IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331638.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why initiatives towards LDCs should be consolidated in the DDA

Author

Listed:
  • Fontagné, Lionel
  • Laborde, David
  • Mitaritonna, Maria Cristinna

Abstract

On July 24, 2006, World Trade Organisation (WTO) Director­General Pascal Lamy recommended a “time­out” and the indefinite suspension of the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations. At this time, the G­6 group (Australia, Brazil, India, EU, Japan and USA) was still not able to bridge their gaps on agricultural domestic support and market access, the main stumbling blocks of the Doha Round for several months. This grand bargaining has to some extent shed shadow on the supposed key issue of the current Round, namely its “development” dimension. To shed light on development dimension of the round, we assess the impact of the “20/20/20 Lamy’s compromise”, considering also the pro­Least Developed Countries (LDCs) initiatives advanced during the negotiations. Since market access is still at the heart of the negotiation process, we focus only on reduction of trade barriers for goods, keeping in mind that other issues, such as services, will bring additional gains. Also, trade facilitation as well as a potential “Aid For Trade” package would smooth adjustments for developing economies, making it possible for the poorest to reap the benefits of trade liberalisation (Decreux and Fontagné, 2006). An assessment of the gains that could be obtained from such a compromise will show that consolidating free access initiatives is key and that emerging economies would help in embarking in the scheme. To assess the impact of these , the paper introduces all these trade liberalisation components in MIRAGE, the CGE developed by the CEPII (Decreux et Valin,2007), with a dynamic path up to 2020.

Suggested Citation

  • Fontagné, Lionel & Laborde, David & Mitaritonna, Maria Cristinna, 2007. "Why initiatives towards LDCs should be consolidated in the DDA," Conference papers 331638, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331638/files/3248.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delgado, C.L. & Wada, N. & Rosegrant, M.W. & Meijer, S. & Ahmed, M., 2003. "Fish to 2020: supply and demand in changing global markets," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 15796, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dugan, Patrick & Dey, Madan M. & Sugunan, V.V., 2006. "Fisheries and water productivity in tropical river basins: Enhancing food security and livelihoods by managing water for fish," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 80(1-3), pages 262-275, February.
    2. Leakey, Roger & Kranjac-Berisavljevic, Gordana & Caron, Patrick & Craufurd, Peter & Martin, Adrienne M. & McDonald, Andy & Abedini, Walter & Afiff, Suraya & Bakurin, Ndey & Bass, Steve & Hilbeck, Ange, 2009. "Impacts of AKST on development and sustainability goals," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    3. Speers, Ann E. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Palardy, James E. & Moore, Chris, 2016. "Impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: An integrated ecological–economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 33-43.
    4. Wamukota, A. & Brewer, T.D. & Crona, B., 2014. "Market integration and its relation to income distribution and inequality among fishers and traders: The case of two small-scale Kenyan reef fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 93-101.
    5. Libralato, Simone & Solidoro, Cosimo, 2008. "A bioenergetic growth model for comparing Sparus aurata's feeding experiments," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 325-337.
    6. Asche, Frank & Roll, Kristin H & Trollvik, Trine, 2009. "New aquaculture species. Entering the whitefish market," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2009/21, University of Stavanger.
    7. Manojit Bhattacharya & Deep Sankar Chini & Avijit Kar & Bidhan Chandra Patra & Ramesh Chandra Malick & Basanta Kumar Das, 2020. "Assessment and modeling of fish diversity related to water bodies of Bankura district, West Bengal, India, for sustainable management of culture practices," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 971-984, February.
    8. Angulo, Laura & Salamon, Petra & Banse, Martin & Döring, Ralf & Keller, Matthias & Van Leeuwen, Myrna, 2018. "Future Developments in German Fish Market – Integration of Market Expert Knowledge into a Modelling System," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(1), January.
    9. Roehlano M. Briones & Madan M. Dey & A. K. M. Mahfuzuddin Ahmed & Mark Prein & Ilona Stobutzki, 2008. "Priority setting for research on aquatic resources: an application of modified economic surplus analysis to natural resource systems," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 231-243, September.
    10. Daiju Narita & Katrin Rehdanz & Richard Tol, 2012. "Economic costs of ocean acidification: a look into the impacts on global shellfish production," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1049-1063, August.
    11. Marwaha, N. & Beveridge, M.C.M. & Phillips, M.J. & Komugisha, B.R. & Boso, D. & Chan, C.Y. & Kabir, K.A. & Sulser, T.B. & Wiebe, K., 2020. "Alternative seafood: Assessing food, nutrition and livelihood futures of plant-based and cell-based seafood," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40900, April.
    12. Shamshak, Gina Louise & King, Jonathan R., 2015. "From cannery to culinary luxury: The evolution of the global geoduck market," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-89.
    13. Bosello, Francesco & Delpiazzo, Elisa & Eboli, Fabio, 2015. "Macro-economic Impact Assessment of Future Changes in European Marine Ecosystem Services," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 199442, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Spencer Henson & Steven Jaffee, 2008. "Understanding Developing Country Strategic Responses to the Enhancement of Food Safety Standards," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 548-568, April.
    15. Debnath, Biswajit & Biradar, R.S. & Ananthan, P.S. & Pandey, S.K., 2012. "Estimation of Demand for Different Fish Groups in Tripura," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 25(2).
    16. Bene, C. & Heck, S., 2005. "Fish and food security in Africa," Naga, The WorldFish Center, vol. 28(3/4), pages 8-13.
    17. Leadbitter, Duncan, 2004. "Seafood Trade and Market Access: Threats and Opportunities," 2004: Fish, Aquaculture and Food Security: Sustaining Fish as a Food Supply, 11 August 2004 124075, Crawford Fund.
    18. Angulo, Laura & Salamon, Petra & Banse, Martin & Döring, Ralf & Keller, Matthias & Van Leeuwen, Myrna, 2017. "Future Developments in German Fish Market – Integration of Market Expert Knowledge into a Modelling System," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276895, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    19. Allan, Geoff L., 2004. "Fish for Feed vs Fish for Food," 2004: Fish, Aquaculture and Food Security: Sustaining Fish as a Food Supply, 11 August 2004 124068, Crawford Fund.
    20. Dey, M.M. & Kanagaratnam, U., 2007. "Community based management of small scale fisheries in Asia: Bridging the gap between fish supply and demand," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 37170, April.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331638. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.