Unequal exchange: developing countries in the international trade negotiations

Nogues, Julio (2004): Unequal exchange: developing countries in the international trade negotiations. Published in: The political economy of policy reform (Douglas Nelson ed.) (2004): pp. 295-327.

Abstract

The results of the Uruguay Round, show that the concessions given by developing countries were generally more valuable than those they received from industrial countries. I suggest that this outcome is explained by aggressive demands from industrial countries, and by the lack of resources at the disposal of developing countries. These and other ‘structural factors’ weaken the negotiating capacity of developing countries and the outcome of their bargaining is likely to be an ‘unequal exchange of concessions’. The chapter discusses the costs of these exchanges, and the structural factors that help to understand the processes leading to these outcomes.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Multilateral trade negotiations, exchange of concessions, developing countries
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F13 - Trade Policy ; International Trade Organizations; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade; F - International Economics > F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization

References

Bhagwati, J. and H. Patrick (1990), Aggressive Unilateralism: America’s 301 Trade Policy and the World Trading System, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Blackhurst, R., A. Enders and J. Francois (1996), “The Uruguay Round and market access: opportunities and challenges for developing countries”, pp. 125 – 155, in: W. Martin and L. Winters, editors, The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blackhurst, R., B. Lyakurwa and A. Oyejide (1999), Improving African Participation in the WTO, Washington, DC: The World Bank, Mimeo.

Casaburi, G. and C. Sanchez (2000), Las Distorsiones de los Mercados Mundiales de Alimentos y su Impacto en la Argentina, Buenos Aires: Fundacio´n Mediterranea.

Dam, K. (2001), The Rules of the Global Game, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Finger, J. and J. Nogues (2002), The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations, The World Economy, March 2002, Vol. 25, pp. 321 – 340, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Finger, J. and L. Schuknecht (1999), Market Access Advances and Retreats: The Uruguay Round and Beyond, Washington, DC: World Bank, Mimeo.

Finger, J. and P. Schuler (2000), Implementation of Uruguay Round Commitments: The Development Challenge, The World Economy April 2000, Vol. 23, pp. 491 – 510, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Grandes, M. (2001), External Solvency, Dollarisation and Investment Grade: Towards a Vicious Circle?, Technical Papers No. 177, Paris: OECD.

Hathaway, D. and M. Ingco (1996), “Agricultural liberalization and the Uruguay Round”, pp. 30 – 58, in: W. Martin and L. Winters, editors, The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoekman, B. (1996), “Assessing the general agreement on trade in services”, pp. 88 – 124, in: W. Martin and L. Winters, editors, The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hufbauer, G. and K. Elliot (1994), Measuring the Costs of Protection in the United States, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Lindert, P. and J. Williamson (2001), Globalization: a long history, Paper prepared for the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, The World Bank, Europe Conference.

Mossinghoff, G. (1987), Public Policy Challenges to the Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Review.

Mussa, M. (2002), Argentina and the Fund: From Triumph to Tragedy, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Nogues, J. (1985), “Distortions, factor proportions and efficiency losses: Argentina in the Latin American scenario”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, Vol. 121, pp. 280 – 303.

Nogues, J. (1993), Social costs and benefits of introducing patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs in developing countries, The Developing Economies XXXI-I, Japan, March.

Nogues, J. (2001), “Los resultados de la rueda Uruguay: consecuencias para la Argentina”, pp. 105 – 239, in: J. De Pablo, R. Dornbusch and J. Nogues, editors, La Globalizacio´ny Cada Uno de Nosotros, Buenos Aires: Consejo Empresario Argentino.

Nogues, J. (2002), Reciprocity in the FTAA: The Roles of Market Access, Institutions and Negotiating Capacity, INTAL-ITD-STA Working Paper SITI-02, Buenos Aires: Inter- American Development Bank.

Nogues, J. and M. Grandes (2001), “Country risk: economic policy, contagion effect or political noise?”, Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, Buenos Aires.

Odell, J. (2000), Negotiating the World Economy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

OECD (2001), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation, Paris: OECD.

Sanchez, G. (2001), La Insercion de la Argentina en la Economıa Global, Buenos Aires: Fundacion Mediterranea.

World Intellectual Property Organization (1988), Existence, Scope and Form of Generally Internationally Accepted and Applied Standards/Norms for the Protection of Intellectual Property, WO/Inf 129, Geneva: WIPO.

World Trade Organization (2000), Trade Policy Review of the European Union, WT/TPR/S/ 72, Geneva: WTO.

World Trade Organization (2001a), Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, Geneva: WTO.

World Trade Organization (2001b), Implementation-related Issues and Concerns, WT/ MIN(01)/DEC/17, Geneva: WTO.