Fading Reciprocity: Challenges to Global Rules
Rolf Langhammer5 July 2008
Multilateral trade talks are stagnating while bilateral agreements being signed daily. This column considers why reciprocity seems to have lost its appeal.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1376
Wimbledon Wisdom
-
I recently ran across a graduation speech by the tennis great Roger
Federer. I especially appreciated this passage:
In the 1,526 singles matches I played...
1 day ago
.JPG)
.jpg)
2 comments:
In this article the author argues that the movement away from multinational trade agreements towards bilateral trade agreements fosters greater reciprocity-- taken here as good thing.
Consider the following passage, "Such a detour via larger homogeneity of partners and issues (and thus via agreements between fewer partners and on fewer issues) can have a good payoff on the way to more reciprocity."
Though I don't disagree with the author, I would think the movement towards bilateral agreements will indirectly limit countries future ability to negotiate with other countries. In other words, it makes for a sticker trade environment. For instance, because of NAFTA, Mexico has restricted trading terms with Asian countries, specifically China. The more the international trade environment becomes bound by bilateral contracts the more constrained countries will become to those contracts.
Thoughts... was the failure of Doha a sign that lg. multilateral agreements are no more? If so, what are the implications?
The alternative is indefinite multilat deadlocks. Bilats pick the lowest hanging fruit and provide momentum to dissolve populist trade barriers and sentiments.
Despite the recent campaign rhetoric, US voters are probably more sympathetic to the trade argument because of the moderate success of NAFTA. Likewise, the correct counterfactual with Mexico is whether or not the country would be more open to Pan-Asian trade absent NAFTA....I doubt they would be....countries like Mexico hold on to trade restrictions "in spite of" bilats, not "because of".
Post a Comment