From multilateral negotiations to bilateral and regional negotiations: the effect of doha stalling
| Autor | Juan Manuel Gil |
| Páginas | 17-34 |
1
FROM MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS TO BILATERAL AND REGIONAL NEGOTIATIONS:
THE EFFECT OF DOHA STALLING
JUAN MANUEL GIL
Abstract.
This article argues that the stalling of the Doha Round negotiations is a forsaken
opportunity for developing countries. Since the first deadline of Doha Round was missed
in 2005, deve loped countries have changed their strategy of achieving free trade through
multilateral negotiations, towards achieving it in regional or bilateral negotiations.
Therefore, developing countries have had to stop bargaining in a considerable less
hierarchical system and being compelled to bargain in a scenario characterized by power
asymmetries. They have also swapped free trade based on non-discriminative multilateral
principles, for preferential and discriminative trade treatment.
Keywords: trade negotiations, multilateral, regional and bilateral forum, power
asymmetries, developing countries.
JEL: F13, F59
2
1. Introduction
For the last decade, WTO members have been negotiating free trade liberalization under
the Doha Round. However, the negotiation deadlines have not been met, leading to the
absence of an agreement, which is why the Doha Round is stalled while the number of
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has increased. The stalling of Doha Round negotiations is a
missed opportunity for developing countries because multilateral negotiations were
replaced by bilateral and regional negotiations. As a result, developing countries stopped
bargaining in a considerable less hierarchical system and began to bargain in a scenario
characterized by power asymmetries. They have also swapped free trade based on non-
discriminative multilateral rules for preferential and discriminative trade rules.
Multilateral trade negotiations are considerably less hierarchical because during Doha
Round negotiations, developing countries create d a more equal decision making process,
increasing their influence in setting the negotiation agenda, raising their bargaining power
by building coalitions and improving their efficiency in the negotiations.
On the other hand, bilateral and regional negotiations are characterized by power
asymmetries among the members. In FTAs the negotiation agenda is set by developed
countries according with their interests. Therefore, the negotiation agenda is unbalanced.
It goes further than current WTO agreements but excludes important issues for
developing countries like agricultural subsidies; therefore developing countries cannot
balance the power building coalitions.
FTAs are also preferential and discriminative. Thus, developed countries have used them
as stick and carrot strategy. In the WTO this strategy cannot be used due to the Most
Favored Nation (MFN) principle. Finally, FTAs divert trade and reduce the world´s wealth
whilst WTO agreements create trade and increase the world´s wealth.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba