IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v29y2006i10p1395-1407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enlarging the Vision for Trade Policy Space: Special and Differentiated Treatment and Infant Industry Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick A. Messerlin

Abstract

NAMA liberalisation alone will not be sufficient to make the Doha Round a pro‐development Round. It is important to enlarge the vision to include, for example, services and certain aspects of intellectual property rights. Further the ‘policy space’ notion often mentioned when discussing trade‐development relations should not be defined as limited to trade policy. It should include the many non‐trade instruments (e.g. subsidies or taxes on goods and factors of production) that a government could use for development purposes. Infant industry protection is the oldest, but most risky, use of trade policy as a development policy. As a policy it could be successful only in a very limited number of sectors and it has little chance of providing the broad impetus needed for development.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick A. Messerlin, 2006. "Enlarging the Vision for Trade Policy Space: Special and Differentiated Treatment and Infant Industry Issues," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1395-1407, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:29:y:2006:i:10:p:1395-1407
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00850.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00850.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00850.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ozden, Caglar & Reinhardt, Eric, 2005. "The perversity of preferences: GSP and developing country trade policies, 1976-2000," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christie, Andrew, 2009. "Special and Differential Treatment in the GATT: A Pyrrhic Victory for Developing Countries," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    2. Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero & José Antonio Martínez-Serrano, 2018. "Reciprocal vs nonreciprocal trade agreements: which have been best to promote exports?," Working Papers 1802, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    3. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm & Priyadarshi, Shishir, 2016. "Has the multilateral Hong Kong Ministerial decision on duty free quota free market access provided a breakthrough in the Least developed countries' export performance?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2016-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    4. Emily Blanchard & Xenia Matschke, 2015. "U.S. Multinationals and Preferential Market Access," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(4), pages 839-854, October.
    5. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    6. Ornelas, Emanuel, 2012. "Preferential trade agreements and the labor market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121752, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Kilby, Christopher, 2009. "The political economy of conditionality: An empirical analysis of World Bank loan disbursements," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 51-61, May.
    8. Liborio S. Cabanilla, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Between the Philippines and the US : Status, Issues and Prospects," Development Economics Working Papers 22620, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    9. Sajal Lahiri & Peri Silva, 2016. "Potential Pareto-Improving Move Toward Most Favored Nation Tariffs," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1086-1104, April.
    10. Toke S. Aidt & Facundo Albornoz & Esther Hauk, 2019. "Foreign in influence and domestic policy: A survey," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1928, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero & José Antonio Martínez-Serrano, 2019. "Reciprocal vs nonreciprocal trade agreements: Which have been best to promote exports?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Low, Patrick & Piermartini, Roberta & Richtering, Jurgen, 2005. "Multilateral solutions to the erosion of non-reciprocal preferences in NAMA," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2005-05, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    13. Morrissey, Oliver & Zgovu, Evious, 2008. "The Impact of Economic Partnership Agreements on African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries Imports and Welfare," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44205, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. R. Rajesh Babu, 2020. "On the Legality of the United States Action of Terminating India’s GSP Status," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 55(1), pages 119-129, February.
    15. Fontagné, Lionel & Limardi, Michela, 2024. "The Generalized System of Preferences and NGO activism," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    16. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5341 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    18. Agostino, Maria Rosaria & Aiello, Francesco & Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "Analyzing the Impact of Trade Preferences in Gravity Models. Does Aggregation Matter?," Working Papers 7294, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    19. repec:ilo:ilowps:469183 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2013. "Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 91-124, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Douillet, Mathilde, 2012. "Trade policies and agricultural exports of Sub-Saharan African countries: Some stylized facts and perspectives," MPRA Paper 40962, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2009. "Trade as Aid: The Role of the EBA-Trade Preferences Regime in the Development Strategy," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 197, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:29:y:2006:i:10:p:1395-1407. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.