IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/glecon/v5y2005i4n23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Achieving Fairness in the Doha Development Round

Author

Listed:
  • Brown Andrew

    (Wellfleet, MA)

  • Stern Robert M

    (University of Michigan)

Abstract

The question addressed in this article is how the fairness of the global trading system as embodied in the GATT/WTO is to be assessed. Opinions about what constitutes fairness differ widely, and there is surely no incontrovertible yardstick. But it should be possible to be clearer about the criteria that are appropriate and what they mean in more operational terms. Why fairness is a condition of the agreements among governments that form the global trading system is first discussed. It is then suggested that fairness can best be considered within the framework of two concepts: equality of opportunity and distributive equity. It is argued that the criterion of maximum economic efficiency is not a primary yardstick of fairness, and though it is relevant in choosing among alternative ways of realizing fairness, it is not without its own limitations. There is a discussion of what equality of opportunity and distributive equity mean when applied to the commitments that governments make in the global trading system. For this purpose, these commitments are divided into four categories: those relating directly to market access; those concerning supporting rules designed to prevent cheating in market access commitments or to facilitate trade flows; those relating to procedures for the settlement of disputes or the use of trade remedy measures; and those relating to governance of the system. Finally, some comments are offered about fairness in the Doha Development Round, focusing in particular on the central issue of market access.Andrew G. Brown was formerly Director in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs at the United Nations. He was responsible for analysis of international economic and social issues, and for staff support of UN committees and expert groups. He served earlier as chief economist or economic advisor in governments of developing countries. He is the author of History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation since 1850 and co-author of papers on the global trading system.Robert M. Stern is Professor of Economics and Public Policy (Emeritus) in the Department of Economics and Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan.

Suggested Citation

  • Brown Andrew & Stern Robert M, 2005. "Achieving Fairness in the Doha Development Round," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 5(4), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:5:y:2005:i:4:n:23
    DOI: 10.2202/1524-5861.1158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1524-5861.1158
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1524-5861.1158?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew G. Brown & Robert M. Stern, 2007. "Issues of Fairness in International Trade Agreements," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Sorina Costache, 2007. "The Doha Round, the downfall of the WTO?," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 2(3), pages 109-122, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    wto; Doha;

    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:bpj:glecon:v:5:y:2005:i:4:n:23. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.