IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade liberalization in the Doha Development Round


  • Joseph Francois
  • Hans Van Meijl
  • Frank Van Tongeren


type="main" xml:lang="en"> The Doha Round faced a long series of launch-delays and a spectacular launch-failure in Seattle in 1999. While the talks did take off in 2001, the negotiating agenda is still ambiguous in a number of crucial areas. This paper argues that these ambiguities matter greatly. Such ambiguities include the meaning of ‘flexibility and exemptions’, which are part of the evolving framework for market access negotiations. This may (or may not) be read as allowing developing countries to opt for much smaller concessions than those to be undertaken by the OECD, or even for no concessions. To explore these issues, we examine the impact of multilateral liberalization, developing possible trade liberalization under the Doha Round, starting from a realistic ‘baseline’ including Chinese WTO Accession and the 2004 EU enlargement. This allows us to focus on effects specifically attributable to trade liberalization under the Doha Round and the potential impact of the Doha Round itself. To this end we employ a global applied general equilibrium model, featuring imperfect competition and variety effects. Scenarios include agriculture, manufactures, and services liberalization, as well as trade facilitation. We conclude that active developing country participation in terms of market access concessions is critical to their prospects. If developing countries continue for the most part with business as usual after the round, in terms of trade policy, there is little scope for actual benefits accruing to developing countries. South-South trade liberalization is key to the ‘development’ part of the Doha Development Agenda. — Joseph Francois, Hans van Meijl and Frank van Tongeren

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Francois & Hans Van Meijl & Frank Van Tongeren, 2005. "Trade liberalization in the Doha Development Round," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 20(42), pages 349-391, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecpoli:v:20:y:2005:i:42:p:349-391

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:ecpoli:v:20:y:2005:i:42:p:349-391. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.