IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2232.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond

Author

Listed:
  • Finger, J. Michael
  • Schuknecht, Ludger

Abstract

In the Uruguay Round negotiations, trade distorting agricultural policies were taken up substantively for the first time in any round of multi-lateral trade negotiations. Voluntary export restraints outside the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA) were in fact eliminated. Developing countries became equal partners with developed countries. Their tariff cuts covered as large a share of imports as those of the developed countries and were deeper. Because developing country tariffs were higher to start with, their cuts will save importers more (perdollar of imports covered) than will cuts by developed countries. Tariff bindings for most developing countries, although often above applied rates, were extended to 90 percent or more of imports. Few countries agreed to give foreigners unlimited market access in services, or full national treatment in more than a few service activities. But developed countries agreed to some liberalization of cross-border provision for 70 percent of service activities (compared with 25 percent in developing countries). Less positively, although trade restrictions on agricultural products were converted to tariffs, border protection was reduced less on agricultural than on industrial products, and there was little agreement on reducing trade-affecting subsidies. The textiles and clothing agreement binds developed countries to eliminate all MFA-sanctioned restriction but allows them to largely put off doing so until 2005. Concessions to which developing countries agreed are due now. Reciprocal concessions of particular interest are due in the future (elimination of the MFA) or yet to be negotiated (liberalization of agricultural trade). Also disquieting, since the Uruguay Round, developing countries have undertaken anti-dumping cases at a rate (per dollar of imports) three times higher than that for the United States--mostly against other developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Finger, J. Michael & Schuknecht, Ludger, 1999. "Market access advances and retreats : the Uruguay Round and beyond," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2232, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:2232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/05/26/000094946_99120905324245/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    2. Mattoo, Aaditya & Schuknecht, Ludger, 2000. "Trade polices for electronic commerce," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2380, The World Bank.
    3. J. Michael Finger & Ann Harrison, 1996. "The MFA Paradox: More Protection and More Trade?," NBER Chapters,in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 197-260 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Martin, W. & Winters, L.A., 1995. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," World Bank - Discussion Papers 307, World Bank.
    5. Bacchetta, Marc & Low, Patrick & Mattoo, Aaditya & Schuknecht, Ludger & Wager, Hannu & Wehrens, Madelon, 1998. "Electronic commerce and the role of the WTO," WTO Special Studies, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division, volume 2, number 2.
    6. Zdouc, Werner, 1999. "WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the GATS," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 295-346, June.
    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. Kathleen Macmillan, 2001. "Doing the Right Thing: The WTO and the Developing World," The State of Economics in Canada: Festschrift in Honour of David Slater,in: Patrick Grady & Andrew Sharpe (ed.), The State of Economics in Canada: Festschrift in Honour of David Slater, pages 267-289 Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2002. "Eliminating Excessive Tariffs on Exports of Least Developed Countries," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Kym Anderson & Will Martin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2006. "Would Multilateral Trade Reform Benefit Sub-Saharan Africans?," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), vol. 15(4), pages 626-670, December.
    4. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1205-1233, September.
    5. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiss, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," International Trade 0108002, EconWPA.
    6. Mayer, Jörg, 2004. "Export Dynamism and Market Access," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 19, pages 289-316.
    7. Michalopoulos,Constantine, 1999. "Trade policy and market access issues for developing countries : implications for the Millennium Round," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2214, The World Bank.
    8. Philipp Harms & Aaditya Mattoo & Ludger Schuknecht, 2003. "Explaining liberalization commitments in financial services trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 139(1), pages 82-113, March.
    9. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    10. Bernard Hoekman & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2002. "Une proposition pour l'OMC : La « super » clause de nation plus favorisée," Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 81-90.
    11. Finger, Michael J. & Schuler, Philip, 1999. "Implementation of Ururguay Round commitments : the development challenge," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2215, The World Bank.
    12. Anderson, Kym, 2000. "Agriculture, Developing Countries, And The WTO Millennium Round," CEPR Discussion Papers 2437, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Julio J. Nogues, 2005. "Unequal Exchange: Developing Countries in the International Trade Negotiations," International Trade 0502011, EconWPA.
    14. Richard Kozul-Wright & Paul Rayment, 2004. "Globalization Reloaded: An Unctad Perspective," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 167, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    15. Dewit, Gerda, 2001. "Intervention in risky export markets: insurance, strategic action or aid?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 575-592, September.
    16. Hoekman, Bernard & Ng, Francis & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Tariff Peaks in the Quad and Least Developed Country Exports," CEPR Discussion Papers 2747, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:2232. 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: (Roula I. Yazigi). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.