In The Media (400)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean ac dolor facilisis, pellentesque turpis ac, posuere ex. Integer dictum neque nec feugiat tristique. Nam interdum tempor augue, at eleifend augue interdum fringilla. Maecenas eget augue et mauris eleifend lacinia. Duis ac nunc mauris. Nullam venenatis dui eu purus pulvinar gravida. Integer ante dui, laoreet porttitor sagittis ac, condimentum et ligula. Quisque hendrerit nisi sit amet neque volutpat auctor vel rhoncus ligula. Donec ut tempor libero.

Bilateral Trade Treaties are a Sham

Read full article (Op-ed with Jagdish Bhagwati, FT July 13, 2003) Bilateral deals fragment the coalitions of developing countries, as each abandons its legitimate objections to the inclusion of extraneous issues in trade treaties. Having abandoned these objections in a bilateral deal with the US, how can those countries pursue them in WTO negotiations? (FT, 13 July 2003) (Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya) Pascal Lamy, the European commissioner for trade, recently wrote that "half the world's economists" were opposed to the epidemic of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). That was a splendid example of British understatement from a Frenchman. The fact of the matter is that nearly all scholars of international economics today are fiercely sceptical, even hostile to such agreements. By contrast, politicians everywhere have succumbed to a mania that originated in Europe but is now eagerly promoted by Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, with Asia - the last holdout - now joining in. We are witnessing possibly the biggest divide between economists and politicians in the postwar period. Unfortunately, the economists are right. The politicians' lemming-like rush…

Continue reading...

Adopt a Single, Uniform Tariff Rate

The exisitng trade policy commitment in a previous budget speech is to unify tariff rates around two rates of 20 and 10 percent starting 2004-05. But why not adopt a single, uniform rate of 15 percent instead? June 18, 2003 The 2002-03 budget set the goal that by 2004-05, India will have only two tariff rates for non-agricultural goods: 10% covering raw materials, intermediates and components, and 20% for final products. With less than a year left before this goal is translated into policy, it is timely to ask if this is the best course our trade policy can take. Begin by considering the existing tariffs. In spite of the reform and rationalisation of trade policy for more than a decade, our tariff regime remains messy. The 2003-04 budget ostensibly brought the peak tariff on non-agricultural goods down to 25%. But according to Arun Goyal of the Academy of Business Studies, more than 15% of all tariff rates still remain higher than the official peak rate. In terms of the complexity of the tariff structure, the situation is even grimmer: Goyal counts…

Continue reading...

Without Trade Openness, There is no Sustained Growth

So trade openness is not sufficient for growth. But can you do without it? And are there autarkies or near autarkies in the developing world that have rapidly reduced poverty? April 23, 2003 Recent attacks on globalisation have also translated into attacks on the wisdom of outward-oriented trade policies that developing countries have embraced with increasing frequency. Free trade sceptics question the ability of liberal trade policies to stimulate growth. As a corollary, they also blame growth failures on the surge of imports resulting from increased openness. Furthermore, they view outward-oriented trade policies as detrimental to the fate of the poor. Are the sceptics right? The answer is a categorical no. In so far as developing countries are concerned, there is compelling evidence that openness is a necessary condition for rapid growth. There are few developing countries that have grown rapidly on a sustained basis during the post-Second World War era without simultaneously experiencing rapid growth in their exports and imports. Because openness by itself is not sufficient to promote growth — macroeconomic stability, policy credibility and perhaps other policies must…

Continue reading...

How to break the TRIPS impasse?

The negotiations on how to allow poor countries to take advantage of the compulsory licensing provision of the TRIPS Agreement are at an impasse. But there is a way to break the logjam. April 3, 2003 The Doha negotiations are at an impasse partially due to a disagreement between the United States and other WTO members on how to effectively extend the compulsory-licensing provision of the TRIPS Agreement to countries that lack manufacturing capacity in medicines. The impasse can be broken The Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement gives all WTO members the right to issue a compulsory licence on a patented product to a third party without prior authorisation of the patent holder in the case of health emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health reaffirms this right: "Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises, including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency or…

Continue reading...