IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Can the Doha Round be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table

  • Kyle Bagwell
  • Robert W. Staiger

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17650.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 17650.

as
in new window

Length:
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
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17650
Note: ITI
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.org
Email:


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.:

as in new window
  1. Diakantoni, Antonia & Escaith, Hubert, 2009. "Mapping the Tariff Waters," MPRA Paper 18960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
  3. 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.
  4. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2006. "What do trade negotiators negotiate about? Empirical evidence from the World Trade Organization," Discussion Papers 0607-04, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Purba Mukerji, 2009. "Trade Liberalization And The Extensive Margin," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(2), pages 141-166, 05.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.