A WTO is Better than No WTO- Chakraborty

The WTO may have hit a road block with the current setbacks of the DOHA rounds. However the overall institution is still very useful, especially for the EU and the USA, the two largest and liberalized economies. While yes, the lack of conclusive decisions made with the DOHA round and the several missed deadlines isn’t good for the authority of the organization, it doesn’t make the WTO useless. These rounds on trade agreement are vital to open communication and even having continuing rounds were 152 members are welcome to be equally represented is quite a feat in itself. The idea that 2010 marked the year that the “global trade system died” is over the top. Often it is easy to criticize the short comings of an institution like the WTO but if there are positive contributions to global trade then there is still some value in the WTO.

Global economy has been steadily increasing at 9% for decades. This comes from trading (not exclusively the WTO) but the WTO does much to aid that. The WTO is the new and improved version of the GATT.  The WTO encompasses several more types of trades and is much more open to all countries.  The WTO has a far more powerful Dispute Settlement Systems, which is likely the most important aspect of the WTO to date and a huge reason why the WTO is still a relevant and important institution. It allows differing economies to more peaceably solve trade disagreements and also creates a forum for similar economies to bind together to increase their voice (i.e. the G20 and G80).

However where the WTO does have room for improvement still lies in the equality of state interests.  Even though the institution’s set up is inclusive (ex one seat, one vote for all states) weaker states are still very easily coerced by stronger states meaning reciprocity can still play a very large part in how a country votes on certain policies.  Further the Dispute System, while a great and heavily used system to solve economic disputes is inaccessible to weaker states since the cost of a case can easily total half a million dollars.  That’s something that no small or developing state can do or at least do frequently. Furthermore if they do initiate a case, they face the chance of destroying relations with a stronger nation which can have repercussions. These power dynamics are what allowed for example intellectual property protections and the HIV/AIDS case.

Yet with all the inequality between the developing and developed nations, that is not symptomatic of the institution but instead of the larger structure of international trade relations in general.  I would argue that without the WTO these developing countries would be far worse off because they would be coerced, denied even the option to dispute, left out of trade agreements since policies like MNF wouldn’t exist, and cut out of any negotiations.  However with the WTO they have involvement and the more powerful states have to at least make some concessions to give the appearance of fairness.

Advertisements

One thought on “A WTO is Better than No WTO- Chakraborty”

  1. Great post, Nicole! I couldn’t agree more with your inclusion on how the WTO is an example of the institutionalized inequality that our current, Bretton Woods System perpetuates gridlock between the Global North and South. The WTO has good intentions of spreading this equal and non-discriminatory economic philosophy of liberalism. However, it is very Western-centric based, so gridlock or developing countries continually being undermined is common. This is evidenced by the refusal of the US and other Western nations not allowing the liberalization of agricultural products produced in emerging economies, such as China and India, because that would eliminate domestic protection of their own sectors. The North justifies this, by for example, Europe wanting to impose “green tariffs” on goods from countries that aren’t reducing their CO2 emissions fast enough (referring to countries like China and India), as a way to maintain an economic, international upper-hand. Instead, Northern countries could aid greener policies in these countries, since funding toward sustainable practices in these countries are insufficient or misallocated. Once again, I like the structure and intentions of the system, but the implementations could be fairer.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s