IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v25y2002i9p1205-1233.html

Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Arvind Panagariya

Abstract

This paper offers a political economy analysis of the Doha Ministerial Conference with special reference to developing countries. One of my key objectives is to understand the politics underlying the negotiations with a view to assessing the influence developing countries exerted on the outcome and the success they achieved in relation to the Uruguay Round Agreement, which is widely perceived as favouring mainly if not exclusively the developed countries. The main conclusions of the paper may be summarised as follows. First, with trade liberalisation as its central focus, the Doha negotiating agenda is to be welcomed from the viewpoint of developing countries. Second, the opposition by developing countries to the inclusion of at least some of the Singapore issues at Doha is defensible. Among other things, the countries lack the necessary negotiating and implementation capacity. Third, while the UR Agreement benefited both developing and developed countries, on balance, it benefited the latter more. The Doha outcome offers a better balance when taken by itself but does not go so far as to significantly correct the imbalance in the UR Agreement. Fourth, despite this better balance, the Doha negotiations offer little evidence of a shift in the relative bargaining powers of developing and developed countries. Nor can the superficially development friendly language of the Doha Declaration be viewed as signalling the softening of the tough negotiating stance developed countries took during the UR Round. Fifth, much of the negotiating power continues to reside with developed countries. Relatively equal levels of incomes gives greater coherence to interests of developed countries on issues that divide along North–South lines. Moreover, the presence of three large players – the USA, EU and Japan – allows them to exploit their bargaining power more effectively. Finally, to negotiate more effectively in the future, developing countries must improve their research capacity, think strategically and forge coalitions with other influential WTO members – whether developed or developing.

Suggested Citation

  • Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1205-1233, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:25:y:2002:i:9:p:1205-1233
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9701.00489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00489
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9701.00489?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Moon, Wanki, 2011. "Is agriculture compatible with free trade?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 13-24.
    2. Ravinder Rena, 2008. "WTO and Agricultural Trade – Some Issues and Perspectives," KASBIT Business Journals (KBJ), Khadim Ali Shah Bukhari Institute of Technology (KASBIT), vol. 1, pages 49-60, December.
    3. Lee, Hiro & Roland-Holst, David, 2000. "Trade and Transmission of Endogenous Growth Effects: Japanese Economic Reform as an Externality for East Asian Economies," Conference papers 330892, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Mehdi Abbas, 2008. "Les rapports Nord-Sud à l'OMC. Entre différenciation et espace politique pour le développement," Post-Print halshs-00217467, HAL.
    5. Mehdi Abbas, 2011. "Mondialisation et développement. Quelle soutenabilité au régime de l'organisation mondiale du commerce ?," Post-Print halshs-00602996, HAL.
    6. Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "Aid through Trade: An effective option," International Trade 0308011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Wilfredo Robayo Galvis, 2018. "La defensa internacional de los intereses del estado en América Latina. Temas de derecho internacional público n.° 1," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1076.
    8. 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.
    9. Omar Ramon Serrano Oswald & Mira Burri, 2021. "India, Brazil, and public health: Rule‐making through south–south diffusion in the intellectual property rights regime?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 616-633, July.
    10. Ahmed, Saira & Ahmed, Vaqar & Abbas, Ahsan & O' Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "Global Financial Crisis, MDGs and Choices for Pakistan’s Inclusive Development," Conference papers 331971, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Michael King & Frank Barry & Alan Matthews, 2010. "Policy Coherence for Development: Five Challenges," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp335, IIIS, revised Aug 2010.
    12. Rena, Ravinder, 2005. "Developing Countries And Their Participation In The Wto In Making Trade Policy – An Analysis," MPRA Paper 10367, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Apr 2006.
    13. Christian Bjørnskov & Kim Martin Lind, 2005. "Underlying Policies in the wto, the Harbinson Proposal and the Modalities Agreement," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(6), pages 1385-1412.
    14. Khorana, Sangeeta, 2008. "The Developmental Relevance of Tariff Rate Quotas as a Market Access Instrument: An Analysis of Swiss Agricultural Imports," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 9(2), pages 1-24.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business

    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:bla:worlde:v:25:y:2002:i:9:p:1205-1233. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    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.