What is at Stake in the Doha Round?

In this study the key elements of the WTO Doha Round are simulated and the main implications for international trade and national income are analysed. Based on negotiation information, three scenarios are designed. All scenarios encompass goods, services and agricultural liberalisation as well as trade facilitation. For goods liberalisation, a so‐called Swiss formula is used to cut bound tariff rates. Agricultural tariffs are cut according to a tiered linear formula. Attention has been given to the modelling of trade facilitation. Indirect as well as direct trade transaction costs are modelled. For simulation of the services liberalisation quantitative estimates of indirect trade barriers are used. The simulation results show that all regions in the aggregation gain in the simulated Doha scenarios, with a particularly strong result for developing countries. A conservative estimate is that global income increases with 0.2–0.7 per cent of initial GDP, depending on the level of liberalisation. Trade facilitation contributes the most to these results, with increased market access for non‐agricultural goods coming in second place. Overall, simulations indicate the importance of countries’ own liberalisation for their national income gains, and the importance of a broad‐based round.     

Bilateral versus Multilateral Trade and Investment Liberalisation

To assess the welfare effects of bilateral versus multilateral trade and/or investment liberalisation in general equilibrium, we set up a three‐country and three‐factor knowledge‐capital model of trade and multinational activity. Numerical simulation results indicate that multilateral liberalisation tends to dominate bilateral liberalisation in welfare terms. A transition economy tends to prefer bilateral over multilateral liberalisation to avoid plant relocation. For similar reasons, a developed country may prefer bilateral over multilateral liberalisation, if the other economies exhibit big relative factor endowment differences.     

Liberalising Trade in the Agriculture Sector of a Small Island State: The Case of Fiji

This paper uses Fiji as a case study to investigate the impacts of three trade liberalisation policies – removal of sugar price subsidies, unilateral trade liberalisation and multilateral trade liberalisation, implied by the successful completion of the Doha Round. Removal of the sugar price subsidies has an adverse effect on real output, real national welfare and employment, but promotes growth of non‐agricultural exports in the long run. Unilateral trade liberalisation, in the form of tariff cuts in the agricultural sector, increases real output, real national welfare and non‐agricultural exports in the medium term. However, this growth is not sustained in the long term. The best outcome for Fiji is multilateral trade liberalisation which increases real output, real national welfare, non‐agricultural exports and employment. It is argued that reform of trade policies in less developed countries could come at a cost, therefore highlighting the need for compensating mechanisms to deal with the adverse impacts. Other measures to assist farmers to expand output in response to a rise in prices could include measures to reduce transport, storage and packaging costs, as well as institutional measures to enhance the functioning of input and factor markets.     

Beyond Border Barriers: The Liberalisation of Services Trade in Tunisia and Egypt

Tunisia and Egypt have both recently undertaken significant steps toward trade reform. They have committed to a partnership agreement with the European Union. Both countries have also joined the WTO and are participating in Doha Round discussions on the liberalisation of non‐tariff barriers on both goods and services trade. These developments provide an interesting context within which to investigate not only the changes in welfare associated with reforms affecting the trade in goods, but also the impacts of services liberalisation. Using open‐economy computable general equilibrium models for both Tunisia and Egypt, this paper explores the reasons why structural differences in these two economies imply different opportunities and challenges with trade reform and services liberalisation. The gains from eliminating barriers at the border for goods trade are significantly greater for Tunisia than Egypt. Both countries, however, gain substantially from liberalisation of foreign direct investment in services. Furthermore, economic growth is more evenly distributed across sectors than with liberalisation of trade in goods alone. In addition to reporting on the impact of alternative policies on income, output, employment and trade, sector‐level effects are also considered.     

Trade Policy in a Small Advanced Transition Economy: Trade Policy Review of Slovenia, 2002

The aim of this paper is a commentary to the first Trade Policy Review (TPR) of Slovenia and to shed more light on the background of the whole process of trade liberalisation and transition in Slovenia during the 1990s. The TPR praises Slovenia for its sound trade regime, which is in conformity to Slovenia's commitments to the multilateral trading system and detects only a few open issues. The paper puts these issues in a broader context of Slovenia's trade liberalisation after independence in 1991 and recent harmonisation with the EU in the pre‐accession negotiation process. Although there is much scope for improvements in Slovenia's trade policies and practices, one should note that most of the open issues raised would disappear anyway upon Slovenia's accession to the EU by 1 May, 2004, and by subsequent adoption of the CET and full implementation of the acquis communautaire. Some of the problems, such as strong government support to agriculture implemented by Slovenia due to harmonisation with the EU's CAP should, however, be challenged at the broader multilateral level in the framework of the Doha Development Agenda.     

Multilateral,Regional and Bilateral Trade‐Policy Options for the United States and Japan

We have used the Michigan Model of World Production and Trade to simulate the economic effects on the United States, Japan, and other major trading countries/regions of the Doha Round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations and a variety of regional/bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving the United States and Japan. We estimate that an assumed reduction of post‐Uruguay Round tariffs and other barriers on agricultural and industrial products and services by 33 per cent in the Doha Round would increase world welfare by $686.4 billion, with gains of $164.0 billion for the United States, $132.6 billion for Japan, and significant gains for all other industrialised and developing countries/regions. If there were global free trade with all post‐Uruguay Round trade barriers completely removed, world welfare would increase by $2.1 trillion, with gains of $497.0 billion (5.5 per cent of GNP) for the United States and $401.9 billion (6.2 per cent of GNP) for Japan. Regional agreements such as an APEC FTA, an ASEAN Plus 3 FTA, and a Western Hemisphere FTA would increase global and member country welfare but much less so than the Doha multilateral trade round would. Separate bilateral FTAs involving Japan with Singapore, Mexico, Chile and Korea, and the United States with Chile, Singapore and Korea would have positive, though generally small, welfare effects on the partner countries, but potentially disruptive sectoral employment shifts in some countries. There would be trade diversion and detrimental welfare effects on some non‐member countries for both the regional and bilateral FTAs analysed. The welfare gains from multilateral trade liberalisation are therefore considerably greater than the gains from preferential trading arrangements and more uniformly positive for all countries.     

Market Access Liberalisation in the Doha Round: Scenarios and Assessment

The modalities of negotiation on market access for agricultural and non‐agricultural products are an important item of the Doha Development Agenda. The dispersion of tariffs remains very large, translating into sizeable economic distortions. In particular, tariff peaks are numerous and highly protective. This is why the choice of a formula of reduction in tariffs is a sensitive issue. Using the MAcMaps database, we apply various formulas excluding or including peaks at the most detailed level of information on tariffs, considering preferential schemes conceded so far. The resulting changes in tariffs are introduced in a CGE exercise using Mirage . We find that trade and welfare gains are halved when excluding peaks from the negotiations.     

Why is the Doha Development Agenda Failing? And What Can Be Done? A Computable General Equilibrium–Game Theoretical Approach

We use a world computable general equilibrium model to simulate 143 potential trade reforms and seek solutions to the issues hampering progress in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). Inside the domain defined by all these possible outcomes, we apply the axiomatic theory of bargaining and select the Nash solution of cooperative games. The solutions vary according to the objective functions adopted by the trade negotiators. When real income is the objective and services are excluded, or when optimising terms of trade is the objective, the Nash solution is the status quo. Trade liberalisation is feasible only when the negotiators focus on national exports or gross domestic product (GDP). Our assessment of some possible solutions reveals that excluding members having a GDP below a certain threshold improves the bargaining process, regardless of the governments’ objective. Formation of coalition, such as the G20, constitutes an option for its members to block outcomes imposed by rich members. We also find that side payments may be a solution, but represent a very high share of the global income gain.     

世贸组织《农业协定》中的“蓝箱”支持

“蓝箱”支持是世贸组织《农业协定》国内支持中的一种措施,它的特征是在成员方实施限产计划的条件下对农民的一种补贴。目前,世贸组织有7个成员方使用“蓝箱”支持。2004年7月,“多哈议程”达成了农业谈判框架协议。本文就“蓝箱”支持的若干问题作了全面的介绍和分析。内容涉及:“蓝箱”支持的含义;“蓝箱”支持的实施;“蓝箱”支持引起的三个问题;“蓝箱”支持与世贸组织新一轮农业谈判。     

On the European Responsibility in the Agricultural Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Modelling the Impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy

The present round of multilateral trade negotiations is still deadlocked over agricultural trade. The European Union (EU) is urged by its trading partners to open its agricultural markets. Economic evaluations of trade liberalisation scenarios unanimously conclude that a substantial opening of agricultural markets is required for a successful (welfare‐improving) Doha Round. In this paper, we perform new evaluations to identify precisely the contributions of the European farm policy and to examine the robustness of these evaluations in the representation of this complex policy. Using the same specifications as in major previous studies, our first simulations show that the EU has a major responsibility in delivering significant gains to the developing countries. On the other hand, when we conduct the same experiments with a more relevant calibration and modelling of the European farm policy instruments, the gains that these developing countries may reap from the EU liberalisation are considerably reduced. Accordingly the current charge against the EU is simply inopportune.     

Multilateral Agricultural Trade Liberalisation: The Contrasting Fortunes of Developing Countries in the Doha Round

An applied general equilibrium model is used to assess the impact of multilateral trade liberalisation in agriculture, with particular emphasis on developing countries. We use original data, and the model includes some specific features such as a dual labour market. Applied tariffs, including those under preferential regimes and regional agreements, are taken into account at the detailed product level, together with the corresponding bound tariffs on which countries negotiate. The various types of farm support are detailed, and several groups of developing countries are distinguished. Simulations give a contrasted picture of the benefits developing countries would draw from the Doha development round. The results suggest that previous studies have neglected preferential agreements and the binding overhang (in tariffs as well as domestic support), and have treated developing countries with a high level of aggregation and been excessively optimistic about the actual benefits of multilateral trade liberalisation. Regions like sub‐Saharan Africa are more likely to suffer from the erosion of existing preferences. The main gainers of the Doha Round are likely to be developed countries and Cairns Group members.     

Regional Trade Agreements versus Global Trade Liberalisation: Implications for a Small Island Developing State

This study undertakes an empirical investigation of the macroeconomic and sectoral impacts of two forms of regional trade agreements vis‐à‐vis global trade liberalisation on a small island country, using Fiji as a case study. In order to capture the feedback effects of such a complex set of policies, we employ a dynamic computable general equilibrium model of the Fijian economy to investigate (i) the impact of the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), (ii) the impact of PICTA, the Pacific Agreement for Closer Economic Relations (PACER), and the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), (iii) the impact of full tariff liberalisation (i.e. tariff removal only), and (iv) the impact of full trade liberalisation, with removal of both tariff and non‐tariff barriers. While PICTA consistently provides the least benefits across a range of macroeconomic indicators including real output, welfare, trade volumes and employment, full trade liberalisation involving the removal of tariff and non‐tariff barriers provides the greatest benefits compared to the other scenarios in terms of real output. However, the latter scenario is outperformed by PICTA, PACER, the EPAs and full tariff liberalisation in terms of welfare effects, trade volumes and employment. The policy implications hold important lessons for developing countries considering trade liberalisation.     

China and the Trans‐Pacific Partnership: A Numerical Simulation Assessment of the Effects Involved

The Trans‐Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a new negotiation on cross‐border liberalisation of goods and service flows going beyond WTO disciplines and focused on issues such as regulation and border controls. This paper uses numerical simulation methods to assess the potential effects of a TPP agreement on China and also China's inclusion or exclusion on other countries. We use a numerical 11‐country global general equilibrium model with trade costs and inside money. Trade costs are calculated using a method based on gravity equations. TPP barriers potentially removable are trade costs less tariffs. Simulation results reveal that China will be slightly hurt by TPP initiatives in welfare when China is out, but the total production and export will be increased. Other non‐TPP countries will be mostly hurt in welfare, but member countries will mostly gain. If China takes part in TPP, she will significantly gain and increase other TPP countries' gain as well. The comparison of TPP effects and global free trade effects show that the positive effects of global free trade are stronger than TPP effects. Japan's joining TPP would be beneficial to both herself and most of other TPP countries, but which negative effects on China's welfare when out of TPP will increase further.     

Doha Development Round Perspectives

The Doha round got back on track in the summer of 2004. Where does it stand today? Has market access policy gained predominance over market regulation policy? Is the promotion of economic and social development becoming the “mainstream” of negotiations? What role does trade facilitation in developing countries play in this context? Is multilateral liberalisation compatible with the regional and bilateral opening of markets? Is further institutional reform of the WTO beyond the Doha agenda necessary? If so, what form could this take?*This article is based on a contribution made by the author to the International Policy Dialogue “Doha Development Round: Status and Prospects for Success” organised by the InWEnt gGmbH’s Development Policy Forum (Entwicklungspolitisches Forum, EF) in Berlin on 7/8 June 2005.     

Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries of Liberalisation in Services Trade

This paper discusses the potential impacts of services trade liberalisation on developing countries and reviews existing quantitative studies. Its purpose is to distill themes from current literature rather than to advocate specific policy changes. The picture emerging is one of valiant attempts to quantify in the presence of formidable analytical and data problems yielding only a clouded image of likely impacts on trade, consumption, production and welfare emerging to the point that the policy implications of results are not always clear. A central intuition would seem to be that with genuine two‐sided (OECD/non‐OECD) liberalisation in services that are seemingly considerably labour‐intensive in delivery, the potential should be there for significant developing country gains from global liberalisation allowing full cross‐border delivery. However, this picture is neither fully endorsed by available studies, neither is it explicitly contradicted. This seems to be the case for a number of reasons. One difficulty with the studies is that the conceptual underpinnings of what determines trade in services and how this trade differs analytically from that of trade in goods (if at all) is an issue prior to assessments of impacts of liberalisation of trade in services on developing countries being discussed. Key issues here are the treatment of mobility for service providers (both firms and workers), and the differing analytical structures needed to analyse individual service items (banking, insurance, telecoms, etc.). Some recent analytical work suggests that liber‐alisation in some service items, such as banking, need not always yield gains, and this contrasts with quantitative studies where analytical structures mirror conventional trade in goods treatments. The discussion and measurement of barriers to service trade in both developed and developing countries is also problematic. One is talking of domestic regulation, entry barriers, portability of providers, competition policy regimes more so than only barriers at national borders, as with tariffs. Both representing and quantifying such barriers raise major difficulties, and these are also spelled out in the paper. Which barriers actually restrict trade, and which do not because they are redundant is one issue, for instance. It is also often misleading to represent barriers in simple ad valorem equivalent form. As a result, numerical modelling work on the effects of service trade barriers which is based on ad valorem equivalent modelling is often not fully convincing. In addition, individual country results vary considerably across studies in ways that it is frequently hard for outsiders to understand. Studies do, however, point towards a tentative conclusion that effects are small and positive for developed and most developing countries if FDI flow changes accompanying service trade liberalisation are excluded from the analysis, but much larger and more variable across countries if they are present. This could be taken to suggest that mode 3 GATS liberalisation (roughly captured in some studies) might be important for developing countries; but mode 4 GATS liberalisation could be even more important given large barriers to labour flows across countries. Thus, if service trade liberalisation is thought of primarily as a surrogate for improved functioning of global factor markets in which more capital flows to developing countries and more labour flows from them to developed countries, then developing countries could benefit in a major way from genuine two‐sided (OECD/non‐OECD) liberalisation. Developing countries fear, however, that in global negotiations on services liberalisation where there is an asymmetry of power that largely one‐sided liberalisation may be the outcome, and their gains will be correspondingly limited. The paper concludes by evaluating econometric studies on linkage between services liberalisation and country growth rules, and briefly discusses some key sectoral issues in health services and transportation.     

Globalisation and Poverty in Latin America: Some Channels and Some Evidence

This paper provides an overview of the main mechanisms through which globalisation can affect poverty and household welfare in Latin America and presents supporting evidence from different case studies in the region. One case study explores the impacts of agricultural trade liberalisation in world markets on poverty in Argentina, with an emphasis on labour income effects via real wages. The second case study examines the impacts of CAFTA on net producers and net consumers among the indigenous population in Guatemala. The analysis explores short‐run impacts as well as medium‐run impacts as households adjust farm decisions. Finally, a last exercise is set up to study the role of agricultural liberalisation on wages, employment and unemployment when there are frictions in labour markets. These case studies show that the impacts of trade on developing countries are heterogeneous. In Argentina, there are gains from liberalisation of world agriculture and higher food prices. In Guatemala, instead, the indigenous population would benefit from lower food prices. It is clear that household adjustments and complementary factors are fundamental ingredients of any reasonable evaluation of the welfare impacts of trade reforms.     

Trade Reform and Poverty: The Case of Mexico

We use a two‐step computationally simple procedure to analyse the effects of Mexico's's potential unilateral tariff liberalisation on real incomes. First, we use the CGE model provided by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) as the new price generator. Second, we apply the price changes to Mexican household data in order to assess the effects of the policy simulation on poverty and income distribution. Although Mexico widely liberalised most of its imports by the mid 90s, one salient feature is its membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and United States. By choosing GTAP as the price generator, we are able to model the differential tariff structure. Even starting with a low level of tariff protection, simulation results show that the impact of tariff reform on welfare will be positive in general for all expenditure deciles. We find that, when we assume non‐homothetic individual preferences, trade liberalisation benefits people in the poorer deciles more than those in the richer ones.     

Productivity Versus Employment: Quantifying the Economic Effects of an EU–Japan Free Trade Agreement

The European Union and Japan recently entered into negotiations over a bilateral free trade agreement intended to stimulate growth and create wealth. Since customs duties are already low, the success of the liberalisation process hinges on the elimination of non‐tariff barriers. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on two possible liberalisation scenarios: a less ambitious liberalisation and a comprehensive liberalisation. In contrast to classic studies, our paper builds on the modern trade literature, accounting for the dominance of intra‐industry trade in both economies and the existence of heterogeneous firms. Furthermore, we model a search‐and‐matching labour market, allowing us to quantify employment effects of trade liberalisation. We find that a comprehensive liberalisation increases Japanese GDP by 0.86 per cent, whereas the EU experiences only an additional 0.21 per cent of real GDP growth. Most of the growth in real GDP is due to firms' efficiency gains, whereas unemployment is reduced by only a small amount. Other world regions experience small reductions of GDP due to trade diversion effects.     

Computational Analysis of the Menu of US‐Japan Trade Policies

We have used the Michigan Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model of World Production and Trade to calculate the aggregate welfare and sectoral employment effects of the menu of US‐Japan trade policies. The menu of policies encompasses the various preferential US and Japan bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) negotiated and in process, unilateral removal of existing trade barriers and global (multilateral) free trade. The welfare impacts of the FTAs on the United States and Japan are shown to be rather small in absolute and relative terms. The sectoral employment effects are also generally small but vary across the individual sectors depending on the patterns of the bilateral liberalisation. The welfare effects on the FTA partner countries are mostly positive though generally small, but there are some indications of potentially disruptive employment shifts in some partner countries. There are indications of trade diversion and detrimental welfare effects on non‐member countries for some of the FTAs analysed. In comparison to the welfare gains from the US and Japan bilateral FTAs, the gains from both unilateral trade liberalisation by the United States, Japan and the FTA partners, and from global (multilateral) free trade are shown to be rather substantial and more uniformly positive for all countries in the global trading system. The US and Japan FTAs are based on ‘hub’ and ‘spoke’ arrangements. We show that the spokes emanate out in different and often overlapping directions, suggesting that the complex of bilateral FTAs may create distortions of the global trading system.     

Trade‐Policy Issues and Policy Options for Japan and the United States: Introduction and Overview

This symposium includes papers that analyse a number of issues that are likely to play a key role in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations. These issues are analysed from the perspective of US‐Japanese economic relations. In these papers, the economic effects of the WTO negotiating options available to both countries are explored. A final paper examines the important issues raised by the free trade agreements (FTAs) that have or will soon be negotiated by the United States and Japan. Brief summaries of the papers are provided. With all the advantages that have accrued to Japan from the multilateral trading system, it is not surprising that for many years Japan, alone among the world's major economies, stayed aloof from regional trading arrangements. The very past success of the multilateral trading system has made further progress at this level far more complex and has pushed many countries, Japan included, to look to new and deeper regional trading agreements as a more productive path. But it should not be forgotten that while FTAs may be easier to conclude, their benefits are modest compared with what can be gained from a successful Doha Round, and the costs from new distortions imposed on regional trade can be very significant for some of the world's poorer economies. Every good reason remains for Japan to continue to wish to be a pillar of the WTO and of the new Doha Round.