IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/55900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Special and Differential Treatment in the GATT: A Pyrrhic Victory for Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Christie, Andrew

Abstract

Preferential measures for developing countries implemented within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade failed to achieve their purported goal of facilitating economic development; this failure was due to their weak theoretical underpinnings and poor policy design. Not only were the demands developing countries made for discriminatory preferences largely ineffectual, their demands for preferential treatment, together with their forgoing full participation in the multilateral trading system, fundamentally reduced the obligation of developed countries to consider the interests of developing countries in future negotiation rounds. Thus the winning of preferences was rendered a pyrrhic victory for developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Christie, Andrew, 2009. "Special and Differential Treatment in the GATT: A Pyrrhic Victory for Developing Countries," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ecjilt:55900
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.55900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55900/files/christie10-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.55900?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilkinson, Rorden & Scott, James, 2008. "Developing country participation in the GATT: a reassessment," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 473-510, July.
    2. Srinivasan, T. N., 2005. "Nondiscrimination in GATT/WTO: was there anything to begin with and is there anything left?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 69-95, March.
    3. Prebisch, Raúl, 1950. "The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 29973, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    4. Baldwin, R E & Murray, Tracy, 1977. "MFN Tariff Reductions and Developing Country Trade Benefits under the GSP," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 30-46, March.
    5. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    6. World Bank, 1987. "World Development Report 1987," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 5970, April.
    7. Anne O. Krueger, 1996. "The Political Economy of Trade Protection," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue96-2, July.
    8. André Sapir, 1981. "Trade benefits under the EEC generalized system of preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8290, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Ahmad, Jaleel, 1985. "Prospects of trade liberalization between the developed and the developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 1077-1086, September.
    10. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Wolf, Martin, 1987. "Differential and More Favorable Treatment of Developing Countries and the International Trading System," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 1(4), pages 647-668, September.
    12. Kimberly Ann Elliott, 1997. "Corruption and the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 12, April.
    13. Patrick A. Messerlin, 2006. "Enlarging the Vision for Trade Policy Space: Special and Differentiated Treatment and Infant Industry Issues," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1395-1407, October.
    14. E. Paul Durrenberger, 2005. "Labour," Chapters, in: James G. Carrier (ed.), A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Omphemetse S. Sibanda Sr., 2015. "Towards a Revised GATT/WTO Special and Differential Treatment Regime for Least Developed and Developing Countries," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 50(1), pages 31-40, February.
    2. Ana Luiza Cortez & Mehmet Arda, 2014. "Global trade rules for supporting development in the post-2015 era," CDP Background Papers 019, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.

    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. Ingo Borchert, 2009. "Trade diversion under selective preferential market access," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1390-1410, November.
    2. Persson, Maria, 2012. "From trade preferences to trade facilitation: Taking stock of the issues," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-33.
    3. Pennelope Pacheco-Lopez & Anthony P. Thirlwall, 2004. "Trade liberalisation in Mexico: rhetoric and reality," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 57(229), pages 141-167.
    4. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    5. Sharma, Anupa & Grant, Jason & Boys, Kathryn, 2015. "Truly Preferential Treatment? Reconsidering the Generalized System of (Trade) Preferences," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205890, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Moeller, Thordis & Grethe, Harald, 2010. "Climate Change and European Agriculture in 2050: Outlook for Cereal and Oilseed Markets," Conference papers 331938, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Mary Amiti & John Romalis, 2007. "Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(2), pages 338-384, June.
    8. McCalla, Alex F., 1992. "GATT, Preferential/Regional Trading Blocks and Agricultural Trade," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146544, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Shafaeddin, Mehdi & Pizarro, Juan, 2007. "From Export Promotion To Import Substitution; Comparative Experience of China and Mexico," MPRA Paper 6650, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2007.
    10. Соколовская Е.В., 2016. "Unilateral tariff cuts: a theory," Экономический вестник университета. Сборник научных трудов ученых и аспирантов, CyberLeninka;Государственное высшее учебное заведение «Переяслав-Хмельницкий государственный педагогический университет имени Григория Сковороды», issue 29-1, pages 268-274.
    11. Cuddington, John T & Liang, Hong & Lu, Shihua, 1996. "Uncertainty, Trade, and Capital Flows in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 5(3), pages 192-224, October.
    12. Fontagné, Lionel & Limardi, Michela, 2024. "The Generalized System of Preferences and NGO activism," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    13. Jianxing Lyu & Sören Prehn & Yanjie Zhang & Thomas Glauben & Yinchu Zeng, 2021. "Trade creation, political sensitivity and product exclusions: the political economy of agriculture protection in China’s FTAs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(3), pages 627-657, July.
    14. Dale Truett & Lila Truett, 1993. "Trade preferences and exports of manufactures: A case study of Bolivia and Brazil," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 129(3), pages 573-590, September.
    15. Persson, Maria, 2013. "Trade Preferences from a Policy Perspective," Working Papers 2013:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. Krishna, Kala & Salamanca, Carlos & Suzuki, Yuta & Volpe Martincus, Christian, 2025. "Learning to use trade agreements," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    17. Badiane, Ousmane, 1990. "The Role of Agriculture and Trade In Economic Development," 1990 Symposium, Agricultural Restructuring in Southern Africa, July 24-27, 1990, Swakopmund, Namibia 183495, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    19. Langhammer, Rolf J., 1983. "Die allgemeinen Zollpräferenzen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für Entwicklungsländer: Fehlschlag oder Erfolg? Eine kritische Bewertung der ersten Dekade," Kiel Discussion Papers 95, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ags:ecjilt:55900. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esteyca.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.