Die WTO auf dem Prüfstand: Zur Notwendigkeit einer Millennium-Runde

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Hindley ◽  
Heinz Hauser ◽  
Ulrich Hiemenz

AbstractThis economic policy forum addresses the subject “New Challenges for the WTO: Do we need a Millennium Round?”. Brian Hindley has serious doubts whether the Millennium-Round should be revived. While the EU suggests that an agreement on competition policy should be essential for new multilateral trade negotiations, the Departement of Justice which administers competition policy in the US is less enthusiastic about the idea. The same applies to rules on investment. The author discusses both aspects of the EU’s extended agenda proposals and comes to the conclusion, that what is left is a rag bag. A bag that contains some useful issues, some dubious ones, some downright bad ones, but without enough content to fuel a credible multilateral trade negotiation. His conclusion is, that perhaps the case for multilateral agreements on competition policy and investment can be strengthened and if the Commission can do that, it should. The case for a Millennium Round based on the extended agenda is weak.In the opinion of Heinz Hauser, a new Millennium Round has a high potential to fail. The author discusses his hypothesis in three steps. First, he draws attention to the question, which conclusions can be seen from Seattle. Second, he analyses the political environment for a hypothetically new round. He wants to substantiate that the expected results of a new round would be more harmful than beneficial for a liberal world trade arrangement. In a third step Hauser makes clear that the compliance with the committments form the Uruguay Round is still unsatisfactory.The paper by Ulrich Hiemenz argues that a better integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system is a key challenge at the beginning of the new millennium. He emphasises that a new round of multilateral trade negotiations launched under the auspices of the WTO would provide a window of opportunity for all participating countries to improve their living standards through better market access, greater domestic efficiency and higher productivity. Developing countries could even benefit more from further trade liberalisation than industrialised countries, provided they implement the domestic policy reforms necessary to capture these benefits.

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Schott

Over the last 60 years, the multilateral management of trade through the GATT and subsequently through the WTO has been led by the United States and Europe. Since the turn of the new millennium, however, developing countries have increasingly used their leverage to insist that talks on agriculture receive priority attention, deny the inclusion of investment and competition policy on the negotiating agenda, and block agreement on negotiating modalities for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA). Cooperation between the United States and the European Union is still essential, but no longer sufficient, for successful multilateral negotiations. Specifically, the “BRICKs” (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Korea) are likely to be pivotal in directing the course and contributing to the success or failure of the WTO.


2000 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-213
Author(s):  
Cathy S. McKinnell

Soon after the implementation of the Uruguay Round, U.S. agricultural exports reached their highest level. Now many things, including exchange rates, factor into any rise in exports, but almost all economists agree that lowering trade barriers through trade agreements has been a critical factor. The vast majority— 96 percent—of potential customers for U.S. products, including agricultural products, live outside the United States. We must work to increase our opportunities to sell into these global markets.


2004 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 95-111
Author(s):  
Jose L. Tongzon

The World Trade Organization (WTO) (formerly GATT) was established primarily to achieve free trade across the globe based on the principle of non-discrimination and the process of multilateral trade negotiations. The fact that most countries are members of WTO reflects the worldwide belief in the benefits of a global free trade. Despite its achievements since the first round of multilateral trade negotiations was held, the effectiveness of the process has been called into question. Most WTO members are now proposing new regional trading arrangements (RTAs), such as free trade agreements (FTAs). What implication does these RTAs have for the WTO and ASEAN countries? Should ASEAN countries give regionalism priority over the WTO-based multilateral approach? To answer this questions, this paper will first summarize the motivations behind the formation of RTAs before presenting the merits and demerits of RTAs as an approach to achieve universal free trade and maximize developing countries' welfare. It is argued that despite its inherent limitations it is important for ASEAN countries to remain primarily committed to the principles of WTO and the process of multilateral trade negotiations.


1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-91
Author(s):  
Hiranya Nath ◽  
Halis Yildiz

Following the failure of multilateral trade negotiations at the Cancun meetingand the Doha Round, developing countries have pursued an alternative in so called"south-south" trade agreements. Since these agreements lead to trade diversionfrom efficient north (developed) countries to less efficient south (developing)partners, there have been widespread concerns regarding their welfare implications.Using a three country oligopoly model of trade, we first examine staticallythe implications of a south-south customs union (CU) on the pattern of tariffs andwelfare. We find that south countries always have incentives to form a CU that reducesthe welfare of the north country. Moreover, when south firms are sufficientlyinefficient relative to north firms, a south-south CU leads to a large trade diversioneffect and reduces world welfare. We further show that, in a repeated interactionmodel, free trade is less likely to be sustainable under the south-south CU relativeto no agreement.


2003 ◽  
Vol 38 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 54-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.P. Bhat

A steep reduction in tariff duties, dismantling of substantial non-tariff barriers and removing of grey area measures left very little options for the WTO member countries to protect their non-competitive industries. One of the easy ways opened to them has been the initiation of antidumping measures. The WTO rules allow them to opt for anti-dumping measures with some specific stipulations. These are not too strict or stringent to comply with. Besides, anti-dumping has a unique combination ofp olitical and economic manipulability. During the eight years of the WTO regime, the use of anti-dumping measure has become rampant and it is indeed threatening to limit the market access achieved under the GATTIWTO trade negotiations over the last fifty years or so. In the recent years, a large number of developing countries have become the frequent users of anti-dumping (AD) and they account for half of the overall world total. Many of the heaviest AD users are countries who did not even have an AD statute a decade ago. The traditional users continue to make use of AD with more vigour by targeting the new users. The developing countries are targeting each other. The sectoral coverage of AD is over 85 per cent at the end of 2002. As many as 96 countries are the victims and 38 countries are making use of AD actions. The paper attempts to highlight developments in the use of AD actions world over under the WTO regime. It illustrates the position of four important players, namely USA, the EU, India and China as users and the victims of AD actions. It shows the special position of each of these actors occupy in the AD spectrum. Finally, ii concludes on the basis of observations that there is a need to contain and drastically modify the AD agreements to combat the menace. Some suggestions are offered to do so.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document