|
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation in mid-2000 commissioned a study to help
flesh out how the multilateral trade regime can be better aligned with human
development.
A report was published in early 2003 and could serve as a major input
into the discussion about the trade regime at the World Trade Organization’s
next Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico on September 2003. This study
is the outcome of a broad process of consultation with independent scholars
and experts from academia and civil society, as well as with governments and
NGOs in the South. The strength of this study lies in its perspective,
that before decisions are made on trade policies, find out what the
consequences are for human development. Secondly, it contains an excellent
overview of arguments that are being offered in the ongoing trade
negotiations, albeit the presentation is couched in an academic language. It
could, potentially, leave an impact on the decision-making structures. For
educators, the study is relevant as a guide through burning issues and
arguments. The main messages of the study can be summed up in the following
points:
- An evaluation of the multilateral trade regime should be based on
whether it maximizes possibilities for human development. To achieve that
goal, the regime needs to shift its focus from promoting liberalization
and market access to fostering development. The regime should provide
developing countries with policy space, giving them the flexibility they
need to make institutional and other innovations – while still recognizing
that trade liberalizations and market access can
make important contributions to human development n specific situations
and certain sectors.
- Trade is not an end in itself, but it is potentially, a means to
development. Liberalizing trade does not automatically
ensure human development, and increasing trade does not always have a
positive impact on human development.
- The evidence on the relationship between trade and human development
is not clear, but it is clear that trade liberalization is not a reliable
mechanism for growth and poverty reduction.
- Multilateral trade rules should coexist with national practices, not
try to harmonize them. There is a need for asymmetric rules that favour
the weakest members. In the long run such rules will benefit both
industrial and developing countries.
- Pervasive gender discrimination in economic life causes trade policy
to have very different effects on women and men.
It is particularly troublesome from a human development perspective if
export growth comes at the expense of exploiting female workers,
neglecting care work and increasing gender inequalities in opportunities
and benefits.
The study promotes a number of reforms in the global governance of trade;
the most important being flexibility in
implementation of agreements instead of a rigorous regime that compels
governments to accept all agreements as a
package. This means that governments would be given a certain right to
choose which agreements to sign and which not.
To preclude narrow, elitist interests from blocking progressive changes,
human development objectives should be written
into WTO’s rules and agreements as positive obligations. In that way, both
rich and poor countries would be bound to let trade serve development
objectives. This would, potentially, also open fresh opportunities for the
international trade union movement to wedge its demand for basic trade
unions rights into the trade regime.
The study goes on to point out that the practice of informal consensus
building which has become the trademark of the
decision-making process in the WTO should be reformed to allow for
developing countries to exercise more freely their
numerical majority in the organisation. This would entail more votes to be
taken and assistance to the poorest countries to allow them de facto
participation in the intensive discussions centred on Geneva in between
ministerial meetings. The study also promotes widespread participation in
national dialogues involving civil society organisations, community groups
and the private sector to bar national positions from being defined by
elitist interests in the various capitals around the world.
The widespread criticism of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is also
reflected in the study. Fundamentally,
this criticism is levelled at the imbalance in the impact of retaliation
between powerful and powerless countries. When the USA retaliates against
Guatemala, the impact on Guatemalan peasant is potentially devastating
compared to the impact of a Guatemalan retaliation on farmers in the US.
The study indicates the right to levy penalty payments on countries that
do not
honour WTO rulings and hints at the introduction of a collective action
clause.
Finally, the study promotes a number of proposals on specific agreements
and issues, including agriculture, Trade in Services (GATS) and the
so-called Singapore issues (investment, competition policy, trade
facilitation and transparency in
government procurement) Activists may find that the study is lukewarm in
its recommendations on some of these issues. Between the diplomatically
phrased lines, however, there is a clear message that if one considers
each of these items from a development perspective, one should be very
prudent in calling for greater liberalization.
The study is voluminous, 341 pages plus a glossary. It is downloadable in
pdfformat from the UNDP website:
http://www.undp.org . A print edition can be ordered from the UNDP.
|
