalising changes in 2024‑25. Hungary reduced the maximum duration of the initial entry permit from 36 to 24 months for contractual services suppliers and from 24 to 12 months for independent services suppliers, tightening the conditions of entry for these categories of providers, while the Philippines introduced stricter labour market tests for certain categories of foreign services suppliers. The process for obtaining a business visa became more burdensome in several countries: in Brazil and Peru, the processing time for business visa applications increased, and the United Kingdom increased the cost of obtaining a business visa. In contrast, New Zealand accelerated business visa applications by reducing their processing time, facilitating business travel in all services sectors. Viet Nam, in turn, promoted initiatives to attract highly skilled foreign professionals, particularly in certain prioritised industries, such as field of technology or finance.

Wider uptake of electronic applications for operating licenses advanced the implementation of services domestic regulation disciplines

In the services field, many activities and professions require a license or authorisation to operate. Lack of transparency of domestic regulation and procedural inefficiencies related to the conditions and process for obtaining such licenses and authorisations can increase costs for services suppliers and reduce their ability to engage in trade.

Concluded in December 2021 under the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation defined a set of good regulatory practices with the view to eliminate unintended trade-restrictive effects related to licenses and authorisations to supply services by improving transparency, legal certainty and predictability, and regulatory quality and facilitation in services domestic regulation.

Four years after the conclusion of the Reference Paper, its services domestic regulation disciplines (SDR disciplines) have entered into force for 55 WTO Members.2 Progress in the implementation of the SDR disciplines can be monitored through the OECD STRI database that covers several related issues, e.g., transparency in the rule-making process, and licensing and authorisation requirements across different sectors.

In 2025, several countries covered by the STRI facilitated licensing or authorisation processes by introducing electronic applications. As of 2025, applications are accepted in electronic format in accounting services in Finland; in insurance services in Türkiye; in architecture, engineering and courier services in Germany; and in architecture services in Peru.

Among the STRI policy measures that are linked to the SDR disciplines, electronic applications are also the area that has seen the largest number of policy changes towards the implementation of the disciplines in recent years. Between 2021 and 2025, 20 countries of the 51 covered in the STRI made electronic application processes available in one or more sectors where a license or authorisation is required but electronic applications were previously not accepted. These reforms most often affected professional services, audiovisual services, and financial services. Costa Rica undertook particularly broad reforms, making electronic applications available in nine additional services sectors since 2021.

Other recent reforms related to the SDR disciplines have improved legal certainty and predictability in licensing and authorisation processes. For instance, since 2024, Polish legislation requires that applicants for telecommunication licenses are informed of the reasons for denial of licenses. Peru made licensing fees transparent in distribution services in 2022 and Türkiye in sound recording services in 2025. Moreover, reforms have strengthened the independence of the licensing authority from the government and services suppliers in Norway and Brazil’s financial services sectors. Finally, from 2022, there is an adequate public comment procedure for draft laws and regulations in Türkiye, contributing to better regulatory transparency across all sectors of the economy.

Despite this progress, important scope for further reform remains towards the full implementation of the SDR disciplines. For example, shortcomings related to licenses and authorisations are still common across the STRI country sample. The licensing authority is often not required to make its decision on an application within a set time limit or to inform the applicant of its reasons for refusing to grant a license. Addressing these shortcomings can have significant economic benefits: joint OECD-WTO analysis estimates that the full implementation of the SDR disciplines could bring annual trade cost savings in the range of USD 150 billion (OECD-WTO, 2021[5]).

Notes

← 1.  The STRI measures can be broken down along three of the four modes of services supplies defined by the WTO (modes 1, 3, and 4) reflecting the core impact that regulatory measures would have on services supplied through one of these modes. For the WTO definitions of the different modes of services supply, see https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/cbt_course_e/c1s3p1_e.htm.

← 2.  As of 16 January 2025. 72 WTO members and acceding members have committed to implement the disciplines. World Trade Organization, “Services Domestic Regulation”, consulted on 16 January 2025.