IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unc/dispap/153.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Free Trade Or Fair Trade? An Enquiry Into The Causes Of Failure In Recent Trade Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN

Abstract

Trade policy is at a crossroads. So is trade diplomacy. The failure of the “traditional import substitution” policies of the 1950s–1970s has been followed by the failure of trade liberalization in the 1980s and 1990s by developing countries. In particular, the deadlock in the negotiations during the recent meetings of WTO has demonstrated the severe differences among various groups of member countries. Focusing on frictions between developing countries and industrial economies in the particular area of trade in manufactured goods, the purpose of this paper is to argue that the failure of the negotiations is related to a number of fallacies and contradictions surrounding the concepts and practices of universal trade liberalization and infant industry protection. These main fallacies include: the philosophy behind universal and across-the-board trade liberalization; the contradictions in the design and implementation of GATT/WTO rules to the detrimental interest of developing countries; the theory and practice of infant industry protection; and, in particular, perceptions about the interests of developed countries in universal and across-the-board trade liberalization by developing countries. Emphasizing that free trade should be the ultimate aim of every nation once all economies have reached the same level of development, it is argued that there is a need for revision of international trade rules. In the design of the new rules more attention should be paid to the level of development and industrial capacity of developing countries. Developing countries should have a clear trade and industrial policy as well as negotiating strategy before entering the negotiation. To play such a proactive role, along the lines suggested in the UNCTAD “Positive Agenda”, developing countries should: link their trade policy to their development objective; and follow a dynamic trade policy geared to their level of development, industrial capacity, structural characteristics and changes in the world economy, as suggested by Shafaeddin (1995). Moreover, in their common negotiation strategy, instead of agreeing on a “least common denominator”, they should attempt to cooperate en elaborating a strategy aiming at the trading rules that differentiate countries, in accordance with some agreed criteria. Such criteria may include a number of indicators, such as per capita income, the degree of dependence on primary commodities, the share of manufacturing in GDP, etc. Finally, it is a myth to believe that concessions will always be made to developing countries on “moral grounds”. “Bargaining” is the name of the game. Developing countries should mobilize and make the best use of whatever bargaining chips they possess, however small they may be; and developing countries can have some leverage in trade negotiations if they mobilize Shafaeddin, 1984). Bargaining requires not only bargaining assets, but also knowledge, information about the issues concerned, and training for undertaking trade negotiations. In such a context, at the country level there is a need not only for policy formulation and for strengthening the capacity of commercial diplomacy to enhance bargaining skills, but also for strengthening the capacity for trade and industrial policy formulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN, 2001. "Free Trade Or Fair Trade? An Enquiry Into The Causes Of Failure In Recent Trade Negotiations," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 153, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  • Handle: RePEc:unc:dispap:153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dp_153.en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN, 2000. "What Did Frederick List Actually Say? Some Clarifications On The Infant Industry Argument," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 149, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    2. Anne O. Krueger, 1978. "Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts and Consequences," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue78-1, August.
    3. Krueger, Anne O, 1980. "Trade Policy as an Input to Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 288-292, May.
    4. Paul Streeten, 1990. "Comparative Advantage and Free Trade," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Azizur Rahman Khan & Rehman Sobhan (ed.), Trade, Planning and Rural Development, chapter 4, pages 36-52, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Ethier, Wilfred J, 1982. "National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 389-405, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Does It Matter Who Will Be The Next Director of the WTO?
      by Mehdi Shafaeddin in Triple Crisis on 2013-02-20 19:43:12

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nyhodo, Bonani & Punt, Cecilia & Vink, Nick, 2009. "The potential impact of the Doha Development Agenda on the South African economy: liberalising OECD agriculture and food trade," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shafaeddin, Mehdi, 2010. "Trade liberalization, industrialization and development; experience of recent decades," MPRA Paper 26355, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Onafowora, Olugbenga A. & Owoye, Oluwole, 1998. "Can Trade Liberalization Stimulate Economic Growth in Africa?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 497-506, March.
    3. Stefanescu, Razvan & Dumitriu, Ramona, 2014. "Investigation on the relationship between Romanian foreign trade and industrial production," MPRA Paper 62547, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Turan Subasat, 2003. "Does the Dollar Index Really Measure Outward Orientation?," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 309-326.
    5. Mohammad Sharif Karimi & Andrzej Cieslik, 2017. "Foreign Knowledge Spillovers and Total Factor Productivity Growth: Evidence from Four ASEAN Countries," Iranian Economic Review (IER), Faculty of Economics,University of Tehran.Tehran,Iran, vol. 21(2), pages 267-299, Spring.
    6. Vollrath, Thomas L., 1983. "Factors Affecting Agricultural Trade: An Intercountry Empirical Inquiry," Staff Reports 324726, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Ahdi N. Ajmi & Goodness C. Aye & Mehmet Balcilar & Rangan Gupta, 2015. "Causality between exports and economic growth in South Africa: evidence from linear and nonlinear tests," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 49(2), pages 163-181, April-Jun.
    8. Prema-Chandra Athukorala, 2011. "Trade Liberalisation and The Poverty of Nations: A Review Article," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 533-543.
    9. Gaytaranov, Jalal A. & Gunter, Lewell F. & Stegelin, Forrest E., 2013. "Cost of Trade Impact on Transition Country Exports," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142986, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Rivera, Sandra A. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "How does China’s growth affect India? An Economywide Analysis," Conference papers 331359, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Branimir Jovanović & Marjan Petreski & Igor Velickovski, 2015. "Tariff-induced (de)industrialization in transition economies: A comparative analysis," wiiw Balkan Observatory Working Papers 116, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    12. Marjan Petreski & Branimir Jovanovic & Igor Velickovski, 2017. "Tariff-Induced (De)industrialization: An Empirical Analysis," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 59(3), pages 345-381, September.
    13. Armah Bartholomew, 2000. "Does Latin America Have More to Gain From Exchange Rate Liberalization than Sub-Saharan Africa?," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 113-132.
    14. José Romero, 2015. "Exports, imports, FDI and GDP in Mexico," Serie documentos de trabajo del Centro de Estudios Económicos 2015-01, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos.
    15. Mehmet Balcilar & Zeynel Ozdemir, 2013. "The export-output growth nexus in Japan: a bootstrap rolling window approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 639-660, April.
    16. Sebastian Edwards, 1994. "Trade and Industrial Policy Reform in Latin America," NBER Working Papers 4772, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Umoh, Okon J. & Onye, Kenneth U., 2013. "The Growth Implication of Trade Liberalization in West Africa," MPRA Paper 88371, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Shafaeddin, Mehdi, 2006. "Does trade openness helps or hinders industrialization?," MPRA Paper 4371, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Sasa OBRADOVIĆ & Nemanja LOJANICA, 2019. "Export-Led Growth: Evidence from Post-Communist Serbia," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(2), pages 131-145, June.
    20. Zia Uddin Chowdhury Hayat & Kaliappa P. Kalirajan, 2009. "Is There a Threshold Level of Inflation for Bangladesh?," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unc:dispap:153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joerg Mayer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/unctach.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.