• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO05074 | Doha and Globalisation’s Missing Middle
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO05074 | Doha and Globalisation’s Missing Middle
    Barry Desker

    25 October 2005

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is at a crossroads.

    Failure to reach substantive agreements on agricultural and services liberalisation will prevent the conclusion of the Doha round of trade negotiations at the Hong Kong WTO ministerial meeting in December. East Asia’s rush towards preferential trading arrangements will continue, risking the sidelining of the WTO, as the WTO’s foremost supporters seek a second best option. The rise of China and India will increase the competitive pressures on high-cost skilled labour in the developed countries as well as middle income developing countries, such as Malaysia and Thailand, poised earlier for graduation into the ranks of the developed countries. There will be a growing risk of protectionism rearing its head.

    The French attempt to derail the current Doha round of trade negotiations by requiring that Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, submit every offer for vetting by officials of EU national governments before it is tabled at the Geneva talks. EU foreign ministers rightly rebuffed the French move last week. Content with the stalemate at the WTO, France was prepared to allow a failure in Hong Kong if significant cuts in agricultural protection would be its key outcome. French (and EU) foot-dragging on agriculture has become a staple of WTO negotiations but time is running out.

    The EU factor

    Until the US trade representative Rob Portman tabled a proposal to cut farm tariffs substantially and to abolish export subsidies over five years, the negotiations had stalled. The EU responded with a less ambitious offer but even this aroused the ire of the farm lobby in Europe. Although the expansion of the EU has increased the pressure for reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), EU farmers have been fighting a rearguard battle to retain their protected markets. But the EU really fronts an even more intractable opposition to agricultural trade liberalisation by the cosseted farmers of Japan and South Korea. Ironically, they may prove to be more difficult to mollify than the Europeans when the trade ministers meet in Hong Kong.

    Neither are the developing countries angels in the world of trade negotiations. The largest gains in real income would result from eliminating current distortions in the agricultural policies of developing countries. But even as the Group of 20 comprising larger developing countries such as Brazil, India and Pakistan sought deep cuts in the agricultural subsidies of the US, EU and other rich countries, they offered only modest tariff reductions.

    More strikingly, their tariffs continue to discriminate against products of other developing countries — a trend compounded by their reduction of tariffs on goods of export interest to developed countries during the previous Uruguay round of trade negotiations. Indian tariffs on soybean oil imported from the US, for example, are significantly less than tariffs on palm oil imported from Malaysia and Indonesia.

    While the developed countries have highlighted the need for liberalisation of the services sector, especially in the developing countries, they remain adamant against opening their economies to the entry of labour from the developing countries, even for industries with significant shortages of domestic labour. On the other hand, in developing countries such as in East Asia, liberalisation of the services sector often occurred as a result of IMF conditions for assistance during the Asian economic crisis rather than as a product of WTO negotiations or unilateral liberalisation. Nevertheless the services sector does not appear a ‘deal breaker’ in Hong Kong if agreement can be reached on agriculture.

    Uneven effects of liberalisation

    More problematic is the uneven effects of global trade liberalisation. Attention is increasingly drawn to the negative impact on some poorer states. Thus the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that enjoy privileged access to the EU for their exports, particularly of bananas and sugar, will find themselves facing an onslaught of global competition. Similarly, least developed countries, which currently enjoy tariff-free access to developed country markets, will face competition from more competitive economies. In textiles and garments, Bangladesh and Cambodia will be shunted out by China and India. With little to gain from more liberalised trade, the least developed countries could be a stumbling block to an agreement unless they are bought off by promises of greater aid to build up their capacity in administration, infrastructure and trade facilitation. As this is a perennial unfulfilled commitment, they are unlikely to be easily convinced. They will remain so even though the evidence is that countries that simplified their trade procedures, established more efficient, transparent governments and improved their physical infrastructure have gained from the expansion of international trade.

    The really troubling development is the squeeze on middle income jobs in the developed countries and on middle income developing countries. These have been groups within countries and in the international system at the forefront of globalisation. But as the pressure increases to outsource jobs in the manufacturing economy and in the knowledge economy to centres with equal skills but much lower costs, we are likely to see these groups turn away from openness to international competition and promoting an increasing acceptance of protectionism.

    In the US, such trends have led highly paid steel and auto industry workers to support anti-dumping measures, import restraints and the inclusion of labour standards provisions in trade agreements. In Germany, it has resulted in stagnant wages, rigid employment practices and declining employment in manufacturing even as the German export miracle continues (since more and more parts and components are imported in place of domestic value added manufacturing).

    For middle income developing countries including ASEAN states such as Malaysia and Thailand, the challenge will be to upgrade knowledge-based skills and compete on capabilities, not cost. Their strength will have to lie in soft competences such as the existence of property rights, the rule of law and a move away from rote learning — rather than the building of hard infrastructure where China will rapidly lead the way in the region. Although the instinct will be to slow the pace of China and India’s integration into the regional and global economy because of the competitive threat posed by these rising powers, this would be an unwise course.

    Given the dismal outlook for the WTO, East Asia will increasingly focus on negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) as a second best option. ASEAN should take the lead in concluding such preferential trading arrangements with China and India. These FTAs will have more trade creating effects than a raft of FTAs with partners around the globe.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries / International Political Economy / Global

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is at a crossroads.

    Failure to reach substantive agreements on agricultural and services liberalisation will prevent the conclusion of the Doha round of trade negotiations at the Hong Kong WTO ministerial meeting in December. East Asia’s rush towards preferential trading arrangements will continue, risking the sidelining of the WTO, as the WTO’s foremost supporters seek a second best option. The rise of China and India will increase the competitive pressures on high-cost skilled labour in the developed countries as well as middle income developing countries, such as Malaysia and Thailand, poised earlier for graduation into the ranks of the developed countries. There will be a growing risk of protectionism rearing its head.

    The French attempt to derail the current Doha round of trade negotiations by requiring that Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, submit every offer for vetting by officials of EU national governments before it is tabled at the Geneva talks. EU foreign ministers rightly rebuffed the French move last week. Content with the stalemate at the WTO, France was prepared to allow a failure in Hong Kong if significant cuts in agricultural protection would be its key outcome. French (and EU) foot-dragging on agriculture has become a staple of WTO negotiations but time is running out.

    The EU factor

    Until the US trade representative Rob Portman tabled a proposal to cut farm tariffs substantially and to abolish export subsidies over five years, the negotiations had stalled. The EU responded with a less ambitious offer but even this aroused the ire of the farm lobby in Europe. Although the expansion of the EU has increased the pressure for reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), EU farmers have been fighting a rearguard battle to retain their protected markets. But the EU really fronts an even more intractable opposition to agricultural trade liberalisation by the cosseted farmers of Japan and South Korea. Ironically, they may prove to be more difficult to mollify than the Europeans when the trade ministers meet in Hong Kong.

    Neither are the developing countries angels in the world of trade negotiations. The largest gains in real income would result from eliminating current distortions in the agricultural policies of developing countries. But even as the Group of 20 comprising larger developing countries such as Brazil, India and Pakistan sought deep cuts in the agricultural subsidies of the US, EU and other rich countries, they offered only modest tariff reductions.

    More strikingly, their tariffs continue to discriminate against products of other developing countries — a trend compounded by their reduction of tariffs on goods of export interest to developed countries during the previous Uruguay round of trade negotiations. Indian tariffs on soybean oil imported from the US, for example, are significantly less than tariffs on palm oil imported from Malaysia and Indonesia.

    While the developed countries have highlighted the need for liberalisation of the services sector, especially in the developing countries, they remain adamant against opening their economies to the entry of labour from the developing countries, even for industries with significant shortages of domestic labour. On the other hand, in developing countries such as in East Asia, liberalisation of the services sector often occurred as a result of IMF conditions for assistance during the Asian economic crisis rather than as a product of WTO negotiations or unilateral liberalisation. Nevertheless the services sector does not appear a ‘deal breaker’ in Hong Kong if agreement can be reached on agriculture.

    Uneven effects of liberalisation

    More problematic is the uneven effects of global trade liberalisation. Attention is increasingly drawn to the negative impact on some poorer states. Thus the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that enjoy privileged access to the EU for their exports, particularly of bananas and sugar, will find themselves facing an onslaught of global competition. Similarly, least developed countries, which currently enjoy tariff-free access to developed country markets, will face competition from more competitive economies. In textiles and garments, Bangladesh and Cambodia will be shunted out by China and India. With little to gain from more liberalised trade, the least developed countries could be a stumbling block to an agreement unless they are bought off by promises of greater aid to build up their capacity in administration, infrastructure and trade facilitation. As this is a perennial unfulfilled commitment, they are unlikely to be easily convinced. They will remain so even though the evidence is that countries that simplified their trade procedures, established more efficient, transparent governments and improved their physical infrastructure have gained from the expansion of international trade.

    The really troubling development is the squeeze on middle income jobs in the developed countries and on middle income developing countries. These have been groups within countries and in the international system at the forefront of globalisation. But as the pressure increases to outsource jobs in the manufacturing economy and in the knowledge economy to centres with equal skills but much lower costs, we are likely to see these groups turn away from openness to international competition and promoting an increasing acceptance of protectionism.

    In the US, such trends have led highly paid steel and auto industry workers to support anti-dumping measures, import restraints and the inclusion of labour standards provisions in trade agreements. In Germany, it has resulted in stagnant wages, rigid employment practices and declining employment in manufacturing even as the German export miracle continues (since more and more parts and components are imported in place of domestic value added manufacturing).

    For middle income developing countries including ASEAN states such as Malaysia and Thailand, the challenge will be to upgrade knowledge-based skills and compete on capabilities, not cost. Their strength will have to lie in soft competences such as the existence of property rights, the rule of law and a move away from rote learning — rather than the building of hard infrastructure where China will rapidly lead the way in the region. Although the instinct will be to slow the pace of China and India’s integration into the regional and global economy because of the competitive threat posed by these rising powers, this would be an unwise course.

    Given the dismal outlook for the WTO, East Asia will increasingly focus on negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) as a second best option. ASEAN should take the lead in concluding such preferential trading arrangements with China and India. These FTAs will have more trade creating effects than a raft of FTAs with partners around the globe.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries / International Political Economy

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO05074 | Doha and Globalisation’s Missing Middle

    Commentary

    The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is at a crossroads. Failure to reach substantive agreements on agricultural and services ...
    more info