If this is success, what will be failure?
India's role in the WTO negotiations has turned less negative but it has some ways to go.
Apropos of “If this is success, what will be failure?” by Arvind Panagariya (ET, September 24) the standard theory of Nash bargaining says that it is not fairness, but the selfishness of players that ultimately guides negotiations.
Abstract:
Apropos of "If this is success, what will be failure?" by Arvind Panagariya (ET, September 24) the standard theory of Nash bargaining says that it is not fairness, but the selfishness of players that ultimately guides negotiations. That was very evident in US positions when it backtracked from the Doha meet held during Clinton's presidency. The US national agenda then did not include assistance to farmers, but the Bush administration wants that.
As for India, it is untrue that we succeeded at Cancun just on the strength of non-cooperation with the OECD nations. Our economy is inefficient, markets incomplete, and we had nothing to offer — other than strident negotiating positions! Developed economies lobbied by saying they were protecting their "transparent" economies, but we just had a non-transparent one to protect. That deadlocked the meeting. The future will be no different if these economic anomalies stay unaddressed.
As for India, it is untrue that we succeeded at Cancun just on the strength of non-cooperation with the OECD nations. Our economy is inefficient, markets incomplete, and we had nothing to offer — other than strident negotiating positions! Developed economies lobbied by saying they were protecting their "transparent" economies, but we just had a non-transparent one to protect. That deadlocked the meeting. The future will be no different if these economic anomalies stay unaddressed.