Abstracts
Abstract
This article departs from the failing of the Doha Development Round and asks for its consequences for international trade. The official credo of the present trade regime is that free trade lies in the interest of all participants. Historical evidence shows however that all the countries which are economically strong today at some point in their history used measures to protect and enhance their economic development. Insofar as this holds even for the US, the article puts into question the official trade credo. Development of domestic demand is key to successful economic performance and consequently should be a major issue on the political agenda of developing countries.
Résumé
Cet article, à partir de l’échec du cercle Doha, se demande ce qui en résulte pour l’avenir du commerce international. En mettant en question le crédo plus ou moins officiel qui le caractérise, à savoir la conviction qu’une dérégulation toujours plus avancée des marchés en arrive finalement au bonheur de tout le monde, l’auteur rappelle que les commencements de l’évolution des économies devenues performantes aujourd’hui, y compris celle des États-Unis, étaient marqués par des politiques plus ou moins protectrices. Le développement de la demande domestique en était toujours un élément-clé qui doit conséquemment devenir un objectif crucial des pays en développement.
Zusammenfassung
Ausgehend vom derzeitigen Stillstand der WHO-Verhandlungen fragt der Artikel nach seinen Auswirkungen auf den internationalen Handel. Das offizielle Credo lautet, freier Handel liege im Interesse und sei zum Wohle aller Handelspartner. Eine historische Betrachtung zeigt indessen, dass alle heute erfolgreichen Länder im Verlauf ihrer eigenen Entwicklung protektionistische Maßnahmen ergriffen haben, um ihre wirtschaftliche Entwicklung vor schädlichen äußeren Einflüssen zu schützen. Das gilt auch für die USA, weshalb das genannte Credo unglaubwürdig sei. Eine kräftige Binnennachfrage erscheint im Lichte dieser historischen Erfahrungen als Kernelement erfolgreicher wirtschaftlicher (Nach-) Entwicklung, weshalb dieser Punkt einen prominenten Platz auf der politischen Agenda von Entwicklungsländern einnehmen sollte.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Blecker, R. A./A. Razmi (2005), Moving up the Ladder to Escape the Adding-up Constraint: New Evidence on the Fallacy of Composition, Department of Economics, American University
- Brown, G. (2006, September 6), “The protectionist backlash”, Wall Street Journal, pp. A-20
- Chang, H.-J. (2002), Kicking away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem
- Gereffi, G. (1994), “The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: How U.S. retailers shape overseas production networks”, in: G. Gereffi/M. Korzeniewicz (Eds.), Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, Westport, Conn.: Praeger
- Gomory, R. E./W. J. Baumol (2000), Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Hamilton, G. (2005), Remaking the Global Economy: U.S. Retailers and Asian Manufacturers, MS
- Kletzer, L./H. Rosen (2005), „Easing the adjustment burden on workers”, in: C. F. Bergsten/Institute for International Economics (U.S.) (Eds.), The United States and the World Economy: Foreign Economic Policy for the Next Decade, Washington, D. C.: Institute for International Economics
- O’Rourke, K. H. (2000), “Tariffs and growth in the late 19th century”, The Economic Journal 110 (463), pp. 456-483
- Ocampo, J. A. (2002), “Lights and shadows in Latin American structural reforms”, Paper presented at the Conference held at the Center for International Studies Program on Latin America and the Caribbean
- Ollila, J./P. Sutherland (2006, April 24), “Business is fearful as Doha nears the precipice”, Financial Times
- Palley, T. (2002), “A new development paradigm: Domestic demand-led growth” (electronic version), Foreign Policy in Focus, September, 2
- Palley, T. (2003), “Export-led growth: Is there any evidence of crowding-out”, in: P. Arestis/M. Baddeley/J. S. L. McCombie (Eds.), Globalisation, Regionalism, and Economic Activity, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA.: Edward Elgar Publishing
- Palley, T. (2003), “International trade, macroeconomics and exchange rates: Re-examining the foundations of trade policy”, Paper presented at the conference Globalization and the Myths of Free Trade
- Palley, T. (2006), “The economics of outsourcing: How should policy respond?” (electronic version), Foreign Policy in Focus, March 2
- Palley, T. (2006), “Thinking outside the box about trade, development, and poverty reduction” (electronic version), Foreign Policy in Focus, January 18
- Palley, T. (2006), “Developing the domestic market: the gap in the IMF and World Bank theories of Economic Development”, Challenge 49 (5)
- Palley, T. (2006), “Rethinking trade and trade policy: Gomory, Baumol and Samuelson on comparative advantage”, Public Policy Brief Series, 86
- Palley, T. I. (2004), “The economic case for international labour standards”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 28 (1), pp. 21-36
- Polaski, S. (2006), Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries, Carnegie Endowment Report, Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Endowment
- Rodrik, D./F. Rodriquez (2000), “Trade policy and economic growth: A skeptic’s guide to the cross-national evidence”, in: B. S. Bernanke/K. Rogoff (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
- Samuelson, P. A. (2004), “Where Ricardo and Mill rebut and confirm arguments of mainstream economists supporting globalization”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (3), pp. 135-146
- Thomas, I. P. (2005), “Labour standards, democracy and wages: some cross-country evidence”, Journal of International Development 17 (7), pp. 883-898