This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Finger, J. Michael
Schuknecht, Ludger

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

In the Uruguay Round negotiations, trade distorting agricultural policies were taken up substantively for the first time in any round of multi-lateral trade negotiations. Voluntary export restraints outside the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA) were in fact eliminated. Developing countries became equal partners with developed countries. Their tariff cuts covered as large a share of imports as those of the developed countries and were deeper. Because developing country tariffs were higher to start with, their cuts will save importers more (per dollar of imports covered) than will cuts by developed countries. Tariff bindings for most developing countries, although often above applied rates, were extended to 90 percent or more of imports. Few countries agreed to give foreigners unlimited market access in services, or full national treatment in more than a few service activities. But developed countries agreed to some liberalization of cross-border provision for 70 percent of service activities (compared with 25 percent in developing countries). Less positively, although trade restrictions on agricultural products were converted to tariffs, border protection was reduced less on agricultural than on industrial products, and there was little agreement on reducing trade-affecting subsidies. The textiles and clothing agreement binds developed countries to eliminate all MFA-sanctioned restriction but allows them to largely put off doing so until 2005. Concessions to which developing countries agreed are due now. Reciprocal concessions of particular interest are due in the future (elimination of the MFA) or yet to be negotiated (liberalization of agricultural trade). Also disquieting, since the Uruguay Round, developing countries have undertaken anti-dumping cases at a rate (per dollar of imports) three times higher than that for the United States--mostly against other developing countries.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/05/26/000094946_99120905324245/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The World Bank in its series Policy Research Working Paper Series with number 2232.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 30 Nov 1999
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:2232

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433
Email:
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Roula I. Yazigi).

Related research
Keywords: Economic Theory&Research Rules of Origin Export Competitiveness Environmental Economics&Policies Globalization and Financial Integration TF054105-DONOR FUNDED OPERATION ADMINISTRATION FEE INCOME AND EXPENSE ACCOUNT Environmental Economics&Policies Rules of Origin Export Competitiveness World Trade Organization

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Robert Staiger & Frank Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," International Trade 9410004, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. J. Michael Finger & Ann Harrison, 1994. "The MFA Paradox: More Protection and More Trade?," NBER Working Papers 4751, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Mattoo, Aaditya & Schuknecht, Ludger, 2000. "Trade polices for electronic commerce," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2380, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  4. Zdouc, Werner, 1999. "WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the GATS," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 295-346, June.
  5. Martin, W. & Winters, L.A., 1995. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," World Bank - Discussion Papers 307, World Bank.
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiss, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," International Trade 0108002, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  2. Kathleen Macmillan, 2001. "Doing the Right Thing: The WTO and the Developing World," The State of Economics in Canada: Festschrift in Honour of David Slater, in: Patrick Grady & Andrew Sharpe (ed.), The State of Economics in Canada: Festschrift in Honour of David Slater, pages 267-289 Centre for the Study of Living Standards. [Downloadable!]
  3. Anderson, Kym, 2000. "Agriculture, Developing Countries, And The WTO Millennium Round," CEPR Discussion Papers 2437, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Hart, Chad E. & Beghin, John C., 2006. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Staff General Research Papers 12510, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Other versions:
  5. Anderson, Kym & Martin, Will & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2005. "Would multilateral trade reform benefit Sub-Saharan Africans?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3616, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Julio J. Nogues, 2005. "Unequal Exchange: Developing Countries in the International Trade Negotiations," International Trade 0502011, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Philipp Harms & Aaditya Mattoo & Ludger Schuknecht, 2003. "Explaining liberalization commitments in financial services trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 82-113, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Hoekman, Bernard & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Eliminating excessive tariffs on exports of least developed countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2604, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  9. Richard Kozul-Wright & Paul Rayment, 2004. "Globalization Reloaded: An Unctad Perspective," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 167, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. [Downloadable!]
  10. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiß, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," IWP Discussion Paper Series 03/2001, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  11. Hoekman, Bernard & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Tariff Peaks in the Quad and Least Developed Country Exports," CEPR Discussion Papers 2747, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Kate Flowers & Malcolm Bosworth, 2002. "WTO Market Access Negotiations for Non-Agricultural Products, Doha Round: Implications for East Asia," Trade Working Papers 394, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can create a compilation of all publications of a group of people, say alumni of a program, your students or memers of an association.

This page was last updated on 2008-10-3.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.