The WTO will soon initiate its 500th formal dispute, and discussions of such international litigation are now a media mainstay. Last Thursday, for example, the WTO’s Appellate Body released its latest ruling, upholding most of a set of legal challenges to China’s use of export restrictions on “rare earth” materials, a set of intermediate inputs important for green technologies such as wind turbines, batteries for gas-electric hybrid cars, etc. Other recent examples of formal WTO litigation in the news include the EU’s challenge to Russia’s import restrictions on vans, the US’s challenge to Chinese barriers to autos, and Canada’s and Norway’s challenges to an EU ban on trade in seal products.
Editor's Note: This blog draws on the forthcoming article “New Trade Regionalism in Asia: Looking Past the Sino-American Great Game," written by Swarnim Wagle, to be published in the Global Emerging Voices 2013 Working Papers.
Negotiations over one of history’s most ambitious trade deals have taken another step towards defining the future of Trans-Pacific trade.
The latest round of discussions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) wrapped up this past weekend in Salt Lake City, Utah. Negotiators are believed to have made headway on a number of thorny issues, clearing the way for ministerial talks to be held in Singapore, Dec. 7-10.
The TPP will draw together 12 countries dotting the perimeter of the Pacific—Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But it’s the United States’ efforts to spearhead the talks that have attracted the most attention. Concerns over a lack of transparency and the intrusive scope of the agreements’ provisions into national policymaking have led many to question its objective.
- Brunei Darussalam
- New Zealand
- United States
- East Asia and Pacific
- Europe and Central Asia
- Latin America & Caribbean
- The World Region
- Global Economy
- Information and Communication Technologies
- Law and Regulation
- TTIP. Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Agricultural Subsidies
- Free Trade
The Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an event of exceptional importance. On many levels, there are concerns that the environment in Russia will be negatively affected by trade liberalization. A growing body of research looking at economic and physical linkages between trade, environment and development shows that these linkages are often complex and interdependent.
Scientists have implicated that from an economic perspective, trade liberalization and environment are related because most economic output is based on input from the environment, including the energy for processing them, and waste released to environment. However, the effect of trade liberalization on the environment would vary depending on sector, country policies, markets, technologies and management systems. Changes in environmental quality as a result of potential expansion of “dirty industries” (e.g., ferrous and non- ferrous metals, chemicals) could be mitigated by effective and transparent enforcement mechanisms. Russia’s economic gains from trade liberalization are estimated at about $49 billion annually. For these gains to be environmentally sustainable, it will be crucial to implement complementary “do-no-harm” policies tailored to address environmental concerns. This will be pivotal in sustaining the sources of gains from WTO accession in the long run.
So how does trade liberalization affect environmental quality?
Regular readers will know that I am a big fan (as well as friend) of Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang (right), whose most recentbook, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism should be at the top of any policy wonk’s reading list. Last Saturday, he gave a brilliant keynote at the annual conference of the UK Development Studies Association. Its title, ‘Bringing Production Back into Development’, was a deliberate challenge to those in the room, as he argued that the discussion on development has become like Hamlet without the Prince.
The Prince, according to Ha-Joon is ‘productive capabilities’ – the steady upgrading in skills and industry that has characterized virtually every successful experience of national development, including of course his native Korea. From Adam Smith to the 1980s, the consensus was that such upgrading was the core business of development. No longer.
Important developments today:
1. Global equities move higher amid the latest EU agreement
2. May industrial production output mixed among major European economies.
Earlier this month, CommGAP hosted a conference on "Deliberation for Development: New Directions." The meeting was headed by the World Bank's Vijayendra Rao and Patrick Heller from Brown University and provided a vast and rich overview over the issue of deliberation as it concerns our work on the ground. Here's a little summary of the day, which by no means captures even a fraction of the wealth of information and knowledge that was presented, but may be an appetizer for our forthcoming book gathering all those contributions.
The first speaker, Arjun Appadurai of New York University, spoke about the importance of context: success of deliberation depends on factors outside the deliberative frame, mostly social and political power structures. Individual deliberation events may fail more often than not, especially if it's about allocating resources for the poor. However, while isolated deliberative occasions may be a failure in their own narrow context, in aggregation over time even those failures can alter those very contexts that made them fail at the outset.
- Vijayendra Rao
- Varun Gauri
- Susan Watkins
- rule of law
- Public Deliberation
- Poverty Alleviation
- Porto Alegre
- Policy Making
- Peter Evans
- Patrick Heller
- Participatory Budgeting
- Michael Woolcock
- JP Singh
- Jane Mansbridge
- Gram Sabhas
- Gianpaolo Baiocchi
- Ghazala Mansuri
- Gerry Mackie
- Female Circumcision
- Arjun Appadurai
- Archon Fung
- Ann Swidler
For nearly a decade, Brazil and the United States have been embroiled in a dispute over cotton subsidies. On April 6 this year, the US Trade Representative and the US Secretary of Agriculture announced that the countries had agreed on a path toward negotiated settlement.
Protectionism is on the rise all over the world, thanks or should we say “no thanks” to the global economic crisis. Last November, G-20 leaders pledged to fight protectionism. Yet, according to the World Trade Organization (WTO), 18 out of these 20 economies have since taken measures to restrict trade. With the global economy struggling to recover, political pressures demanding protection from import competition to sustain domestic employment are intensifying. It is likely to prove right the old adage that the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history. One lesson from the experience of the 1930s that is currently most relevant is that raising trade barriers deepens and prolongs recession.
|China's share of population living below the poverty line declined from 65 percent at the beginning of economic reform in 1981 to 4 percent in 2007.|
|The World Economic Forum, billed as the largest-ever brainstorming on the global agenda, drew about 700 people to Dubai in early November. Image credit: worldeconomicforum at Flickr under a Creative Commons license.|
It is striking how well the global trade system is working, even as the global financial system spirals into crisis. This is not to say that global trade is immune from the crisis, far from it. Trade finance has contracted sharply and the World Bank projects that total global trade in 2009 will decline for the first time since 1982. But what is striking is that global trade has a well-defined set of rules and an institution (the World Trade Organization) to oversee them. Global finance, on the other hand, does not have a well-defined set of rules and regulations. Until now, the system of global trade continued to work well.