IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v14y2015i01p29-43_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Next for Multilateral Trade Talks? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities

Author

Listed:
  • DECREUX, YVAN
  • FONTAGNÉ, LIONEL

Abstract

What are the lessons from the DDA from a forward looking point of view? A decade of negotiations is likely to go nowhere. This paper argues that absence of a landing-zone was in the data. Quantitative tools modelling the detail of the modalities predicted failure but were not taken seriously: the design of the negotiation implied that any achievements of the Round could only be limited. Such feebleness was induced by the way multilateral negotiations were organized – in separate groups, without much consideration for, or understanding of, how the different elements added up to more than the sum of the parts. We put sensible figures on that argument by using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model of the world economy, addressing exceptions, flexibilities as well as the non-linear design of the liberalization formulas, a reduction in domestic support, the phasing out of export subsidies in agriculture, as well as trade facilitation. Our conclusion is that negotiators have to go back to simplicity and re-bundle the topics if they wish to revamp multilateral negotiations.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Decreux, Yvan & Fontagné, Lionel, 2015. "What Next for Multilateral Trade Talks? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(01), pages 29-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:14:y:2015:i:01:p:29-43_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1474745614000354
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoekman, Bernard & Martin, Will & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2010. "Conclude Doha: it matters!," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(03), pages 505-530, July.
    2. BOUET, ANTOINE & Laborde, David, 2010. "Assessing the potential cost of a failed Doha Round," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(02), pages 319-351, April.
    3. Jean Fouré & Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Lionel Fontagné, 2013. "Modelling the world economy at the 2050 horizon," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 21(4), pages 617-654, October.
    4. Simon Evenett, 2014. "The Doha Round impasse: A graphical account," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 143-162, June.
    5. Yvan Decreux & Hugo Valin, 2007. "MIRAGE, Updated Version of the Model for Trade Policy Analysis: Focus on Agriculture and Dynamics," Working Papers 2007-15, CEPII research center.
    6. Gouel, Christophe & Mitaritonna, Cristina & Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2011. "Sensitive products in the Doha negotiations: The case of European and Japanese market access," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2395-2403.
    7. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Sébastien Jean, 2013. "Trade liberalization in the bio-economy: coping with a new landscape," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 173-182, November.
    8. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2013. "Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table," NBER Chapters,in: Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 91-124 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Decreux, Yvan & Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2007. "How does tariff-rate quota modelling affect CGE results? An application for MIRAGE," Working Papers 7206, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    10. Wolfe, Robert, 2015. "First Diagnose, Then Treat: What Ails the Doha Round?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(01), pages 7-28, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Bernard Hoekman, 2014. "Supply Chains, Mega-Regionals and Multilateralism: A Road Map for the WTO," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/27, European University Institute.
    13. Richard Baldwin, 2011. "Trade And Industrialisation After Globalisation's 2nd Unbundling: How Building And Joining A Supply Chain Are Different And Why It Matters," NBER Working Papers 17716, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Antoine Bouët & Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2008. "Assessing Applied Protection across the World," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 850-863, November.
    15. Aggarwal, Vinod K & Evenett, Simon J, 2013. "A Fragmenting Global Economy: A Weakened WTO, Mega FTAs, and Murky Protectionism," CEPR Discussion Papers 9781, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Lionel Fontagné & Amélie Guillin & Cristina Mitaritonna, 2011. "Estimations of Tariff Equivalents for the Services Sectors," Working Papers 2011-24, CEPII research center.
    17. Simon Lacey, . "Life After Doha: Reflections in the run up to MC9," Chapters, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    18. Suparna Karmakar, 2013. "Life after Bali: renewing the world trade negotiating agenda," Policy Contributions 804, Bruegel.
    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. Fouré, Jean & Guimbard, Houssein & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2016. "Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: What would be the cost for the European Union?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 349-362.
    2. Eugenio Díaz Bonilla & David Laborde, 2015. "The Bali Agreement: An Assessment from the Perspective of Developing Countries," Working Papers id:7477, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    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:cup:wotrrv:v:14:y:2015:i:01:p:29-43_00. 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: (Keith Waters). General contact details of provider: https://journals.cambridge.org/jid_WTR .

    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 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.

    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.