IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkdp/304.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The WTO after the Singapore ministerial: Much to do about what?

Author

Listed:
  • Spinanger, Dean

Abstract

The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Singapore Ministerial Conference in December, 1996, represented the first review of where the WTO was almost two years after the Marrakech signing. Unfortunately, neither in implementing Marrakech agreements nor in dealing with new issues is the post-Singapore state of the world trading system fundamentally better off than before. Nothing was done to correct the "sham liberalization" in the phasing out of market access restrictions in textiles and clothing. By backloading liberalization of the most sensitive clothing products to the latest possible time, an impasse is being created which could well cause but yet another delay in eliminating these quantitative restrictions, which are very costly in terms of allocative efficiency. The core of market access was seemingly brushed over to make room for an agreement on free trade in information technology products, which is flawed for two reasons. First, it excludes highly protected consumer electronics and second, it expanded the international marketing "cartel" for semiconductors to include the EU and Korea (plus founding members US and Japan). Anti-dumping measures (ADMs), the essence of so-called contingent protection, have continued to play a major role in trying to reduce competition, but the Ministerial widely ignored this fact. Though their use by industrialized countries has slowed down noticeably, developing countries pose a new threat by enacting ADMs all the more, particularly against other developing countries. The Singapore Ministerial failed to clearly set the stage for fulfilling the WTO's brief as a universal institution. No clear guidelines were established to quickly and effectively bring Russia and China into the WTO. Instead, the status quo of enforcing unilateral actions against a state-trading economy still appeals to industrialized countries, probably for mainly non-economic reasons. In perhaps one of its most important decisions, the Singapore Ministerial set up a working group to examine competition policies. Yet the key question is whether trade liberalization and GATT/WTO discipline will be best served by adding to the trading system a global codex, harmonizing national competition policies ex ante, or by mutually recognizing well-functioning national competition policies. While sound economic arguments support the latter, prevailing country-of-destination principles conjure up concerns that the former will dictate the approach. Finally, it may be too early to extrapolate the current success of the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM). It still remains to be seen whether Contracting Parties will really accept decisions against their expressed interests in issues of critical importance, or where national security arguments are invoked. So far, however, the success of the DSM has exceeded expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Spinanger, Dean, 1997. "The WTO after the Singapore ministerial: Much to do about what?," Kiel Discussion Papers 304, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkdp:304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48012/1/258048131.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Kym, 1995. "The Entwining of Trade Policy with Environmental and Labour Standards," CEPR Discussion Papers 1158, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2017. "Quantifying The Uruguay Round," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Trade Policies for Development and Transition, chapter 16, pages 363-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Yeats,Alexander James, 1997. "Does Mercosur's trade performance raise concerns about the effects of regional trade arrangements?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1729, The World Bank.
    4. Nguyen, Trien & Perroni, Carlo & Wigle, Randall, 1993. "An Evaluation of the Draft Final Act of the Uruguay Round," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1540-1549, November.
    5. Patrick Messerlin, 1989. "The ec antidumping regulations: A first economic appraisal, 1980–85," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 125(3), pages 563-587, September.
    6. Laura Baughman & Rolf Mirus & Morris E. Morkre & Dean Spinanger, 1997. "Of Tyre Cords, Ties and Tents: Window‐Dressing in the ATC?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 407-434, July.
    7. Nguyen, T. & Perroni, C. & Wigle, R., 1993. "An Evaluation of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round," Working Papers 93003, Wilfrid Laurier University, Department of Economics.
    8. Langhammer, Rolf J., 1994. "Nach dem Ende der Uruguay-Runde: Das GATT am Ende?," Kiel Discussion Papers 228, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Francois, Joseph & McDonald, Brad & Nordström, Håkan, 1994. "The Uruguay Round: A Global General Equilibrium Assessment," CEPR Discussion Papers 1067, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Sampson, Gary P, 1996. "Compatibility of Regional and Multilateral Trading Agreements: Reforming the WTO Process," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 88-92, May.
    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. Siebert, Horst, 1998. "What does globalization mean for the world trading system?," Kiel Working Papers 856, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Nunnenkamp, Peter, 1997. "Mercosur und EU: institutionalisierte Kooperation als Stimulanz für Handel und Direktinvestitionen?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 1737, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Spinanger, Dean & Francois, Joseph F. & Glismann, Hans H., 2000. "The Cost of EU Trade Protection in Textiles and Clothing," Kiel Working Papers 997, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Siebert, Horst & Klodt, Henning, 1998. "Towards global competition: catalysts and constraints," Kiel Working Papers 897, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Bernhard Fischer, 1998. "Globalisation and the competitiveness of regional blocs," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 33(4), pages 164-170, July.

    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. Peter Walkenhorst, 2004. "Liberalising Trade in Textiles and Clothing: A Survey of Quantitative Studies," International Trade 0401007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Nunnenkamp Peter, 1994. "Nach der Uruguay-Runde: Triebkräfte und Sprengsätze für die Weltwirtschaft," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 43(1-3), pages 251-270, June.
    3. Peter G. Warr & Helal Ahammad, 1997. "Food aid, food policy and the Uruguay round: implications for Bangladesh," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(3), pages 169-185, January.
    4. Anderson, Kym, 1995. "Agricultural Competitiveness After the Uruguay Round," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(03), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Seyoum, Belay, 2007. "Trade liberalization and patterns of strategic adjustment in the US textiles and clothing industry," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 109-135, February.
    6. Safadi, Raed & Laird, Sam, 1996. "The Uruguay Round agreements: Impact on developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 1223-1242, July.
    7. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp269 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Anne O. Krueger, 1996. "Conclusions," NBER Chapters, in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 423-444, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Jan Jørgensen & Philipp Schröder, 2007. "Effects of Tariffication: Tariffs and Quotas under Monopolistic Competition," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 479-498, September.
    10. Piermartini, Roberta & Teh, Robert, 2005. "Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy," WTO Discussion Papers 10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    11. Lücke, Matthias & Spinanger, Dean, 2004. "Liberalizing international trade in services: Challenges and opportunities for developing countries," Kiel Discussion Papers 412, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Hertel, Thomas W. & Bach, Christian F. & Dimaranan, Betina & Martin, Will, 1996. "Growth, globalization, and gains from the Uruguay Round," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1614, The World Bank.
    13. Spinanger, Dean, 1994. "Profiting from protection in an open economy: Hong Kong's supply response to EU's MFA restrictions," Kiel Working Papers 653, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Dean Spinanger, 2001. "The Wto, Atc And Textiles And Clothing In A Global Perspective: What’S In It For Bangladesh?," CPD Working Paper 8, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
    15. Jan Jørgensen & Philipp Schröder, 2005. "Welfare-ranking ad valorem and specific tariffs under monopolistic competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 228-241, February.
    16. Anania, Giovanni, 2001. "Modeling Agricultural Trade Liberalization. A Review," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20758, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Polo, Clemente & Valle, Elisabeth, 2005. "The impact of a fall in tourism on the Balearic economy," Conference papers 331334, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Warwick J. McKibbin & K. K. Tang, 2000. "Trade and Financial Reform in China: Impacts on the World Economy," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(8), pages 979-1003, August.
    19. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp534 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bretschger, Lucas & Lechthaler, Filippo & Rausch, Sebastian & Zhang, Lin, 2017. "Knowledge diffusion, endogenous growth, and the costs of global climate policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 47-72.
    21. 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.
    22. Garth Frazer & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Trade Growth under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 128-144, February.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:ifwkdp:304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.