IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis

Listed author(s):
  • Arvind Panagariya

    (University of Maryland)

This paper offers a political economy analysis of the Doha Ministerial Conference with special reference to developing countries. One of my key objectives is to understand the politics underlying the negotiations with a view to assessing the influence developing countries exerted on the outcome and the success they achieved in relation to the Uruguay Round Agreement, which is widely perceived as favouring mainly if not exclusively the developed countries. The main conclusions of the paper may be summarised as follows. First, with trade liberalisation as its central focus, the Doha negotiating agenda is to be welcomed from the viewpoint of developing countries. Second, the opposition by developing countries to the inclusion of at least some of the Singapore issues at Doha is defensible. Among other things, the countries lack the necessary negotiating and implementation capacity. Third, while the UR Agreement benefited both developing and developed countries, on balance, it benefited the latter more. The Doha outcome offers a better balance when taken by itself but does not go so far as to significantly correct the imbalance in the UR Agreement. Fourth, despite this better balance, the Doha negotiations offer little evidence of a shift in the relative bargaining powers of developing and developed countries. Nor can the superficially development friendly language of the Doha Declaration be viewed as signalling the softening of the tough negotiating stance developed countries took during the UR Round. Fifth, much of the negotiating power continues to reside with developed countries. Relatively equal levels of incomes gives greater coherence to interests of developed countries on issues that divide along North-South lines. Moreover, the presence of three large players - the USA, EU and Japan - allows them to exploit their bargaining power more effectively. Finally, to negotiate more effectively in the future, developing countries must improve their research capacity, th

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series International Trade with number 0308015.

in new window

Date of creation: 30 Aug 2003
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0308015
Note: Type of Document - Tex/WordPerfect/Handwritten; prepared on IBM PC - PC-TEX/UNIX Sparc TeX; to print on HP/PostScript/Franciscan monk; figures: included/request from author/draw your own
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. J. Michael Finger & Julio J. Nogués, 2002. "The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 321-340, 03.
  2. Kenneth A. Reinert, 2000. "Give Us Virtue, But Not Yet: Safegaurd Actions Under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 25-55, January.
  3. Ingco, Merlinda D., 1995. "Agricultural trade liberalization in the Uruguay Round : one step forward, one step back?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1500, The World Bank.
  4. 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.
  5. Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "India at Doha:Retrospect and Prospect," International Trade 0308016, EconWPA.
  6. Martin, W. & Winters, L.A., 1995. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," World Bank - Discussion Papers 307, World Bank.
  7. Arvind PANAGARIYA, 2000. "The Millennium Round And Developing Countries: Negotiating Strategies And Areas Of Benefits," G-24 Discussion Papers 1, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  8. Finger, Michael J. & Schuler, Philip, 1999. "Implementation of Ururguay Round commitments : the development challenge," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2215, The World Bank.
  9. Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "TRIPS and the WTO An Uneasy Marriage," International Trade 0309002, EconWPA.
  10. Finger, J Michael, 1981. "Policy Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(6), pages 1270-1271, December.
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:wpa:wuwpit:0308015. 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: (EconWPA)

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.