Can the Doha Round be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table
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.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table , Kyle Bagwell, Robert W. Staiger. in Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century , Feenstra and Taylor. 2014|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bagwell,K. & Staiger,R.W., 1998.
"An economic theory of GATT,"
15, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Diakantoni, Antonia & Escaith, Hubert, 2009.
"Mapping the Tariff Waters,"
18960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- 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.
- Purba Mukerji, 2009. "Trade Liberalization And The Extensive Margin," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(2), pages 141-166, 05.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17650. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.