Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:05:06.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Next for Multilateral Trade Talks? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

YVAN DECREUX  and
LIONEL FONTAGNÉ
YVAN DECREUX*
Affiliation:
International Trade Center, Geneva
LIONEL FONTAGNÉ
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics (University Paris 1) and CEPII
*
*(Corresponding author) email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the lessons from the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) from a forward-looking point of view? A decade of negotiations is likely to go nowhere. This paper argues that absence of a landing-zone was in the data. Quantitative tools modelling the detail of the modalities predicted failure but were not taken seriously: the design of the negotiations implied that any achievements of the Round could only be limited. Such a weakness was induced by the way multilateral negotiations were organized – in separate groups, without much consideration for, or understanding of, how the different elements added up to more than the sum of the parts. We put sensible figures on that argument by using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model of the world economy, addressing exceptions, flexibilities, as well as the non-linear design of the liberalization formulas, a reduction in domestic support, the phasing out of export subsidies in agriculture, and trade facilitation. Our conclusion is that negotiators have to go back to simplicity and re-bundle the topics if they wish to revamp multilateral negotiations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 29 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Yvan Decreux and Lionel Fontagné 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aggarwal, V. and Evenett, S. (2013), ‘A Fragmenting Global Economy: A Weakened WTO, Mega FTAs, and Murky Protectionism’, Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4): 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (2011), Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table, NBER Working Paper 17650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balwin, R. (2011), Trade and Industrialisation after Globalisation's 2nd Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain Are Different and Why It Matters, NBER Working Paper, 17716.Google Scholar
Bouët, A. and Laborde, D. (2010a), ‘Assessing the Potential Cost of a Failed Doha Round’, World Trade Review, 9(2): 319–359.Google Scholar
Bouët, A. and Laborde, D. (2010b), ‘Why is the Doha Development Agenda Failing? And What Can Be Done: A Computable General Equilibrium-Game Theoretical Approach?’, The World Economy, 33(11): 1486–1516.Google Scholar
Bureau, J. C. and Jean, S. (2013), Trade Liberalization in the Bio-Economy: Coping with a New Landscape, CEPII Working Papers 2013–15.Google Scholar
Decreux, Y. and Ramos, M. P. (2007), How Does Tariff-Rate Quota Modelling Affect CGE Results? An Application for MIRAGE, TradeAg Working Paper 2007–16.Google Scholar
Decreux, Y. and Valin, H. (2007), MIRAGE, Updated Version of the Model for Trade Policy Analysis: Focus on Agriculture and Dynamics, CEPII Working Paper 2007–15.Google Scholar
Evenett, S. (2014), ‘The Doha Round Impasse: A Graphical Account’, Review of International Organizations, 9(2): 143–162.Google Scholar
Fouré, J., Bénassy-Quéré, A., and Fontagné, L. (2013), ‘Modelling the World Economy at the 2050 Horizon’, Economics of Transition, 21(4): 617–654.Google Scholar
Fontagné, L., Guillin, A., and Mitaritonna, C. (2011), Estimations of Tariff Equivalents for the Services Sectors, CEPII Working Paper 2011–24.Google Scholar
Francois, J., van Meijl, H., and van Tongeren, F. (2005), Trade Liberalization in the Doha Development Round , Economic Policy, 42: 349–391.Google Scholar
Gawande, K., Hoekman, B., and Cui, Y. (2014), ‘Global Supply Chains and Trade Policy Responses to the 2008 Crisis’, World Bank Economic Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Gootiiz, B. and Mattoo, A. (2009), Services in Doha: What's on the Table? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 4903.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2014a), Supply Chains, Mega-Regionals and Multilateralism: A Road Map for the WTO, London: CEPR Press.Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. (2014b), The Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement and Rulemaking in the WTO: Milestone, Mistake or Mirage? EUI, RSCAS Working Paper, 2014/102Google Scholar
Hoekman, B. and Nicita, A. (2010), ‘Assessing the Doha Round: Market Access, Transactions Costs and Aid for Trade Facilitation’, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 19(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekman, B., Martin, W., and Mattoo, A. (2010), ‘Conclude Doha: It Matters!’, World Trade Review, 9(3): 503–530.Google Scholar
Jean, S., Laborde, D., and Martin, W. (2010), ‘Formulas and Flexibility in Trade Negotiations: Sensitive Agricultural Products in the World Trade Organization's Doha Agenda’, World Bank Economic Review, 24(3): 500–519.Google Scholar
Karmakar, S. (2013), ‘Life after Bali: Renewing the World Trade Agenda’, Bruegel Policy Contribution 2013/17.Google Scholar
Laborde, D. (2011), ‘Sectoral Initiatives in the Doha Round’, in Martin, W. and Mattoo, A. (eds.), Unfinished Business? The WTO's Doha Agenda, London: CEPR and Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
Laborde, D. and Martin, W. (2015), ‘Formulas for Failure’, World Trade Review, this issue.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. (2015), ‘First Diagnose, then Treat: What Ails the Doha Round?’, World Trade Review, this issue.Google Scholar
WTO (2011), Committee on Trade and Environment – Special session – Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Manuel A. J. Teehankee, to the Trade Negotiations Committee, Doc # 11-2083, 21 April.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Decreux Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Decreux Supplementary Material(File)
File 82.4 KB