FT:

Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, insisted at the weekend that the politics were right to achieve a global trade deal this year.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then, Lamy is simply doing his job.

FT:

Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, insisted at the weekend that the politics were right to achieve a global trade deal this year.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then, Lamy is simply doing his job.

Along the lines of Rodrik’s skepticism, is there danger that the bicycle theory of trade negotiations may be a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps if free traders expressed greater confidence in the WTO’s ability to prevent backsliding, it would actually serve as a credible backstop.

An interesting Venn diagram from a recent presentation by Vicente Yu of the South Centre (pdf):

An audience member also mentioned that 64 countries are members of five or more issue-based coalitions.

Alan Beattie:

As returns from the dead go, the fact that the so-called “Doha round” of global trade talks was revived in January of this year was a comeback to rival that of Lazarus.

But unless (a subject on which the New Testament is silent) Lazarus spent the year after his miraculous recovery standing on the spot, squabbling irritably and periodically threatening to relapse into unconsciousness, it seems unlikely that the analogy can be continued beyond the initial resurrection.

[HT: Erixon]

Shorter Susan Schwab: Don’t blame the United States for Doha’s demise.

In case you didn’t know, Doha really is going nowhere fast.

Reuters: “A bipartisan group of U.S. senators urged the Bush administration to reject deep cuts to U.S. cotton subsidies in world trade talks, promising to oppose any agreement with major subsidy reforms that some poor countries insist they need to compete on world markets.”

Alan Beattie had a thoughtful piece on trading ritual and reality in the FT yesterday:

The reality is that the great wave of globalisation since the end of the cold war has had a lot less to do with ministers signing paper trade agreements – most of which are anaemic – and a lot more to do with innovative businesses getting on and doing things…

The 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations, for example, signed a free trade agreement in 1991. But although trade within the region has grown rapidly, less than 10 per cent of exports use the special tariff rates available under the pact, partly because the rules are so complex. Digitisation, lower transport costs and improved supply chain management have had far more impact on the region than lower tariffs…

The most protected sectors now are either – as in much of agriculture – ferociously defended by the beneficiaries or – as in services – sufficiently complex that writing binding agreements is hard. Witness the lack of progress in official attempts further to liberalise transatlantic trade, one of the biggest and most vibrant trading relationships on earth…

The evidence so far is that with world commerce itself doing fine, there is little contribution to greater globalisation being made by negotiated reductions in official barriers to trade.

It’s worthwhile to read the full column.

Alan Beattie had a thoughtful piece on trading ritual and reality in the FT yesterday:

The reality is that the great wave of globalisation since the end of the cold war has had a lot less to do with ministers signing paper trade agreements – most of which are anaemic – and a lot more to do with innovative businesses getting on and doing things…

The 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations, for example, signed a free trade agreement in 1991. But although trade within the region has grown rapidly, less than 10 per cent of exports use the special tariff rates available under the pact, partly because the rules are so complex. Digitisation, lower transport costs and improved supply chain management have had far more impact on the region than lower tariffs…

The most protected sectors now are either – as in much of agriculture – ferociously defended by the beneficiaries or – as in services – sufficiently complex that writing binding agreements is hard. Witness the lack of progress in official attempts further to liberalise transatlantic trade, one of the biggest and most vibrant trading relationships on earth…

The evidence so far is that with world commerce itself doing fine, there is little contribution to greater globalisation being made by negotiated reductions in official barriers to trade.

It’s worthwhile to read the full column.