In the year since the breakdown of trade talks in Cancun, sentiment has increasingly grown in the developing world that no agreement is better than a bad agreement. But what would a good agreement look like?
The British Commonwealth recently posed this question to me and the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, an international network of economists committed to helping developing countries. Our first message was that the current round of trade negotiations, especially as it has evolved, does not deserve even to be called a Development Round.
Well before the riots that marked the WTO talks in Seattle in 1999, I called for a true "development round" of trade talks to redress the inequities of previous rounds. The advanced countries, with their dominant corporate and financial interests, had set the agenda for those negotiations. Whether or not developing countries benefited was of little concern. Indeed, in the last round of trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round, the world's poorest region, sub-Saharan Africa, was actually made worse off.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Our second message was optimistic: if the agenda of the current round is reoriented towards development, and if assistance is provided to manage implementation and adjustment costs, developing countries can gain much. We analyzed which reforms in the international trade regime would most benefit those in the developing world, and we presented an alternative agenda based on our findings.
The results were perhaps obvious: more people live from agriculture in the developing world than from manufacturing, so agricultural liberalization must be high on the agenda. But genuinely beneficial agricultural reform would need to go further than merely transforming export subsidies into other types of subsidies, because many supposedly non-distorting subsidies lead to more output, which hurts producers in developing countries by lowering prices.
Trade reforms must be sensitive to effects on developing countries, many of which are net importers of subsidized agricultural commodities. But some subsidies, like cotton subsidies in the US, are rightly emblematic of America's bad faith. Eliminating this subsidy would help 10
million poor cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. US taxpayers would also benefit. The only
losers would be the 25,000 rich farmers who currently divvy up US$3 billion to US$44 billion in government handouts each year.
Developing countries also need access for the unskilled labor-intensive services in which they have a comparative advantage. These were off the agenda in earlier trade rounds as the US pushed for liberalization of financial
services -- thus serving its own comparative advantage. Today,
unskilled services remain off the agenda.
Developing countries' gains from capital market liberalization have been widely noted (although recent studies raise some doubts about these benefits). Nevertheless, the global gains from allowing freer flows of unskilled labor (even temporarily), let alone the benefits to developing countries, far outweigh the benefits from capital market liberalization. But, as I said, this issue is not on the agenda.
The trade talks in Cancun raised new subjects -- the so-called Singapore issues. But even a cursory look at these items reveals that they primarily reflect the interests of developed countries. Indeed, poor countries' development would arguably
have been set back if they had acquiesced in some of the demands.
Consider government procurement. The single largest area of US government procurement is defense, a sector in which even the EU has found it difficult to make inroads. Are developing countries really targeting this area in the next few years? Clearly, this issue is not high on their agenda.
Competition is another example. Without competition, lowering tariffs may merely be reflected
in higher profit margins for a monopoly importer. The most important competition issue for developing countries, however, is reform of dumping duties. The US and EU keep out products from developing countries, alleging that they charge less than the cost of production.
But why would anyone knowingly sell at a loss? This could only be rational if the seller can hope to establish a monopoly position and extract large profits in the future. But few developing countries are in a position to establish such monopoly positions, so the dumping charges are mostly bogus.
As tariff barriers have come down, the unfair "fair trade" laws are increasingly being used as the US' favored protectionist tool. Treating foreign and domestic firms the same with respect to competitive practices would stop these abuses. This, too, should be a high priority of a true development round.
The breakdown of the Cancun talks may yet provide an opportunity for deeper reflection. Now that rich countries no longer need to worry about losing the developing world to communism, they have an opportunity to redefine the global economic order according to the same principles on which they built successful national economies: fair competition and social justice. Unfortunately, this opportunity was squandered in the Uruguay Round, as developed countries advanced their own interests at the expense of less developed countries.
The round of trade negotiations which began in Doha in November 2001 was launched in a different spirit. It aspired to promote trade as a vehicle of partnership between developed and developing countries. Regrettably, in spite of its name, the Development Round has offered far less to developing countries than one would have hoped.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with