IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpit/0502010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • J. Michael Finger

    (Vernon Taylor Professor of Economics, Trinity University)

  • Julio J. Nogués

    (Universidad Di Tella)

Abstract

The Uruguay Round involved a grand North-South bargain: The North reduced import barriers, particularly in textiles and agriculture. The South adopted new domestic regulations in such areas as services and intellectual property—changes that would lead to increased purchases from the North. In mercantilist economics, apples for apples—imports for imports. In real economics, apples for oranges. Finger and Nogués argue that while the North’s reduction of import barriers benefits both the North and the South, the new domestic regulations adopted by countries of the South could prove costly to those countries. To begin with, the regulations will be expensive to implement. And while the cost side of their impact is secured by a legal obligation (in the case of intellectual property rights, for example, the cost is higher prices for patented goods), the benefits side is not so secured.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Michael Finger & Julio J. Nogués, 2005. "The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations," International Trade 0502010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0502010
    Note: Type of Document - pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/it/papers/0502/0502010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin,Will & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1996. "The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521586016, October.
    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. Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann D. & Inmaculada Martínez Zarzoso, 2003. "Would MERCOSUR’s Exports to the EU Profit from Trade Liberalisation? Some General Insights and a Simulation Study for Argentina," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 092, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Sudip Ranjan Basu & Victor Ognivtsev & Miho Shirotori, 2009. "Building Trade-Relating Institutions And Wto Accession," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 41, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    3. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(9), pages 1205-1233, September.
    4. Manfred Elsig, 2010. "The World Trade Organization at work: Performance in a member-driven milieu," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 345-363, September.
    5. Peter Draper & Mzukisi Qobo, 2011. "Rabbits Caught in the Headlights? Africa and the ‘Multilateralizing Regionalism’ Paradigm," Chapters, in: Ulrich Volz (ed.), Regional Integration, Economic Development and Global Governance, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. J. Michael Finger, 2008. "Developing Countries in the WTO System: Applying Robert Hudec's Analysis to the Doha Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 887-904, July.
    7. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M Stern, 2002. "Computational Analysis of Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the Uruguay Round and Doha Development Round," Working Papers 489, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    8. Xufang Zhang & Changyou Sun & Jason Gordon & Ian A. Munn, 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Ludema, Rodney D & Mayda, Anna Maria & McClure, Jonathan C. F., 2015. "Dragons, Giants, Elephants and Mice: Evolution of the MFN Free Rider Problem in the WTO Era," CEPR Discussion Papers 10961, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Julio J. Nogues, 2005. "Issues on Agricultural Negotiations in the FTAA and Linkages With the Doha Round," International Trade 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Nogues, Julio, 2004. "Unequal exchange: developing countries in the international trade negotiations," MPRA Paper 86172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Richard Kozul-Wright & Paul Rayment, 2004. "Globalization Reloaded: An Unctad Perspective," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 167, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    13. Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, 2006. "Reciprocity and the hidden constitution of world trade," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 133-163, September.
    14. Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2003. "MERCOSUR-EU trade: The impact of adverse macroeconomic developments and trade barriers on MERCOSUR exports," International Trade 0310002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Sánchez-Cano, Julieta Evangelina, 2012. "The public policies of the mexican agricutural sector in the framework of the international economy," eseconomía, Escuela Superior de Economía, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, vol. 0(33), pages 45-77, primer tr.
    16. Mehdi Abbas, 2008. "Les rapports Nord-Sud à l'OMC. Entre différenciation et espace politique pour le développement," Post-Print halshs-00217467, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    2. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, 2010. "Services Trade and Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(3), pages 642-692, September.
    3. Siebert, Horst, 2005. "TAFTA - a dead horse or an attractive open club?," Kiel Working Papers 1240, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    5. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    6. Ingo Borchert & Batshur Gootiiz & Aaditya Mattoo, 2014. "Policy Barriers to International Trade in Services: Evidence from a New Database," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 28(1), pages 162-188.
    7. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "How Important are Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in the Doha Agenda?," International Trade 0302004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    9. Hans Binswanger & Ernst Lutz, 2003. "Agricultural trade barriers, trade negotiations and the interests of developing countries," Chapters, in: John Toye (ed.), Trade and Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Fugazza, Marco & Maur, Jean-Christophe, 2008. "Non-tariff barriers in CGE models: How useful for policy?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 475-490.
    11. James R. Markusen & Thomas F. Rutherford & David Tarr, 2000. "Foreign Direct Investments in Services and the Domestic Market for Expertise," NBER Working Papers 7700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Paola Conconi & Manuel García-Santana & Laura Puccio & Roberto Venturini, 2018. "From Final Goods to Inputs: The Protectionist Effect of Rules of Origin," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(8), pages 2335-2365, August.
    13. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. G. Alenka Guzmán Chávez. & Hortensia Gómez Víquez. & Francisco López Herrera., 2018. "Patentes y crecimiento económico, el caso de México durante el TLCAN," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 0(2), pages 177-204, Agosto.
    15. Parakrama Samaratunga & Manoj Thibbotuwawa, 2006. "Customs Mapping and Analysis of South Asian Agricultural Trade Liberalization Effort," Working Papers 2606, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
    16. Betina Dimaranan & Thomas W. Hertel & Roman Keeney, 2003. "OECD Domestic Support and Developing Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-32, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Robert M. Stern, 2000. "Quantifying Barriers to Trade in Services," Working Papers 470, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    18. David Laborde & Abdullah Mamun & Will Martin & Valeria Piñeiro & Rob Vos, 2020. "Modeling the Impacts of Agricultural Support Policies on Emissions from Agriculture," NBER Working Papers 27202, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Anna Strutt & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Will Trade Liberalization Harm the Environment? The Case of Indonesia to 2020," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 203-232, November.
    20. Hewitt, Joanna, 2008. "Impact evaluation of research by the International Food Policy Research Institute on agricultural trade liberalization, developing countries, and WTO's Doha negotiations:," Impact assessments 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Uruguay Round; Services negotiations; Doha Round reciprocity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wpa:wuwpit:0502010. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.