IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mie/wpaper/512.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Enhancing the Benefits for India and Other Developing Countries in the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Alan V. Deardorff

    (University of Michigan)

  • Robert M. Stern

    (University of Michiganw)

Abstract

The Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been billed from the start as the “Doha Development Agenda,” with the promise in the Doha Ministerial Declaration to “place [developing countries’] needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration.” The reason for this emphasis was in part the perception that previous rounds had neglected the interests of developing countries or, in the case of the Uruguay Round, had brought developing countries on board with promises that were misleading or not likely to be kept. The collapse of the September 2003 Cancun Ministerial Meeting reinforced the need to address the interests of developing countries, and recent agreements reached at the WTO in Geneva suggest that the Doha negotiations may now be on track. What is now important to emphasize, as the negotiations get under way, is to follow through with actions that are designed to fulfill the special needs of developing countries and to address their problems in implementing these actions. In our paper we lay out what we believe to be the most important actions that could be taken in the Doha Round for the benefit of developing countries, including India. We base these suggestions primarily on the understanding of the economics of international trade that has been developed over the last two centuries and is widely taught in the universities of the world, and also on the research in recent years dealing with specific aspects of trade negotiations in general and of the Doha Round in particular. With regard to the interests of developing countries generally, we provide recommendations for WTO decision-making, agricultural policies, market access, intellectual property, services, the Singapore issues, technical assistance, and special treatment. Each of these recommendations is accompanied by brief arguments in support. The paper then goes on to review several more specific policy and negotiating recommendations focused on India. It is essential that India and other developing countries participate actively and constructively in the Doha negotiations to further their own interests. They cannot rely on the best-intentioned developed countries to do this for them, since the developed countries will inevitably find themselves making compromises in favor of their own interests and in response to powerful pressures from their domestic constituents. Many developing countries are at a disadvantage in the negotiating process, due to their resource limitations, and in many cases due also to their inexperience in negotiations. Offsetting these disadvantages, however, are their large numbers and the compelling case that can be made for meeting their needs. What the developing countries need is leadership and cooperation, which India is well suited to provide. What is also needed is a willingness to listen and be flexible on the part of their developed country counterparts.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2004. "Enhancing the Benefits for India and Other Developing Countries in the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations," Working Papers 512, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:mie:wpaper:512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers501-525/r512.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2003. "Multilateral, Regional and Bilateral Trade‐Policy Options for the United States and Japan," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 803-828, June.
    2. Deardorff, A.V, 1990. "Should Patent Protection Be Extended To All Countries?," Working Papers 259, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    3. Alan V. Deardorff, 1990. "Should Patent Protection Be Extended to All Developing Countries?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 497-508, December.
    4. repec:bla:reviec:v:10:y:2002:i:3:p:404-23 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Deardorff, A.V., 1989. "Economic Perspectives On Dumping Law," Working Papers 240, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    6. Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2003. "Enhancing the Benefits for Developing Countries in the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations," Working Papers 498, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    7. Mattoo, Aaditya & Subramanian, Arvind, 2000. "India and the multilateral trading system after Seattle - toward a proactive role," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2379, The World Bank.
    8. repec:fth:michin:240 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:fth:michin:259 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Alan V Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2004. "Designing a Pro-Active Stance for India in the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations," Working Papers 521, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.

    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. Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2003. "Enhancing the Benefits for Developing Countries in the Doha Development Agenda Negotiations," Working Papers 498, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    2. Alan V. Deardorff, 2007. "Trade Policy Options for Korea Trade Policy Options for Korea Outside the Doha Round Outside the Doha Round," Working Papers 568, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    3. Holmes, Peter & Lopez-Gonzalez, Javier & MILE 02, Anirudh Shingal, 2011. "TRIPS and Special & Differential Treatment – Revisiting the Case for Derogations in Applying Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals in Developing Count," Papers 238, World Trade Institute.
    4. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2009. "Pros and Cons of Linking Trade and Labor Standards," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization And International Trade Policies, chapter 16, pages 599-621, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Frisvold, George B. & Condon, Peter T., 1998. "The convention on biological diversity and agriculture: Implications and unresolved debates1," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 551-570, April.
    6. Alan V. Deardorff, 2004. "Who Makes the Rules of Globalization?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1301, CESifo.
    7. GianCarlo Moschini, 2004. "Intellectual Property Rights and the World Trade Organization: Retrospect and Prospects," Chapters, in: Giovanni Anania & Mary E.. Bohman & Colin A. Carter & Alex F. McCalla (ed.), Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO, chapter 19, pages 474-511, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Alan V. Deardorff, 2011. "What Might Globalisation's Critics Believe?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 30, pages 371-390, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Caswell, Margriet F. & Fuglie, Keith O. & Klotz, Cassandra A., 1994. "Agricultural Biotechnology: An Economic Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 262025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Funke, Norbert, 1994. "The world trading system: Recent trends," Kiel Working Papers 646, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. D. Greenaway, 1991. "The Uruguay Round Of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Last Chance For Gatt?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 365-379, September.
    12. F. M. Scherer, 2004. "A Note on Global Welfare in Pharmaceutical Patenting," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1127-1142, July.
    13. George B. Frisvold & Peter Condon, 1994. "Biodiversity Conservation And Biotechnology Development Agreements," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, July.
    14. Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Liu, John S., 2016. "A novel approach to identify the major research themes and development trajectory: The case of patenting research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 71-82.
    15. Bhan, Aditya & Kabiraj, Tarun, 2014. "Incentives for product and process innovations: a case for the drug industry," MPRA Paper 61030, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Cherng G. Ding & Na‐Ting Liu, 2009. "Productivity Changes Of Asian Economies By Taking Into Account Software Piracy," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(1), pages 135-145, January.
    17. Siebert, Horst, 2005. "TAFTA - a dead horse or an attractive open club?," Kiel Working Papers 1240, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. 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.
    19. ANDO Mitsuyo, 2009. "Impacts of FTAs in East Asia: CGE Simulation Analysis," Discussion papers 09037, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Srinivasan, T.N., 2001. "India's Reform of External Sector Policies and Future Multilateral Trade Negotiations," Center Discussion Papers 28428, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.

    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:mie:wpaper:512. 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: FSPP Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/riumius.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.