IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v1y2008i1n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Generalized System of Preferences of the United States: Does It Promote Industrialization and Economic Growth in Least Developed Countries?

Author

Listed:
  • Dowlah Caf

Abstract

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)--a system of differential and favorable trade arrangements toward less developed countries, adopted by the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT)--has been around since the early 1970s. A primary objective of these schemes has been to promote industrialization and economic growth in less developed countries through trade rather than aid. The outcome of such programs has, however, been mixed. This paper identifies some of the underlying political and economic dynamics which led to the dismal performance of the GSP schemes of the United States in respect to the industrialization and economic growth of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The paper suggests that the effectiveness of GSP schemes could be significantly improved if they were brought under the binding WTO rules, if greater resources were directed to removing supply constraints in the LDCs, and if developed countries granted unwavering market access to LDC exports.

Suggested Citation

  • Dowlah Caf, 2008. "The Generalized System of Preferences of the United States: Does It Promote Industrialization and Economic Growth in Least Developed Countries?," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 74-97, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:1:y:2008:i:1:n:5
    DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1943-3867.1000
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1943-3867.1000?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.
    2. Nuno Limão & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2018. "Trade Preferences to Small Developing Countries and the Welfare Costs of Lost Multilateral Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 15, pages 403-426, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Brown, Drusilla K, 1989. "Trade and Welfare Effects of the European Schemes of the Generalized System of Preferences," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(4), pages 757-777, July.
    4. Whalley, John, 1990. "Non-discriminatory Discrimination: Special and Differential Treatment under the GATT for Developing Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1318-1328, December.
    5. World Bank, 2003. "World Development Report 2003," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 5985.
    6. Céline Carrère & Jaime de Melo, 2015. "Are Different Rules of Origin Equally Costly? Estimates from NAFTA," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Developing Countries in the World Economy, chapter 12, pages 277-298, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. World Bank, 2003. "World Development Report 2004," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 5986.
    8. Brenton, Paul, 2003. "Integrating the least developed countries into the world trading system : the current impact of EU preferences under everything but arms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3018, The World Bank.
    9. Clark, Don P, 1991. "Trade versus Aid: Distributions of Third World Development Assistance," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(4), pages 829-837, July.
    10. Bronfenbrenner, Martin, 1976. "Review Article: Predatory Poverty on the Offensive: The UNCTAD Record," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(4), pages 825-831, July.
    11. Meltzer, Ronald I., 1976. "The politics of policy reversal: the US response to granting trade preferences to developing countries and linkages between international organizations and national policy making," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 649-668, October.
    12. McCulloch, Rachel & Pinera, Jose, 1977. "Trade as Aid: The Political Economy of Tariff Preferences for Developing Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 959-967, December.
    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. S K Gnangnon, 2024. "Effect of the DFQF Market Access Initiative on Domestic Investment in Least Developed Countries," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 29(1), pages 133-167, March.
    2. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2022. "Effect of the Duty-Free Quota-Free Market access Schemes in favour of Least developed countries' Products on the Volatility of the Utilization Rate of these Schemes," EconStor Preprints 260567, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Herz Bernhard & Wagner Marco, 2011. "Regionalism as a Building Block for Multilateralism," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2010. "Multilateralism versus Regionalism!?," DEGIT Conference Papers c015_043, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.

    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. Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman & Miriam Manchin, 2006. "Preference Erosion and Multilateral Trade Liberalization," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 20(2), pages 197-216.
    2. 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.
    3. Stephan Klasen & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann & Matthias Bruckner, 2021. "Does the designation of least developed country status promote exports?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 157-177, February.
    4. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Chakir, Raja & Gallezot, Jacques, 2006. "The Utilisation of EU and US Trade Preferences for Developing Countries in the Agri-Food Sector," Working Papers 18867, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    5. Hiroyuki Yamada & Yasuyuki Sawada & Xubei Luo, 2013. "Why is Absenteeism Low among Public Health Workers in Lao PDR?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 125-133, January.
    6. Carmen Diana Deere & Rosa Luz Durán & Merrilee Mardon & Tom Masterson, 2004. "Female Land Rights and Rural Household Incomes in Brazil, Paraguay and Peru," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2004-08, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    7. Landes, Rip & Gulati, Ashok, 2003. "Policy Reform and Farm Sector Adjustment in India," Policy Reform and Adjustment Workshop, October 23-25, 2003, Imperial College London, Wye Campus 15735, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    8. Kis-Katos, Krisztina & Sjahrir, Bambang Suharnoko, 2017. "The impact of fiscal and political decentralization on local public investment in Indonesia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 344-365.
    9. Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Raja Chakir & Jacques Gallezot, 2007. "The Utilisation of Trade Preferences for Developing Countries in the Agri‐food Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 175-198, June.
    10. Dereje Alemayehu, 2022. "Challenges to The Assumption That Economic Success Could Enhance State Legitimacy in Africa, Ten Years Later," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 65(2), pages 161-177, December.
    11. T. Paul Schultz, 2006. "Does the Liberalization of Trade Advance Gender Equality in Schooling and Health?," Working Papers 935, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    12. Robert J. Brent, 2014. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Health Care Evaluations, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14892.
    13. de Melo, Jaime & Carrère, Céline, 2009. "The Doha Round and Market Access for LDCs: Scenarios for the EU and US Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 7313, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Bushara, Mohammed O. A. & Abdelmahmod, Murtada Kh. A., 2016. "Efficiency of selected camel markets in Sudan: A multivariate approach (1995-2011)," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246910, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    15. Herschel I. Grossman & Minseong Kim, 2003. "Educational Policy: Egalitarian or Elitist?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 225-246, November.
    16. Sanjaya Acharya, 2004. "Measuring and Analyzing Poverty," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 1(2), pages 195-215, December.
    17. Alan Gilbert, 2007. "Water for All: How To Combine Public Management with Commercial Practice for the Benefit of the Poor?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(8), pages 1559-1579, July.
    18. Marco Grasso & Enzo Di Giulio, 2003. "Mapping sustainable development in a capability perspective," HEW 0309001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Rainer Schweickert & Rainer Thiele & Manfred Wiebelt, 2005. "Macroeconomic and Distributional Effects of Devaluation in a Dollarized Economy: A CGE Analysis for Bolivia," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 120, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.

    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:lawdev:v:1:y:2008:i:1:n:5. 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: 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.