Trade Diversion

April 14, 2008

Food prices bring down import barriers

The surge in world food prices is accomplishing what seven years of trade talks haven't: knocking down import barriers.

The Doha round of global trade negotiations has been stalled since 2001 because developing nations have refused to lower import tariffs that protect their farmers and rich countries won't give up farm-price supports. Now, import duties are being slashed from Brazil to Burkina Faso in response to prices that the World Bank says have risen 83% the past three years; subsidies in the US and Europe are falling.

''Food prices have done for import liberalization what Doha wouldn't have been able to achieve for a very long time,'' says Arvind Subramanian, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

Maybe food prices will help Doha succeed and lock in such liberalization.

Posted by Dingel at 08:10 PM | Comments (1)

April 05, 2008

Food prices & Doha

Robert Zoellick spoke at CGD a few days ago. Dani Rodrik summarizes:

So challenge number one is that world food prices are too high, but challenge number two is the need to get rid of developed country policies so that food prices can rise even more? ...

The truth, I fear, is that Zoellick's faith in trade agreements has little to do with the underlying economics and like many ideological free traders he is willing to latch on to the economic arguments only when they serve the cause (and to discard them just as easily when they no longer do).

As for the real impact of food prices on poverty, we can avoid much confusion by recognizing the diverse and heterogeneous effects that food prices have on poverty around the world.

Might high food prices make Doha round liberalisation more feasible? Some think so. Zoellick can't have it both ways.

Posted by Dingel at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2008

Latest Doha proposals are (too) conservative

Peter Gallagher isn't optimistic about the latest set of Doha proposals:

As a rule of thumb, simple deals open markets. The more complex the arrangements, the more likely they are to be ‘fine-tuned’ to minimize their impact on the beneficiaries of protection.

The sixty pages of complex ‘modalities’, conditions, exceptions, second-thoughts and jargon in this paper are likely to deliver much less reform than the ‘headline’ numbers suggest. The complexity of the proposals and of the protection regimes in many developed and developing economies means it’s impossible to be sure about the results without seeing the application of the proposals in detail to each market. But, working from the averages, it’s likely that these proposals will bring about, at most, modest changes and no commercial impacts in some key trades...

HT: Muse

Posted by Dingel at 09:58 PM | Comments (0)

January 28, 2008

Lamy's optimism

FT:

Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, insisted at the weekend that the politics were right to achieve a global trade deal this year.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, Lamy is simply doing his job.

Posted by Dingel at 08:24 AM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2007

Is the bicycle theory a scare tactic bound to backfire?

Along the lines of Rodrik's skepticism, is there danger that the bicycle theory of trade negotiations may be a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps if free traders expressed greater confidence in the WTO's ability to prevent backsliding, it would actually serve as a credible backstop.

Posted by Dingel at 03:58 PM | Comments (0)

November 13, 2007

Developing country coalitions at the WTO

An interesting Venn diagram from a recent presentation by Vicente Yu of the South Centre (pdf):

An audience member also mentioned that 64 countries are members of five or more issue-based coalitions.

Posted by Dingel at 09:17 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2007

Beattie on Doha

Alan Beattie:

As returns from the dead go, the fact that the so-called “Doha round” of global trade talks was revived in January of this year was a comeback to rival that of Lazarus.

But unless (a subject on which the New Testament is silent) Lazarus spent the year after his miraculous recovery standing on the spot, squabbling irritably and periodically threatening to relapse into unconsciousness, it seems unlikely that the analogy can be continued beyond the initial resurrection.

[HT: Erixon]

Posted by Dingel at 12:34 AM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2007

Schwab in FT

Shorter Susan Schwab: Don't blame the United States for Doha's demise.

Posted by Dingel at 12:09 PM | Comments (1)

September 25, 2007

Doha (non-)update

In case you didn't know, Doha really is going nowhere fast.

Posted by Dingel at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2007

Cotton reform politically unpalatable

Reuters: "A bipartisan group of U.S. senators urged the Bush administration to reject deep cuts to U.S. cotton subsidies in world trade talks, promising to oppose any agreement with major subsidy reforms that some poor countries insist they need to compete on world markets."

Posted by Dingel at 11:44 AM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2007

Don't cry for Doha

Alan Beattie had a thoughtful piece on trading ritual and reality in the FT yesterday:

The reality is that the great wave of globalisation since the end of the cold war has had a lot less to do with ministers signing paper trade agreements – most of which are anaemic – and a lot more to do with innovative businesses getting on and doing things...

The 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations, for example, signed a free trade agreement in 1991. But although trade within the region has grown rapidly, less than 10 per cent of exports use the special tariff rates available under the pact, partly because the rules are so complex. Digitisation, lower transport costs and improved supply chain management have had far more impact on the region than lower tariffs...

The most protected sectors now are either – as in much of agriculture – ferociously defended by the beneficiaries or – as in services – sufficiently complex that writing binding agreements is hard. Witness the lack of progress in official attempts further to liberalise transatlantic trade, one of the biggest and most vibrant trading relationships on earth...

The evidence so far is that with world commerce itself doing fine, there is little contribution to greater globalisation being made by negotiated reductions in official barriers to trade.

It's worthwhile to read the full column.

Posted by Dingel at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2007

Question for FTAAP advocates

What (present or future) political economy forces would make a WTO round infeasible but not block a free trade deal with China?

Posted by Dingel at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)

September 11, 2007

The trade paradox

Moisés Naím says there's a free trade paradox: trade is booming while negotiations bust.

In many countries, free trade agreements are now politically radioactive, with imports routinely blamed for job losses, lower salaries, heightened inequality, and more recently, even poisoned toothpaste and deadly medicines. The domestic politics of trade reforms are inherently skewed against trade deals...

In 2006, the volume of global merchandise exports grew 15 percent, while the world economy grew roughly 4 percent. In 2007, the growth in world trade is again expected to outstrip the growth rate of the global economy... An unprecedented number of countries, rich and poor alike, are seeing their overall economic performance boosted by strong export growth...

So, what explains the paradox of gridlocked trade agreements and surging trade flows? The short answer is technology and politics. In the past quarter century, technological innovations—from the Internet to cargo containers—lowered the costs of trading. And, in the same period, an international political environment more tolerant of openness created opportunities to lower barriers to imports and exports. China, India, the former Soviet Union, and many other countries launched major reforms that deepened their integration into the world’s economy. In developing countries alone, import tariffs dropped from an average of around 30 percent in the 1980s to less than 10 percent today. Indeed, one of the surprises of the past 20 or so years is how much governments have lowered obstacles to trade—unilaterally. Between 1983 and 2003, 66 percent of tariff reductions in the world took place because governments decided it was in their own interests to lower their import duties, 25 percent as a result of agreements reached in multilateral trade negotiations, and 10 percent through regional trade agreements with neighboring countries...

As the volume of trade continues to grow, the need for clearer and more effective rules becomes more critical. In this century, the quality of what is traded will be as important as the need to lower tariffs was in the last... Moreover, a rules-based system accepted by a majority of nations can protect smaller countries and companies from the abusive practices of bigger nations or large conglomerates. The rule of law is always better than the law of the jungle, even in resolving trade conflicts.

[Hat tip: WaPo]

Posted by Dingel at 10:26 PM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2007

Sydney and Geneva: Don't expect any break-throughs

Two seemingly important events in trade negotiations take place this week: an APEC summit and the resumption of Doha talks.

The FT says the Bush administration "will seek to breathe fresh life" into the Doha agenda, but their only evidence for that effort is an administration statement that it "is prepared to make the tough choices if others are likewise prepared to make those tough choices to create new trade flows.” That just means nothing new is happening.

The deputy US national security advisor for economic affairs also said that the US will push the creation of a Pacific region PTA - the so-called FTAAP - but that won't happen. Given Congressional sentiments, how could Bush ever push a big trade deal that included China?

This week will be merely continue what the Bush administration has been doing for a few years on trade - lots of talk, little action.

Posted by Dingel at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

August 06, 2007

Would India benefit from agricultural liberalization?

Emmanuel directs us to an unusual suggestion by TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan, who notes that India will be the world's largest importer of foodgrains in 2011:

[W]here India's negotiating stance at the WTO is concerned, it should alter its position. Basically, if it is going to import large amounts of food (grains and other things) it will gain if the others subsidise their agriculture. The same point was made (albeit in respect of Africa) by Joseph Stiglitz at a talk he gave at ICRIER. So I am in good company.

In effect, just as foreign savers with their countries' huge dollar reserves are subsidising the US consumer, the US taxpayer will subsidise Indian consumers. It is from this perspective that India should alter the analytical framework that determines its food trade policy.

I was initially skeptical of this argument. Africa is different than India. It has preferential access to US and EU markets via AGOA and Everything But Arms, respectively. If the Doha round results in both preference erosion and subsidy reductions, then it would be a terms-of-trade deterioration for the African countries that are net food importers and receive those benefits. This is not the case for India, which does not have preferential access and may not a net food importer.

Moreover, the analysis is very sensitive to which crops make up India's balance of trade, as some are subsidized by OECD countries much more than others. At first I suspected that the structure of rich country subsidization would mean that India doesn't substantially benefit from cheaper imports, but a long article by G. Chandrashekhar in the Hindu Business Line says otherwise:

[I]n none of the four major commodities would India stand to benefit substantially if the subsidies were eliminated. It may be politically correct and perhaps expedient for India to make appropriate noises against farm subsidies at global forums such as the WTO. While reduction or elimination of subsidies would impact world commodity prices, consuming and importing nations would be the worst hit. Unlike several countries that are dependent on farm goods export, India is a large consuming country. Subsidy-induced low prices would be in Indian consumers' interest.

India's own emerging situation — tardy output growth, rising internal demand, supply tightness, firm prices — warrants that we prepare to remain open to imports.

Is this contrarian conclusion true?

See below the fold for analysis of oilseeds, foodgrains, cotton and sugar. It looks like cotton is a weak argument and wheat is a difficult judgment, while Chandrashekhar may have a strong case in oilseeds and sugar.

Oilseeds:

For India, higher world oilseed prices (and, in turn, vegetable oil prices) as a result of reduction/elimination of subsidies in developed countries may not be desirable. We are a leading importer of edible oils (5 mt valued at over $2 billion a year, accounting for over 40 per cent of domestic consumption) because of chronic domestic shortage...

In addition, under Indian conditions, high open market prices do not automatically translate to augmented output the following season. The supply response to prices is rather limited here because oilseed farmers face severe challenges in cultivation and marketing...

Higher world prices would hurt consumer interest but not exactly promote producers' interest domestically... [L]ooking at robust growth in the domestic livestock industry, the internal demand for all kinds of animal and poultry feed is expected to expand in the coming years, making surplus oilmeals a thing of the past.

Indeed, low international prices (for whatever reason, including subsidies) are beneficial for India because of its growing import dependence.

Foodgrains:

As a result of a wheat subsidy cut, world wheat prices would rise inexorably. It would benefit other major exporters such as Australia and Canada (whose export as a percentage of domestic output is significantly large) to increase their share of the export market, while hurting large importers...

The wheat output in India has been rising steadily... The demand, on the other hand, has been rising relentlessly... The potential for a sustained increase in output so as to lead to genuine export surplus does not exist, on current reckoning...

Indeed, given the sluggish growth output rate and uncertainties visiting wheat production, there is a possibility of a mismatch between supply and demand emerging sooner, rather than later. India could well turnout to be an importer of wheat. High international wheat prices are, therefore, not desirable from a short-to-medium term perspective.

Cotton:

Since 2003-04, the domestic cotton output has risen markedly and signs are that the trend will continue. Although growing, the domestic consumption trails production, leading to huge inventory overhang and depressed domestic market prices. Cotton exports from India are a possibility if international prices remain high — over 50 cents a pound. However, there are limits to India benefiting from a global price rally given infrastructure, quality and other limitations that would constrict export volumes. No doubt, a strong world market and firm domestic prices would be friendly to cotton growers here; but can potentially hurt India's textile and garment producers' interests.

Sugar:

As far as India is concerned, from being a sugar exporter till 2003, the country turned into a net importer from 2004 onwards as indigenous output plunged. Production growth is unlikely to meet demand growth in a sustained manner in the near future. There is nothing to suggest that the domestic production situation would dramatically improve to create genuine large export surplus anytime soon. If anything, raw sugar imports may continue even in 2006.

Sugar is a highly water intensive crop. Given the forecast of serious water shortage in the country over the next 10 years, a serious rethink on sugarcane cultivation may become necessary.

India's attempt should be to remain a large sugar producer with volumes sufficient to meet the growing internal demand. Exporting sugar would only mean exporting precious water out of the country. For the future, the possibility of India importing sugar is far greater than India remaining a consistent exporter. Therefore, abolition of sugar subsidy by the OECD countries may not be in India's interest.

Posted by Dingel at 10:37 PM | Comments (0)

July 29, 2007

A Doha Eulogy

The August issue of The World Economy has a special feature on the (foregone) potential benefits of the Doha Round. From a trio of simulation-intensive articles, we learn that the December 2005 proposals from which countries have retreated did offer real gains, cotton subsidies are indeed the most damaging agricultural protection, and countries' own liberalization drives their predicated national income gains.

Posted by Dingel at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2007

Jumping straight to the finish line

I'm merely a student, while Grant Aldonas was US undersecretary of commerce for international trade from 2001-05, but he's crazy if he thinks this is the way to jump-start Doha:

The answer lies in creating a new structure for the Doha development agenda that would yield real gains in trade, offer real help to the least developed countries and provide a significant incentive for further liberalisation. Towards that end, I would suggest... a "plurilateral" agreement among all WTO members willing to move directly to free trade on a global basis. To participate, members would have to eliminate all barriers to trade in goods and services, including agriculture, and immediately decouple all agricultural subsidies from production. What this would do is create a free trade core within the WTO, provide significant trade benefits to its participants that would ease approval of the overall accord back home and provide a significant incentive for non-participating WTO members to join as soon as they were ready to accept these obligations.

No way.

The other prongs of his plan are also desirable but far from likely to happen. For example, you won't see a deal to harmonize the various preference schemes for LDCs, because those programs are as much about politics as development.

Posted by Dingel at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2007

Is the US at fault for Doha?

Bhagwati and Panagariya blame America for Doha's failure, citing its maximalist demands and "almost pathetic" offered concessions. Read the full piece.

In the comments section at VoxEU, Peter Gallagher objects to the authors' argument that if India is asked to lower its bound rates sufficiently so as to lower its applied rates, then the US ought to do the same. Gallagher notes that the US bound rates on agricultural tariffs are nearly the same as its applied rates, but the relevant US policy instrument is agricultural subsidization - in which case the bound rate vastly exceeds actual payments to farmers. See this short note (pdf) by Kim Elliott for the relevant numbers - at present, the US offer wouldn't reduce the level of total trade-distorting support.

Posted by Dingel at 08:28 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2007

Francois: Don't revive the patient

I have yet to read someone pleased with the current WTO round being saddled with the title "Doha Development Agenda." Some, like Joe Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton, argue that the name is misleading because the rich countries are not actually focused on development-friendly liberalization. Others believe that the moniker poisoned the negotiations from the start by giving developing countries reason to believe they might enjoy a "round for free" in which they would not have to liberalize their own trade barriers. In fact, each side is unhappy with the DDA because the other side interprets the phrase differently.

Joseph Francois is a member of the latter camp, but he thinks this clash is getting old:

If you surf the WTO website, Ministerial declarations, NGO news feeds, and the pronouncements of the alphabet soup of developing country blocks – G20, G33, LDCs, SVEs – you get the distinct impression that what matters is OECD concessions. Yet this focus on the OECD is an exercise in misdirection. Preferential access is not the key to trade-based growth... [R]ecent research suggests that preferences do not work as advertised, help parties they are not meant to help, and otherwise represent a triumph of form over substance...

If the OECD would resign from its role as scapegoat (scrapping industrial protection and then walking away), the South could then move past its post-colonial obsession with OECD import protection and finally take steps to place its own collective house in order.

Francois argues that the Doha round's focus on an intransigent issue - agriculture - is damaging, and that WTO members would be best off declaring the round complete via some watered-down compromise and moving on to address more important issues, such as multilateralizing regionalism and promoting South-South liberalization.

Posted by Dingel at 08:42 PM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2007

What has freed trade?

Peter Gallagher thinks that unilateral reforms, not multilateral negotiations, deserve credit for our relatively liberal international economic order:

After thirty years of these stand-offs (Tokyo Round through Doha) it is past time to acknowledge that the multilateral trade round format doesn't work. We cannot coordinate real changes in trade and investment policies by negotiation. Over and over again it appears that real changes arise only from autonomous measures such as those in Brazil and China in the late 80s and first half of the 90s; the EC ('McSharry reforms') in the first half of the 1990s; Vietnam's and India's first steps to liberalization in the mid-to-late 90s, and also reluctantly; ASEAN, Korea and Mexico in the late 90s. Attempts to wrench such changes from WTO Members in a round of negotiations has a very poor record of success and what changes are won come at a cost to the system.

Posted by Dingel at 01:06 AM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2007

More Doha dissection

Picking up on my use of medical metaphors to describe Doha last week, Simon Evenett describes the patient's worsening condition:

India's trade minister said the Doha Round was in intensive care last year; if that was the case then, now it appears to be in terminal decline...

The blame for this Round's debacle lies squarely on the shoulders of WTO member governments, Mr. Lamy and the WTO secretariat should not be sacrificial lambs...

In past WTO negotiations, countries exchanged cuts in their bound rates. Since bound and applied rates were about the same thing, exporters in all nations had something to gain from pushing their governments to sign the deal. But now with so much unilateral reform, the proposals for bound rate cuts attract little support from exporters. Rich country exporters can ask: Why lobby for finishing Doha when you have already got the increased export opportunities for free?...

Indeed, while so many have been worrying about how the spread of regionalism and bilateralism in recent years has undermined the multilateral trading system, in fact many of the termites eating away at the Doha Round are associated with unilateral trade reform...

The Doha round is now almost dead. All that remains is for someone to discreetly turn the life support machine off.

If the Doha round's collapse is seen as a loss for free traders, they may be victims of their own success.

Posted by Dingel at 07:36 PM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2007

Beating a dead horse

Today's non-news: "World trade talks collapse in acrimony" by Alan Beattie.

Posted by Dingel at 12:56 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2007

Doha dissection

It's tough to pull off a track stand. The Doha round is falling over, says Simon Evenett:

It was bad enough when the Doha Round of trade negotiations was deadlocked; now there are dangerous signs that what progress has been made is unravelling. Over the past four weeks the leading trading powers have moved backwards from a number of established positions. Either senior trade negotiators are planning an extraordinarily welcome summer surprise or they are positioning themselves for the blame game when the music finally stops.

Evenett is disturbed by this state of affairs, arguing that Doha needs to be completed before the US presidential election in 2008, as trade liberalization never does well on the campaign trail. He says "procrastination is a luxury WTO members cannot afford."

On the other hand, procrastination looks like the most likely outcome. I doubt any serious progress will be made this summer. And so does Evenett, I suspect, given that most of his column reads more like an autopsy than a prescription to save the patient. Many are already thinking of the aftermath:

[S]talemate looms. Much depends on how the associated media game is played. Maybe a graceful way will be found to conclude the negotiations without an agreement? Maybe senior trade negotiators and WTO officials will argue for continuing the talks after an 18-24 month hiatus? Or will the talks collapse into irreparable acrimony? Much depends on how the major trading powers fancy their chances at the "blame game." Indeed, I often wonder if the current tactics of some trading nations are aimed at completing the Doha Round or aimed at positioning themselves for the next multilateral trade negotiation.

Read the full piece for a number of insights into the last month or so of trade (non-)negotiations.

[Apologies for mixing bicycling and medical metaphors throughout. I blame Tom Friedman. :-) ]

Posted by Dingel at 08:36 PM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2007

Plenty of space under the subsidy ceiling

The Bush administration is taking heat from WTO negotiators for standing by its October 2005 proposal to limit its farm subsidies to $22 billion, as it only paid about $15 billion in subsidies last year. With that much room to spare, the US could easily make a more generous offer in an attempt to restart the WTO negotiations. On the other hand, trading partners are well aware that the first $7 billion in cuts offered by the US won't actually improve their lot.

Posted by Dingel at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)

April 13, 2007

How bold a move is needed to revive Doha?

Chad Bown, of Brookings and Brandeis, proposes a bold move:

[T]he United States needs to take a stand by halting all of its remaining bilateral trade negotiations as a step towards a good-faith effort to rekindle the multilateral Doha negotiations. This action would signal leadership and commitment to successfully pursuing and completing the Doha round, which holds the greatest potential for substantial increases in well-being both at home and abroad.

I recommend reading the full piece, in which Bown attacks recent US trade policy efforts as anti-China maneuvers. He gives no quarter to the US-Korea FTA, characterizing it as a policy discriminating against Chinese imports rather than freeing trade.

Would Bown's proposal suceed in rejuvenating the Doha round? Informal meetings over the last couple months haven't produced any new momentum, and yesterday's announcement of a new deadline (end of 2007) does little to inspire confidence in the DDA's vitality. It may take something quite radical to revive it.

Update: Corrected spelling of Bown. I regret the error.

Posted by Dingel at 07:21 PM | Comments (1)

March 22, 2007

The Latest at the WTO

Ecuador is challenging the EU's preferential treatment of ACP countries and has secured a WTO investigative panel.

The G33 have offered to halve the number of criteria used to identify agricultural products exempt from tariff cuts, but it remains to be seen if that would lead to a reduction in the number of products exempted.

Posted by Dingel at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2007

China's take on Doha

The United States trade negotiators have been urging China to play a larger role in the Doha round, but I doubt this was what they were looking for:

The main stumbling block in the Doha Round of global trade talks is the failure of the United States and European Union to make substantial concessions on agriculture, China’s commerce minister said on Monday... ”The European Union and the United States, as the world’s two largest traders, have yet to make substantial concessions in terms of high import tariffs on agricultural products, export subsidies for agriculture and the huge domestic support for their agricultural products,” Mr Bo said.

Mr Bo, speaking on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People’s Congress, the largely ceremonial parliament, also urged Japan to do more to reduce its tariffs on farm goods, which he said were nearly three times higher than China’s.

Posted by Dingel at 08:08 AM | Comments (1)

February 07, 2007

Lamy on Doha

WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy claims that the Doha negotiations have fully resumed.

[Hat tip: Erixon]

Posted by Dingel at 08:02 PM | Comments (0)

February 05, 2007

The Farm Bill

The Bush administration put forth its farm bill proposal last week. Alan Beattie reports:

But as far as Doha was concerned, as one experienced agricultural policymaker in Washington put it: "There is less to this than meets the eye".

The headline totals were compatible with, but did not go beyond, the cut in annual allowable trade-distorting farm subsidies from around $22bn to around $17bn (€13bn, £8.6bn) that the Bush administration has already informally offered in the Doha round.

Subsidy programmes that support prices, because they encourage farmers to produce more and hence push down world prices, are classified as "trade-distorting" under WTO rules and are subject to stricter limits. Despite the administration's rhetoric that it was moving from supporting farmgate prices to protecting farmers' incomes - the so-called "revenue assurance" principle - the proposed move was modest. The "marketing loan" programme, which subsidises farmers when the prices of their produce fall below a set level, altered the calculation of the price a little to take account of actual market prices, but the change will not be dramatic.

Similarly, a controversial programme called "counter-cyclical payments", which compensates farmers when prices are low, was adjusted to take account of national crop yields as well as prices, but the change was incremental. The US has sought to classify the counter-cyclical payments as being only somewhat distorting of trade and hence enable them to continue under a Doha deal.

Mr Johanns has repeatedly warned US farmers that the alternative to agreeing reform is to see US agricultural subsidies litigated away piece by piece under the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism. The US is seeking a renewal of the so-called "peace clause", under which countries agree not to bring cases against each other over farm subsidies, in the Doha negotiations, but has run into stiff opposition from Brazil, which won a landmark victory against the US cotton subsidy programme in 2005.

Posted by Dingel at 08:12 PM | Comments (0)

January 31, 2007

What's the best scope for WTO negotiations?

Former USTR Charlene Barshefsky makes the case for emphasizing sectoral agreements rather than trade rounds at the WTO:

The longer the time-spread between global developments and WTO agreements, the less relevant the WTO will become. That, to me, suggests a policy, as we pursued in the 1990’s under President Clinton, under which parties use the WTO the way it was meant to be used – and that is as a forum for continuing negotiations among the members on issues of growing concern, so as to handle these issues in a rapid and effective manner. In the 1990’s, we concluded global agreements on telecommunications market opening, financial services market opening, information technology (which brought to zero tariffs on all information technology products), and duty-free cyberspace. These were all done under WTO auspices in a sectoral fashion, in a timely way.

The last global round of trade talks was launched in 1986. This round will not conclude until year-end 2007, at the earliest. Had we not pursued these critical sectoral agreements when we did, global telecom and financial services markets would not be nearly as open to the United States as today. Would that have made make any sense, when financial services and telecom are perhaps the most critical aspects of wealth creation?

If we keep waiting for meaningful trade liberalization in large rounds, which can be held up by any issue countries wish to interpose, then we risk the future of the WTO. I believe Doha will conclude. Once it concludes, the WTO must take a hard look at its own responsiveness, and its own role as a regulator, if you will, of global economic behavior, and move toward the negotiation of agreements with the greatest salience.

The most relevant academic piece I've found on this topic is a chapter in Economic Development and Multilateral Trade Cooperation by Philip Levy (PDF available online). In his introduction, he writes:

What is the appropriate scope of a negotiating round? Is it generally possible to reach agreements sector by sector? If it is possible, is it advisable?

This paper will attempt to bring existing economic theory to bear on these questions. In the next section, we will review the traditional case for package deals in trade rounds, bolster that case with some theory and then challenge it with the apparent success of sectoral negotiations. We will argue that track record of the sector-by-sector approach is less attractive than it seems and that its successes may well have had negative effects on future negotiations beyond the unfortunate procedural precedent.

Pointers to additional literature on this topic would be much appreciated.

Posted by Dingel at 07:37 PM | Comments (2)

January 27, 2007

What threatens the WTO?

Cato's Dan Ikenson thinks that the US defense of its use of zeroing in anti-dumping calculations is a greater threat to global trade than the Doha round's collapse.

Posted by Dingel at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)

January 21, 2007

Latest on Doha

Plenty of detail in this FT piece on the hurdles Doha faces - US-EU negotiations, Representative Collin Peterson, India, Brazil, France, domestic lobbies, etc.

Posted by Dingel at 09:29 PM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2007

No push from the in Doha negotiations

If this portrayal of the Bush administration's approach is accurate, then I'd think TPA renewal is unlikely:

"I don't think the urgency [of Lamy, Mandelson, and analysts] is well-placed. The content is going to drive the pace of this negotiation," the U.S. official, asking to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the Doha talks, told Reuters...

U.S. officials argue that the round will not drift into oblivion if a Doha deal remains elusive through 2007 or beyond, and more importantly today's multilateral trading system will not unravel, no matter what the critics warn.

Posted by Dingel at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

Where have the business lobbies been?

It's rare that you have to convince a business to defend its interests. But Fredrik Erixon and Andreas Freytag try to coax exporters to care about the Doha Round in The Wall Street Journal Europe:

The World Trade Organization has often been portrayed by antitrade groups as a corporate puppet. But one key problem in this round has been the relative silence on industry's part. Business has been the dog that didn't bark...

Business leaders' absence from the game is understandable. All the global-governance hubris, windy rhetoric and political grandstanding invariably displayed at big WTO meetings offer ample reasons for outsiders to take a rain check...

Yet the Doha agenda still has serious appeal for businesses interested in freer trade. Business opportunities in goods and industrial products will be significantly improved, particularly when it comes to exports to major developing countries. And binding countries to their currently applied tariffs -- which are lower than the ones agreed in the last multilateral talks, the Uruguay Round -- can increase stability and certainty in world trade. The Doha Round will not substantially liberalize trade in services, but it can lock in already achieved liberalizations, especially for investment, as well as dismantle some of the worst nontariff barriers to trade. What's more, the vast majority of the business community has a lot to gain from a WTO deal that puts limits on antidumping measures, today the weapon of choice for protectionist governments, and prohibits egregious abuses of other trade-defense instruments.

So why aren't businesses interested in the Doha round? Perhaps it's the focus on agriculture and development that has turned them off. Maybe the lack of services liberalization is problematic. Or have businesses already obtained the trade liberalization most important to them, as Anne Krueger suggests?

It is not often asserted that the existence of preferential arrangements is a reason for failure to support, or opposition to, further multilateral liberalization. But the fact is that producers already exporting to PTA markets are either efficient and have already achieved the benefits (to them) of trade liberalization or they are inefficient and do not want multilateral competition. Either way, support for further multilateral liberalization has eroded. Many in the policy community have noted the absence of strong support from the US business community for the Doha Round, as compared to support for the earlier rounds of trade negotiations. It is not possible to prove that the absence of support for Doha is the result of PTAs (or the prospect of further PTAs) but it is certainly possible and even, I would argue, likely.

Erixon and Freytag aren't much interested in that hypothesis, however:

One can argue at length over bilateralism versus multilateralism, but this is a superficial exercise that only clouds the real issues. They are neither opposites nor substitutes for each other. There is room for both of them.

What other hypotheses might be offered to explain the absence of support from business lobbies?

Update: Meanwhile, the FT says: "US business leaders on Thursday threw their weight behind the Bush administration’s last-ditch drive to revive its trade agenda before the president’s fast-track trade promotion authority expires later this year."

Posted by Dingel at 07:38 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2007

Will the entitlements crisis trigger farm reform?

Joseph Francois is optimistic about agricultural liberalization, despite the failing WTO negotiations:

In recent years, the new dispute settlement body... has led to successful cases against the U.S. and EU (led by Brazil) on cotton and sugar. At the same time, under different dispute mechanisms in the WTO, developing Latin American countries recently won a high-profile case against the EU on bananas. The most difficult issues are being handled through the legal machinery in Geneva, and developing countries are even winning. As it turned out, none of this really hinged on the agriculture negotiations themselves...

The current set of agricultural policies in the U.S. and EU is not sustainable. In the case of the EU, the combination of (i) aging populations and (ii) an Eastern Enlargement that has taken in poor, agricultural economies means that the CAP as we know it is doomed. The European Commission knows this, and EU Members have already launched on a policy reform process that recognizes that future agricultural policy will have to be very different (and much cheaper) if it is to survive the budget constraints brought on by aging populations, and the demands for structural funds from new members. The EU has made a commitment to reform (necessary regardless of how events unfold in Geneva), and we can expect the process to continue. So, why not just wait? We can probably get the same results we would from active negotiation. In the case of the U.S., the budget hole is now so deep, and the looming costs for Medicaid and Medicare with retiring baby boomers is so large, that large farm outlays are likely to be a victim of the storm of budget rationalization that will arrive with the next White House team. So again, why not just wait? We will get rationalization anyway, regardless of whether or not we push this through Geneva.

The EU scenario seems reasonable, but I don't buy the US story, at least at first glance. Agricultural subsidies run around $20 billion, while federal spending is in the neighborhood of $2.5 trillion and the deficit is more than $300 billion, so although the subsidy payments are foolish, slashing them won't significantly improve the budget situation. Meanwhile, farm lobbyists are a well-organized and influential constituency.

Analysts more familiar with the entitlement programs and the federal budget process are better equipped to discuss this topic than I am, but I'm skeptical that farm subsidies are likely to be first on the chopping block.

Posted by Dingel at 05:59 PM | Comments (1)

January 16, 2007

Doha's impact on Africa

Pascal Lamy says that Africa needs to give ground in the Doha negotiations:

"If we conclude this round, there will be many winners. If the negotiations fail, no doubt who will be the biggest loser: Africa. We all know that. This is the reality," said Lamy. Africa states must "alter their position in negotiations to avoid a return to deadlock," added Lamy during a visit to the African Union's headquarters in Addis Ababa for talks with trade ministers from the continent.

A June 2006 Focus on the Global South brief by Aileen Kwa summarizes research skeptical of this position:

Contrary to these expectations, however, research from the World Bank, the Carnegie Endowment, the European Commission, and also the FAO, reveal that the majority in Africa will be faced with losses in both agriculture and industrial goods liberalisation. Even if agricultural export markets were open to Africa, the majority of African farmers – subsistence farmers – will not be in a position to compete. In addition, they will lose through having to open their domestic markets in the negotiations. The poorest countries in Africa will be worst hit – many are LDC countries in Sub- Saharan or East Africa.

Here's a summary of the Carnegie research done by Sandra Polaski:

Ms. Polaski enumerated three reasons why agricultural liberalization could actually harm many developing countries.  First, many poor countries are net food importers.  Eliminating agricultural subsidies would reduce production and increase the price of agricultural goods to the detriment of net food importers.  Second, many rich countries apply lower tariffs to exports from developing countries.  Reducing overall tariff levels would narrow the margins of these preferences.  Finally, due to the small scale of agricultural production in most developing countries, the prospects for competing on global markets are poor.  However lower tariffs could lead to cheaper imports of competing products, leading to a reduction of farmers’ incomes.  The Carnegie model showed that developing countries could shield certain crops essential to farmers’ incomes without significantly diminishing the benefits to other countries of agricultural liberalization. 

The World Bank research is less clear. Kwa writes that "the Bank concluded that the gains were expected for only a few large developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, India. 'Bangladesh and many African countries benefiting from preferences are likely to face losses.'" She cites Kym Anderson and Will Martin, Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda (2005) as the source of the quotation, but the 2006 publication (full text available here) does not contain that sentence. Moreover, that quotation appears to be describing the impact of preference erosion, not the net impact of the Doha agenda. Anderson and Martin's summary runs contrary to Kwa's characterization:

Most developing countries gain in our Doha scenarios, and all would if they participated more fully in the reforms. Our simulations of alternative scenarios for possible outcomes of the Doha negotiations show that middle-income countries certainly stand to gain, but so too would poorer developing countries so long as they do not exercise their claims to special and differential treatment in the form of lesser requirements to reform. An important part of this result comes from the increases in market access—on a nondiscriminatory basis—by other developing countries.

Preference erosion may be less of an issue than commonly assumed. Some least developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere appear to be slight losers in our Doha simulations when developed countries cut their tariffs and these poor countries choose not to reform at all. Our simulations overstate the benefits of tariff preferences for least developed countries, however, since they ignore the trade-dampening effect of complex rules of origin and the grabbing of much of the rents by developed-country importers.

So the World Bank work seems to support Lamy's argument that African nations need to reform.

I don't have time to dig into the EC and FAO research, but those interested in the skeptics' arguments might use Kwa's piece as a starting point. For another skeptical view of the DDA's impact on poor countries, see Dani Rodrik's take. And for skepticism regarding all these simulations (CGE models), check out the Economist's July piece (courtesy of Ben Muse).

Posted by Dingel at 10:19 PM | Comments (1)

January 14, 2007

France opposes CAP reforms

France on Thursday warned Mandelson against making further concessions on agriculture amid a global push to revive the stalled Doha round of trade negotiations. During a meeting with Mandelson in Paris, Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy ‘firmly reminded’ the top Brussels trade negotiator that his existing offer to cut tariffs on farm goods ‘constituted a red line and exhausted the EU's room for negotiation,’ a ministry statement said. … France - which insists European concessions should not go beyond the reform of the EU's Common Agriculture Policy agreed four years ago - threatened previously to veto any final trade deal, accusing Mandelson of overstepping his mandate with an October 2005 offer of further farm-tariff cuts.

I'm not shocked.

Posted by Dingel at 10:15 AM | Comments (0)

January 09, 2007

Canada requests consultations on US ag subsidies

We're moving towards a test of the WTO's institutional strength:

Canada has launched a dispute at the World Trade Organisation over the use of “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies by the US.

The dispute singles out payments to American corn farmers but also challenges the total level of US agricultural subsidies...

The timing of the challenge is aimed at influencing the formation of a new farm bill in the US Congress, where there is resistance to reform from Senators and Representatives from farm states.

The bicycle theory of trade negotiations says that in the absence of momentum towards further trade liberalization, protectionist influences are likely to induce policy backsliding (a bicycle can't stand still very long - it falls over). The WTO's rules-based framework could serve as a backstop against retreat from previous liberalization gains, but only if its dispute rulings are respected by members. As the world's largest economy, the United States is in the best position to defy the WTO if it wishes.

Here's the best possible outcome: The WTO rules against the US subsidies and the Bush administration complies with the decision. This means that (1) the WTO is institutionally sufficient to preserve the liberal trading system while the Doha negotiations are on pause, and (2) American negotiators may discount the value of holding onto their agricultural subsidy bargaining chips if they risk being struck down in the future and make a greater effort to get something in exchange for them by reinvigorating the Doha round rather than walking away empty-handed.

The world case scenario? That's left as an exercise for the reader...

Posted by Dingel at 09:57 AM | Comments (2)

December 15, 2006

The D-word Round

Andrew Leonard finds more reasons to think the DDA's stall will last quite a while:

Buried at the very end of a Wall Street Journal article on the possibility that the U.S. might lead a new effort to restart the stalled Doha trade talks comes a tidbit too revealing to pass up.

The administration's fresh focus on Doha hasn't necessarily won the same level of attention from its chief executive. Joining visiting South African President Mbeki in the Oval Office Friday, President Bush told reporters that the two talked about "the necessity of trade."

"We talked about, interestingly enough, the Darfur round," Mr. Bush said, apparently confusing the Qatar city with the Sudanese region beset by violence.

Sure, sure, anyone can make an honest mistake. Why pick on the poor man, who clearly has much more important things to worry about than getting the details right about trade and genocide. Doha, Darfur -- it's a lot to ask, keeping these strangely named foreign cities straight. But it's impossible to resist the feeling that Bush just doesn't give a damn.

Posted by Dingel at 08:12 AM | Comments (1)

December 14, 2006

Chat with Pascal Lamy

WTO online event:

On 18 December from 17:00-18:00 Geneva time WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy will host an on-line chat to discuss this suspension, the prospects for relaunching the talks and the future of the WTO and the global trading system... Please note that to keep the event manageable there is a limit of 500 participants, on a first-come first-served basis... To send advance questions that will be answered during the chat: dgchat@wto.org.

Posted by Dingel at 08:03 PM | Comments (0)

November 28, 2006

Key WTO reps to meet in January

AP:

Ministers from the WTO's most influential powers will meet early next year to make their first joint attempt at reviving global trade talks since their collapse last summer, officials said Monday.

Top representatives of the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, India and Brazil are among those expected to gather on the sidelines at the World Economic Forum's annual four-day meeting of global leaders in Davos, Switzerland. Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization, also has been invited to attend the meeting at the end of January, officials said.

Posted by Dingel at 02:14 AM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2006

Doha, TPA renewal, and the window of opportunity

If the Bush administration wants to win renewal of its trade promotion authority, most analysts are now saying that it will depend upon the president's willingness to make concessions to Democrats by including labor and environmental standards. The Democrats seeking these measures generally want them included in bilateral FTAs and aren't nearly as critical of the WTO negotiations for ignoring these concerns.

If my previous analysis is wrong and there is a chance of TPA renewal, then a Doha-only extension has the best chance. But that depends upon the DDA being sufficiently vibrant so as to make TPA renewal worth it. And without TPA, Doha isn't going far, hence our nasty catch-22. But some are suggesting that there's a window of opportunity:

The WTO negotiations have been suspended since late July, when governments proved unable to agree on farm subsidy and tariff cuts. They are now starting to show signs of life, and Geneva-based trade diplomats believe that there is a window of opportunity until around March 2007 for Members to assemble a 'blueprint' for a Doha Round deal that would offer gains sufficient to entice Congress into extending TPA. However, many blame the impasse on the US' refusal to offer deeper reductions to its farm subsidies, and have argued that Washington must make new overtures in order to revive the talks. The passing of the election may have relieved some of the pressure to not announce subsidy cuts. The Bush administration has maintained in recent months that the US would not budge unless other countries modified their negotiating stances too.

Unlike the Reuters story I criticized a week ago, the ICTSD story contains details that make the window plausible. WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy called an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on Friday morning. But I doubt the "blueprint" will include labor and environmental provisions, which may be necessary for even a Doha-only TPA renewal to be feasible:

According to the Washington Post, Montana Senator Max Baucus, who is likely to take over the Senate Finance Committee, has said that any legislation prolonging the president's fast-track powers would have to "strengthen labour and environmental provisions in some way to win broader Democratic support." Washington publication Inside US Trade reported on 10 November that he would also want TPA extension to be contingent on expanded support for trade adjustment, better enforcement of existing trade agreements, and increased export promotion efforts. Baucus has been a vocal supporter of providing extra unemployment benefits and retraining funds for people who have lost their jobs due to trade liberalisation.

Here are the relevant provisions in the 2002 Trade Act:

OVERALL TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES.—The overall trade negotiating objectives of the United States for agreements subject to the provisions of section 2103 are—...

(5) to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world’s resources;
(6) to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO (as defined in section 2113(6)) and an understanding of the relationship between trade and worker rights;
(7) to seek provisions in trade agreements under which parties to those agreements strive to ensure that they do not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in domestic environmental and labor laws as an encouragement for trade;

The current provisions seem compatible with the Doha negotiations, and it may be possible to strengthen the labor and environmental provisions of the TPA legislation without negatively impacting the WTO negotiations. That means that we can't rule out the possibility of TPA being renewed and Doha regaining momentum in 2007.

But that likelihood is small. The murmurs emanating from Geneva are merely low-level informal discussions without ministers, and there doesn't seem to have been a shift in negotiating stances:

Although no attempts had been made to address the specific issues that have proved so intractable in the negotiations, the agriculture chair has taken the necessary initial steps to ensure that talks can begin more easily once the political will to do so has been established. "Crawford has turned on the engine to warm up the car a bit, but it's not yet in gear," said one delegate.

Posted by Dingel at 03:51 PM | Comments (1)

November 11, 2006

The Election & Trade: Seat-by-seat analysis

There were no cases of a "trade-sceptic" being replaced a "trade-friendly" member in either chamber.

Simon Evenett and Michael Meier have produced the race-by-race analysis that I briefly considered while writing this post before I set aside the project as too laborious.

Executive summary:

Tuesday's U.S. Congressional elections assumed considerable importance for trade negotiators because it is thought that, even if significant progress were made on the Doha Round negotiations in early 2007, Congress would need to extend the U.S. President's Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to allow the Round to be completed. Much turns on how the newcomers to the U.S. House and Senate are expected to vote. In this note we examine the stance taken by the 62 individuals who won their elections to the House or Senate for the first time. We compared their stance on trade policy matters during their election campaigns with the incumbents that they will soon replace. Our analysis, therefore, takes account of every known case where a seat changed hands and not just the cases where a Democrat replaced a Republican office.

The degree of importance assigned to this increase in congressional hostility to trade liberalization depends upon one's assessment of TPA renewal's chances prior to the election. My Thursday post arguing that the electoral impact on trade liberalization would be small reflects my belief that TPA renewal has been out of the question for a while. Of course, we should be afraid that this increases the risk of protectionism.

In June 2004, I wrote a criticism of Bush's "competitive liberalization" strategy that included the following paragraph:

The administration's political capital is not only limited in regards to foreign trading partners - the US populace is likely to be unwilling to sign off on a large number of trade agreements. Congress will only pass a limited number of trade agreements before it becomes uncooperative, out of fear that it will be perceived as liberalizing too quickly. Pressure from protectionist constituents like steel workers has a significant impact upon political calculations. I perceive it as unlikely that free traders will have enough expendable political capital to win the swing votes required to pass both FTAA and Doha agreements in the same congressional session. The problems of domestic political capital also hint at another trouble feature of bilateral trade deals - they expose free trade advocates to lobbying and criticism from anti-trade organizations.

Evenett & Meier write:

This constitutes a major blow to the U.S. Administration's trade strategy of "Competitive Liberalization." Far from building a domestic political consensus behind trade reform, as USTR Zeollick had originally hoped, this strategy has probably created the seeds of its own destruction.

I am happy that I was right, but not really.

(To be fair to Zoellick, the strategy was sold as a means to stimulate international movement towards liberalization, not build a domestic political consensus.)

[Massive hat tip to Ben Muse]

Posted by Dingel at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2006

The WTO's "window of opportunity"

Reuters carries the headline "Global free trade talks back on agenda," but the only support within the article for that claim is "WTO chief Pascal Lamy... says that negotiators now have a brief 'window of opportunity' to resume talks." Lamy's job is to play the role of optimist, so that's unsurprising. More insightful is this paragraph:

Three months on, nothing fundamental seems to have changed, and trade diplomats are pessimistic about concluding a deal that was supposed to rebalance trade rules in favour of the poor and boost business worldwide.

[HT: GI]

Posted by Dingel at 03:49 PM | Comments (2)

November 08, 2006

The US Election & Trade

What will Democratic control of the US Congress mean for trade policy? Opinions vary. In short, I don't think the legislative shift implies much for the WTO negotiations, which were going to be quiet for a while regardless.

Even prior to Tuesday, the majority of analysts expected the Doha Round to lay dormant for some time. The most notable dissident is Jagdish Bhagwati, who wrote last week:

But Doha is far from dead. Pascal Lamy, World Trade Organisation director-general, has only “suspended” the talks... George W. Bush is deeply committed to the success of Doha: it would be a rare multilateral triumph for a US president who never wavered in his support for free trade, even as John Kerry, his opponent in the last presidential election, was condemning US companies that outsource as traitors. With the elections to the US Congress pending, and with Democrats out to exploit every opportunity, he simply could not make the necessary concessions in agriculture and risk losing his own “farm belt” support. But with the elections behind him, he can return to act forcefully on his convictions.

In contrast, Brad DeLong says that "free trade does not appear to be a priority for the types of Republicans who get elected president--and definitely not for their staffs." Nonetheless, so that we can focus on the legislative branch, let's assume that Bush would like to renew trade promotion authority (TPA) and use it to achieve a meaningful Doha round outcome. What do the mid-terms spell for the US in the WTO negotiations?

Pat Buchanan welcomes the election results as hailing a "new era of economic nationalism":

Among the more dramatic events of this election year was one that has been little debated: The return of the trade-and-jobs issue, front and center, to American politics. Note: Almost no embattled Republican could be found taking the Bush line that NAFTA, or CAFTA with Central America, or MFN for China, or globalization was good for America and a reason he or she should be re-elected. But in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, attacks on free trade were central elements of Democratic strategy...

With the 2006 election, America appears to have reached the tipping point on free trade, as it has on immigration and military intervention to promote democracy. Anxiety, and fear of jobs lost to India and China, seems a more powerful emotion than gratitude for the inexpensive goods at Wal-Mart.

While I dissent from Buchanan's enthusiasm, it's true that free trade was not a platform plank likely to attract many swing voters on Tuesday. But if public opinion of trade liberalization is so low, would Republican victories have made a difference? Sen. Charles Grassley recently noted that "even if the Republicans continue to control the Congress we've already moved into a more protectionist atmosphere."

President Bush imposed steel tariffs a few months before the 2002 mid-terms in order to win TPA and the election, and free traders were told that a bit of protectionism up-front would buy them much greater liberalization in the future. It didn't pan out. Then, in 2004, we were told that the Doha round needed to wait until after the presidential election so that Republicans wouldn't lose critical farm state votes. But the administration didn't make any serious push at the WTO in 2005, and by the Hong Kong ministerial in December, you could look ahead to Tuesday's mid-terms. Moreover, the July 2005 pork-laden passage of CAFTA exposed the President's limited ability to pressure Congress on even the most watered-down trade deals and made me pessimistic about the future of trade liberalization long before a Democratic takeover of Congress seemed likely.

That's why I disagree with Bronwen Maddox, who wrote that "if the Democrats win back the House of Representatives today, that is the end of the enthusiasm in the US for free-trade deals." There never was any enthusiasm. Congressional staffers tell me that no one in Washington has considered TPA renewal to be feasible for a couple of years, and Chuck Grassley told Pascal Lamy that it had no chance back in February. While the Democratic Congress will "probably be marginally more protectionist than the current one," I don't think that means much difference in terms of further liberalization. The WTO talks were dormant already, Bhagwati's "far from dead" optimism notwithstanding, and no one expects them to go anywhere without TPA after it expires on July 1.

When might the Doha round resume? Richard Baldwin previously commented that EU CAP reform in 2008/2009 may revive the round. Last Friday, Alan Beattie described the negotiations as in a "deep freeze." He said they wouldn't have a chance until after the next US presidential election, and some analysts have even said 2012. I haven't seen anyone predicting substantive action prior to 2008.

So don't blame Democrats for hurting Doha, which had already collapsed and wasn't going anywhere soon even if Republicans kept control of Congress. The interesting question: do the election results increase the risk of protectionist backsliding that we've managed to avoid thus far?

Posted by Dingel at 05:59 PM | Comments (4)

November 03, 2006

Alan Beattie on the WTO negotiations

I saw Alan Beattie speak about the WTO negotiations this afternoon. He covered a great number of trade-related topics in his hour-long discussion, many of which would be familiar to those who read his columns (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Here are a few of his remarks that caught my attention:

"No one agrees what development is or what's good for developing countries." So the Doha Development Round has translated into each country defining "development" to favor its own interests.

"We're very sorry about that two centuries of subjugation. Got any sugar?" -- on Europe's trade preferences for former colonies, which result in African LDCs having "the best market access in the world."

"No one in the system cannot afford to have Doha fail." Therefore no country will make it happen.

"[Customs reform] is more important than anything at Doha." Apparently many countries' ports now process exports more quickly due to the US imposition of security standards after 9/11, which granted political leverage to those seeking customs reform.

"They're the ones coming out with exciting new acronyms." -- on why journalists tend to focus on institutions

"Three part-time amateurs make up the law as they go along." -- on the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, where in some cases the panelists are also trade negotiators.

"I have never come across a truly consumer-led free trade campaign.
'What do we want?'
'Marginally cheaper sugar!'
'When do we want it?'
'Phased in over seven years!'"

I'll have more on Beattie's predictions about the Doha round later.

Posted by Dingel at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2006

The G-20

Ever been unsure about the identity of the G-20 when someone mentioned it while discussing the international economy? That's no surprise. As Alan Wood notes, there are two.

The group that involves countries making up 85% of global GDP: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea,Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Plus the EU.

The group that negotiates on agriculture at the WTO: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

7 countries are members of both G-20s. One G-20 has 19 member countries (plus the rotating EU presidency). The other has 21 member nations.

The rich G-20 was institutionalized in 1999, while the agricultural G-20 only came into being in 2003. The rich G-20 was created as an extension of the G-7 after informal meetings of the G-22 and G-30.

It's simple, see?

Posted by Dingel at 05:07 PM | Comments (0)

October 05, 2006

Tidbits

The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel will be announced Monday at the earliest.

allofmp3.com is becoming a major issue in the Russian WTO accession talks.

Sir Ronald Sanders argues that US legislation prohibiting international gambling is protectionist:

Further, the Bill, passed by Congress in September, expressly makes legal bets through the Internet on US horse racing, US Internet lotteries, US fantasy sports and, more critically, allows states and Native American tribes to authorise Internet-gaming of almost any kind that occurs wholly within the borders of the state in which they are located.

So, even though the moral argument is being touted, and the religious right in the US has welcomed the Bill, it has little to do with morals and more to do with stopping Internet gaming companies from outside the US providing services to US customers.

Bob Goodlatte, the Congressman from Virginia, summed up this protectionist position when he declared that the Bill would stop “US $6 billion from being sucked out of the economy” annually.

It is this very protectionist position that caused successive governments of the small Caribbean Island, Antigua and Barbuda, to bring a case against the US to the World Trade Organization (WTO)...

A WTO Panel has already ruled that the US has to bring its laws into conformity with its international obligations. This new Bill, which specifically permits a whole host of domestic Internet betting opportunities, is even more blatantly discriminatory against the supply of gaming services to the US from other countries than US law was before Antigua and Barbuda won its ruling from the WTO.

Therefore, the WTO should take a very dim view of this very protectionist development once Antigua and Barbuda draws it to their attention...

The context of the Bill’s passage also raises serious questions of just how much study Senators gave to it, and the extent to which they really understood that it was also a trade issue with implications for the US in the WTO.

The Senate adopted the Bill in a late night pre-recess session of Congress. It was tagged on at the last minute to the Safe Port Act that was designed to stop companies from other countries (such as almost happened with a Dubai company earlier this year) having security rights at a US port. Many of those who voted for the Bill to cramp Internet gambling were really concerned about the security of US ports.

Posted by Dingel at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2006

Double-bind: TPA & Doha

The catch-22 of TPA & Doha has been discussed repeatedly by trade folks over the past few months, though I have yet to hear anyone offer a solution (Jagdish Bhagwati's optimism in June notwithstanding). Apparently the USTR doesn't have one either:

Daniel Drezner: There seems to be a catch-22 on reviving Doha. Other countries won't negotiate seriously with the United States unless they believe that we can get TPA renewed. At the same time, the only way that TPA is likely to be renewed is if Congressmen seen the outline of a Doha deal. How does one escape this conundrum?

Susan Schwab: Good question. [Long pause.]

Posted by Dingel at 01:00 PM | Comments (0)

September 11, 2006

Doha Round update

NYT:

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sept. 10 — Despite repeated declarations of their desire to resuscitate suspended global trade negotiations, representatives of leading industrial and developing nations meeting here this weekend were unable to agree on a resumption date.

Robert McMahon has a nice round up of the latest talks at CFR.

Posted by Dingel at 03:05 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2006

Rodrik: Doha failure "hardly a disaster"

If you're frustrated by the Doha round's failure, you might seek solace in this November 2005 piece (.doc) by Professor Dani Rodrik. He argued that the "development round" was oversold:

Talk to World Bank and World Trade Organization officials, and you will get hugely inflated claims about the benefits that the Doha round would bring. These officials often make it sound as if the livelihood of hundreds of millions of poor people in developing nations hangs in the balance...

It would be hard to identify any poor country whose development prospects are seriously blocked by restrictions on market access abroad. Any country with a sensible development strategy has the opportunity to grow its economy, with assistance from trade.

He also warned:

Indeed the only serious risk of “failure” is that the rich countries would take their own rhetoric seriously and react in unproductive ways that prove self-fulfilling. The United States, in particular, could intensify its pursuit of bilateral deals where it is able to impose increasingly inappropriate policy priorities on smaller nations.

These excerpts may make Rodrik sound like Arvind Pangariya, but reading the full article will correct that impression.

Posted by Dingel at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)

August 12, 2006

Bush administration departures & Doha

The deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs and the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services are both leaving the White House for private sector gigs. That is probably more reason to suspect a lengthy suspension of the Doha talks.

Posted by Dingel at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2006

"Collective Political Apathy"

Nice article on the relevant political factors in the failure of the Doha negotiations by Guy de Jonquieres of the FT.

Posted by Dingel at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)

July 27, 2006

No "development package" at WTO

I ask, the AFP answers:

The Philippines, on behalf of a core group of 21 developing countries, as well as other states, rejected the EU's proposal to continue with negotiations on trade facilitation during a WTO negotiating group meeting, the source added.

They said that the group dealing with the issue could not progress independently of the other areas of the Doha Round, invoking a World Trade Organisation undertaking by which all the negotiations are linked, he added.

Posted by Dingel at 08:06 AM | Comments (0)

July 25, 2006

Mandelson favors preferential unilateral liberalization on LDC exports

In the Doha talks, the so-called Least- Developed Countries, many in Africa, were to get quota-free and duty-free access to sell products in wealthy markets without being asked to open up their economies. Mandelson said Tuesday that he favored pushing ahead with these measures - agreed to at a WTO ministers meeting late year in Hong Kong - even without a full Doha agreement. "We should extract from the rubble a significant development package," he said. [IHT]

Since both the US AGOA and EU EBA preferential programs have limitations (AGOA has tariff rate quotas; EBA delays liberalizing sugar, rice, and bananas), there is room for this brand of trade liberalization. Does "pushing ahead with these measures" mean coordinated unilateralism by the rich countries or low-level activity at the WTO?

(Based on the work I've done on AGOA's impact on beneficiaries' exports, I'm skeptical of characterizing its expansion as "a significant development package.")

Posted by Dingel at 04:51 PM | Comments (1)

July 24, 2006

Doha collapse to be formalized soon

CNN:

Global free trade talks collapsed on Monday after nearly five years of on-off haggling and resuming them could take years, officials and diplomats said.

The suspension of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha round, which was expected to be announced formally by WTO chief Pascal Lamy later on Monday, came after major trading powers failed in a last ditch bid to overcome differences on reforming world farm trade, which lies at the heart of the round.

"The WTO negotiations are suspended," Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath told journalists. When asked how long the suspension could last, he replied: "Anywhere from months to years," he said.

UPDATE: There doesn't seem to be much to say. We all saw this coming. And there's plenty of blame to go around. You could attack Susan Schwab for not accepting a minimalist outcome or the US for not being willing to move first so as to put the focus on countries who are clearly more protectionist or those nations for being the worst offenders or the special interests for being special interests or Bush for being Bush.

Regardless, no allocation of blame is likely to restart the negotiations. It's time to start pursuing other strategies.

Posted by Dingel at 09:54 AM | Comments (1)

July 16, 2006

The Political Economy of EU CAP Reform

This IHT article about the G8 meeting in Russia suggests that France remains a holdout:

Chirac said the United States should reduce agriculture subsidies and stop export aid. He said concessions made by the European Union trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, on Oct. 28 were the most the 25-nation bloc could offer. Chirac also asked large emerging countries like Brazil, China and India to make "a significant effort."

It's not surprising that France is the most hostile opponent of reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. The nation receives three times the number of payments and twice the funds of any other European country. The top recipients are profiled here.

The Times article above alleges that many of the French recipients are politically powerful and connected to Chirac. That's not obvious from this page, as the top recipients appear to be corporations. By the way, Fermes Francaises SA, the top French recipient, receives a pittance in comparison to some of the top UK beneficiaries.

To effectively tackle the issue, we need to highlight those corporations' political connections, as well as other relevant political actors that have an interest in maintaining the CAP. In December, Richard Baldwin of the Graduate Institute of International Studies exposed (pdf) the British royalty as some of the biggest winners in a reverse-Robin Hood scheme. I'd like to see a similar investigation of the well-connected recipients in France.

What's the best article you've seen on the political economy of the CAP?

Posted by Dingel at 04:17 PM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2006

Schwab Demands "Ambitious Outcome"

Bhagwati nailed it. Susan Schwab is being a maximalist:

Those countries' chief antagonist was the United States, which was represented by Susan C. Schwab, recently appointed U.S. trade representative. Schwab repeatedly maintained that the Doha round, named for the Qatari capital where the WTO started it, must achieve an "ambitious outcome." That would mean tariff cuts that are deep enough, and with few enough exceptions for special products, to generate significant new trade around the world, including in big developing markets such as India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa.

She did not dispute that the United States had emerged as the outlier in the talks, in opposition to most of the WTO membership. "Isn't that what leadership is about?" she said in an interview. She said she was "dismayed with the number of countries that just seem willing to settle for some least-common-denominator solution." [WaPo]

Posted by Dingel at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2006

Geneva Unwinds

"There's no need to pretend that this has not been a failure." -- Kamal Nath, India's trade minister, prior to departing early and skipping an afternoon session.

Posted by Dingel at 09:41 AM | Comments (0)

June 30, 2006

No Peace Clause in Geneva

Pascal Lamy's outline of negotiations has excluded the possibility of a new peace clause that would exempt farm subsidies from legal challenge at the WTO dispute panel for a limited time. US farm lobbies have characterized such a provision as critical, and the government has sought this immunity, arguing that it is necessary to protect farmers implementing reforms. I'm glad to see it off the table.

Posted by Dingel at 05:34 PM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2006

Is there still a WTO green room?

The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development quotes Pascal Lamy as describing "green room" meetings that will happen tomorrow.

I thought that such a procedure was no longer used. T.N. Srinivasan implied so:

[T]he “Green Room” process no longer exists! The last time it was used was at the Seattle Ministerial. At Doha, the chairman structured the discussion around six topics with a “friend of the chair” leading informal discussions on each, with all delegations welcome to participate. The “friend” reported regularly to the full heads of the delegation. At Cancun, the chairman appointed five “facilitators” who played the same role as the “friends” played at Doha. [PDF]

But Martin Khor worries that the green room will cause trouble in Geneva:

Questions still abound as to whether Ministers who come to Geneva can attend the "Ministerial Green Room" that will be convened by Pascal Lamy, presumably in his capacity as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC). Or whether, as expected, the Green Room will accommodate Ministers from only invited members.

The issues of transparency, participation and legitimacy can be expected to arise yet again, as uncertainty swirls around as to who is invited to the Green Room, on what criteria or basis, and on whose invitation. [TWN]

And the WTO itself that the green room plays a critical role in negotiations:

One term has become controversial, but more among some outside observers than among delegations. The “Green Room” is a phrase taken from the informal name of the director-general’s conference room. It is used to refer to meetings of 20-40 delegations. These meetings can be called by a committee chairperson as well as the director-general, and can take place elsewhere, such as at Ministerial Conferences. In the past delegations have sometimes felt that Green Room meetings could lead to compromises being struck behind their backs. So, extra efforts are made to ensure that the process is handled correctly, with regular reports back to the full membership. In the end, decisions have to be taken by all members and by consensus. No one has been able to find an alternative way of achieving consensus on difficult issues, because it is virtually impossible for members to change their positions voluntarily in meetings of the full membership. [WTO]

So it seems that there is still a green room, and that its merits are up for debate.

Posted by Dingel at 05:58 PM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2006

Bhagwati & Ikenson on unilateral liberalization

I attended a Cato Center for Trade Policy Studies event on unilateral trade liberalization featuring Jagdish Bhagwati and Dan Ikenson yesterday. It was quite enjoyable, as both speakers were entertaining and offered scholarly insights.

The case for unilateral liberalization is the traditional case for free trade. Imports are not merely "the price we pay for exports," but an economic gain that boost consumption, increase competition, and lower input costs. If our trading partners decide to drop rocks in their harbors, that is not a reason for us to follow suit. Ikenson's new CTPS policy analysis (pdf) outlines the potential gains from liberalization in the context of the current US tariff schedule and the global trading environment.

Although, as Ikenson noted, unilateral action constituted two-thirds (pdf) of the liberalization by developing countries in the past twenty years, "going alone" does not have a very strong history in the United States. Should we expect policy makers to adopt that approach now?

I doubt it. Both speakers pressed the case for unilateral liberalization, but neither claimed that such an approach was likely or politically feasible this summer. Bhagwati conceded that the US won't "go alone," but argued that we ought to "convey the lessons of unilateral liberalization" so as to educate people about the benefits of free trade and increase the likelihood of success at Doha. Ikenson was less optimistic about the WTO round's chances, but one will note that his brief defends the economic feasibility of going alone, not its political palatability. He does not make any arguments that unilateral trade liberalization might win support amongst Congress members who don't already support significant US liberalization via the multilateral approach. Bhagwati did say that the US ought to relax its demands and provide trade leadership, but that's been true all along.

Though not able to prescribe a magical elixir for the Doha round's woes, Bhagwati did offer a few political economy insights. First, he argued that the change in USTR from Rob Portman to Susan Schwab likely hurt the round, as Portman was known as an accommodating representative that would accept a more minimal outcome in terms of US demands. Schwab, according to Bhagwati, has shown a tendency towards the maximalist approach in the past. While not subscribing to the bicycle theory of trade, he clearly prefers that the US salvage Doha and accept a minimalist outcome.

Second, Bhagwati noted in the Q&A session that the business communities and export lobbies needed to push a WTO deal through Congress won't take the position that a minimalist deal is worse than none and will be on-board for an outcome that keeps the multilateral system alive. Apparently Bhagwati believes that a successful Doha round is necessary to renew the president's trade promotion authority, which is the basis for both PTA and WTO negotiations. So if the business community wants any kind of trade deals, they'll back any Doha outcome that gives Bush a win. I may have misunderstood his remarks on this topic, but that was my interpretation of the comment.

Bhagwati remains optimistic about the WTO, while Ikenson is less confident. The next few weeks will be very interesting. Check out Ben Muse's summary of what's happening.

Posted by Dingel at 07:06 AM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2006

WTO in Geneva next week

If you've been under a rock, it's crunch time for the WTO in Geneva.

Posted by Dingel at 11:02 PM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2006

Pascal Lamy on PTAs slowing WTO negotiations

I submitted a query for the IHT's Q&A with Pascal Lamy, WTO Director-General. It appeared on Thursday:

Q. To what degree have bilateral and regional trade agreements hampered progress in the Doha Round negotiations?

Jonathan Dingel
United States

A. Hello, Jonathan. So far they have not proven a distraction. I can say that all of our members are well and truly focused on the Doha negotiations. But in the back of everyone's mind is the question of how these agreements will proliferate absent a Doha deal by the end of the year. Bilateral agreements are not in and of themselves a bad thing. But they don't cover important areas. Trade distorting farm subsidies, for example, will never be covered in a bilateral agreement. Such agreements, furthermore, can create disparate rules which can be confusing to entrepreneurs. Often the poorest countries are left on the sidelines with respect to bilateral negotiations. The bilateral route is open to the US, the European Union, India or China but not for the vast majority of poor countries. Furthermore, developing countries have a limited clout in bilateral negotiations with developed countries. In the WTO by contrast, developing countries have worked together to establish much more powerful platforms from which to negotiate with developed countries. The WTO is a kind of UN for trade but without a security council!

I am not surprised by Mr. Lamy's reply, as any complaining on his part about distraction due to PTAs would do little to help the WTO negotiations. I agree with his assessment of PTAs' inability to address a number of vital issues.

Read the full post for answers to questions from other readers.

Posted by Dingel at 04:00 PM | Comments (1)

June 10, 2006

Schwab & the Future of Doha

While I've been slacking, Ben Muse has been on top of Susan Schwab's confirmation and the latest prospects for Doha.

Posted by Dingel at 08:30 AM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2006

Will TRIPS impede a Doha deal?

Inside U.S. Trade reports that Brazil and India are sponsoring an amendment to the TRIPS agreement to bring it into conformity with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity by requiring disclosure of the origin of inventions derived from biological sources. It's possible that India might tie this issue to market access in the Doha negotiations.

Posted by Dingel at 09:10 AM | Comments (1)

April 28, 2006

News & Notes

The softwood lumber dispute has come to an end, and the settlement isn't pretty to free traders.

Jane Galt says that the "Bush administration's committment to free trade has been downright inspiring."

Oxfam argues that no deal is better than a bad one at Doha if the US & EU positions don't change.

Blogging will continue to be light as I am a bit swamped with only two weeks until graduation.

Posted by Dingel at 06:46 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2006

New USTR

Susan Schwab is the new United States Trade Representative, previously serving as deputy USTR. Rob Portman is moving to OMB.

Drezner opines that this is bad for negotiations: "Bush and Bolten have decided to switch teams at USTR in the weeks before various deadlines for the Doha round of trade talks come up. This is a bad, bad sign for the likelihood of those negotiations to succeed." According to the FT, "the appointment of Ms Schwab... was intended to send a signal of continuity, US officials said on Tuesday."

I have no idea if the switch will have an impact at the negotiating table.

Posted by Dingel at 04:41 PM | Comments (0)

April 04, 2006

Doha is dead?

World Trade Law:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) today (April 3) called on the Bush Administration to acknowledge that the ongoing Doha round of trade negotiations is completely stalled over European intransigence, and refocus its energies on completing negotiations for free trade agreements already launched before fast-track negotiating authority expires in July 2007.

Ben Muse:

An impasse in negotiations, a weakening American President (who will be a lame duck when an agreement would come before Congress), an opposition that's seen the potential benefit of the protection card (a key element in the Dubai Ports World), and that can be expected to make gains in the 2006 mid-term elections. None of this augurs will for a successful Doha Round.

Posted by Dingel at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2006

TPA won't be renewed

Also pushing the agenda is a likely lapse in President George W. Bush's fast-track trade negotiating authority, which is set to expire in July 2007. Lamy, who visited Washington last week, said his talks with leading members of the finance and agricultural committees in both houses of Congress, including Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had made clear that those powers would not be extended. [IHT]

Posted by Dingel at 02:23 PM | Comments (0)

February 09, 2006

Will preferential access trigger opposition to Doha?

I've frequently warned that preferential trade risks creating vested interests that will oppose future multilateral liberalization. A new paper by Mary Amiti and John Romalis argues that my fears won't come true in the Doha Round, primarily because actual preferential access is not yet significant. The abstract:

This paper assesses the effects of reducing tariffs under the Doha Round on market access for developing countries. It shows that for many developing countries, actual preferential access is less generous than it appears because of low product coverage or complex rules of origin. Thus lowering tariffs under the multilateral system is likely to lead to a net increase in market access for many developing countries, with gains in market access offsetting losses from preference erosion. Furthermore, comparing various tariff-cutting proposals, the research shows that the largest gains in market access are generated by higher tariff cuts in agriculture.

Full text available here (pdf).

Posted by Dingel at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2005

WTO concludes meeting in HK without much progress

Other trade bloggers have yet to post about the deal struck in Hong Kong, so I'll quickly note the highlights of what I learned from two articles in The Standard.

(1) France won in regards to the export subsidies abolition deadline. Countries have until 2013, whereas Brazil and India preferred an earlier deadline of 2010.

(2) Services won't be liberalized significantly.

(3) The G90 group (African Union + LDCs + ACP) appears to have secured preferential access to the markets of WTO members, although the US and Japan won exemptions for "sensitive" products like rice and textiles.

(4) Benin's hardline stance on cotton appears to have yielded a few dividends. Although the agreement doesn't end domestic subsidies for cotton, all export subsidies and tariffs and quota systems against cotton imports from developing countries will be terminated by 2006.

Over all, most folks seem happy with the deal only because it means that trade delegates avoided walking away from Hong Kong empty-handed. Rob Portman, USTR, says there's "a lot more work to do in agriculture and market access." The G20 called the deal "modest but not insignificant," while the EU begrudgingly labeled the compromise "acceptable."

No one approached the negotiating table at the start of the week expecting a breakthrough, so it's little surprise that the struggle will continue in 2006.

Posted by Dingel at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2005

Will Hong Kong produce results?

Dan Drezner has the latest on the potential for a deal in Hong Kong. It looks like the remaining hurdle is setting a date for the termination of export subsidies. Once again, it's the EU opposing greater liberalization.

Posted by Dingel at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2005

Foreign Affairs Special on Doha

Arvind Panagariya, Jagdish Bhagwati, and C. Fred Bergsten are amongst the contributers to a special edition of Foreign Affairs dedicated to the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. These articles are essential reading prior to next week's negotiations.

Posted by Dingel at 07:39 AM | Comments (0)

October 21, 2005

Geneva WTO talks aborted

If you didn't alr