Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table
In: Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century
A fundamental objective of the Doha Round of WTO negotiations is to improve the trading prospects of developing countries. The 2001 declaration from the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, commits the member governments to negotiations aimed at substantial improvements in market access with a view to phasing out export subsidies, while embracing "special and differential treatment" for developing countries as an integral part of all elements of the negotiations. The main message of this paper comes in three parts. First, these stated aims are incompatible from the perspective of our economic analysis; thus, if these aims are pursued as stated, then we conclude that they are unlikely to deliver the meaningful trade gains for developing countries that the WTO membership seeks. Second, in attempting to integrate its developing country membership into the world trading system, the WTO may face a "latecomers" problem that, while occurring also in earlier rounds, is unprecedented in its scale in the Doha Round, and which could potentially account for the current impasse. And third, we argue that if the Round maintains its stated aims but moves away from the non-reciprocal special-and-differential treatment norm as the cornerstone of the approach to meeting developing country needs in the WTO, and if developing countries prepare, in markets where they are large, to come to the bargaining table and to negotiate reciprocally with each other and with developing nations, then it might be possible to break the impasse at Doha, to address the latecomers problem, and to deliver trade gains for developing countries.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|This chapter was published in: ||This item is provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Chapters with number
12581.||Handle:|| RePEc:nbr:nberch:12581||Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2010.
"The Changing Incidence of Geography,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2157-86, December.
- James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2008. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 698, Boston College Department of Economics.
- James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2008. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," NBER Working Papers 14423, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rudiger Dornbusch, 1992. "The Case for Trade Liberalization in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 69-85, Winter.
- 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.
- Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2003. "The perversity of preferences : GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976 - 2000," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2955, The World Bank.
- Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999.
"An Economic Theory of GATT,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
- Baybars Karacaovali & Nuno Limao, 2005.
"The Clash Of Liberalizations: Preferential Vs. Multilateral Trade Liberalization In The European Union,"
International Trade and Finance Association Conference Papers
1037, International Trade and Finance Association.
- Karacaovali, Baybars & Limão, Nuno, 2008. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 299-327, March.
- Karacaovali, Baybars & Limão, Nuno, 2005. "The Clash of Liberalizations: Preferential vs. Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the European Union," CEPR Discussion Papers 4973, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Diakantoni, Antonia & Escaith, Hubert, 2009.
"Mapping the tariff waters,"
WTO Staff Working Papers
ERSD-2009-13, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
- Chad Bown, 2004. "Trade policy under the GATT-WTO: empirical evidence of the equal treatment rule," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 678-720, August.
- Christian Broda & Nuno Limao & David E. Weinstein, 2008. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2032-65, December.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2006.
"What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization,"
NBER Working Papers
12727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2011. "What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1238-73, June.
- Tokarick, Stephen, 2007. "How large is the bias against exports from import tariffs?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 193-212, July.
- Mattoo, Aaditya & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2000.
"Should credit be given for autonomous liberalization in multilateral trade negotiations?,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
2374, The World Bank.
- Mattoo, Aaditya & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Should Credit be Given for Autonomous Liberalization in Multilateral Trade Negotiations?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2821, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Lawrence Edwards & Robert Lawrence, 2008. "South African trade policy matters," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 16(4), pages 585-608, October.
- Purba Mukerji, 2009. "Trade Liberalization And The Extensive Margin," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(2), pages 141-166, 05.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:12581. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.