Multilateralism is waning, and one of the world’s leading multilateral institutions, the WTO, is in crisis because the US has been blocking new appointments to its dispute settlement mechanism’s Appellate Body since 2018.
In the run-up to the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference last month, some optimists hoped to see progress on specific issues, such as an agreement not to impose tariffs on digital commerce, but expectations were generally low.
The pessimists were right. India led the charge against extending a moratorium on e-commerce tariffs, and only a last-minute deal prolonged it for another two years. After that, it is expected to expire.
Illustration: Yusha
India and its allies celebrated the outcome as a victory. For the first time in years, the culprit undermining the WTO was not the US, but developing countries such as Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil.
True, what happened with digital commerce is characteristic of the usual conflicts that play out during trade negotiations. Free trade always produces winners and losers. Digital commerce might be in the interest of businesses in advanced economies, as well as consumers and businesses in low and middle-income countries. Users of an app, game or other software product made in a different country can pay lower prices in the absence of tariffs.
However, domestic producers reliably demand protection from imports, and governments see tariffs as a promising way to boost revenues.
While these issues are typical, developing countries’ opposition to an extended digital-tax moratorium is emblematic of a deeper problem: namely, the growing impression that the WTO has nothing to offer them anymore. The assumption is that it unilaterally serves the interests of big businesses rather than of the average person in a low or middle-income country.
Yet is this true?
Recent research shows that poverty reduction in the past three decades has been more likely in developing countries that are well integrated into the international trade system — as measured by the number of signed trade agreements and access to large, lucrative export markets. In this sense, the multilateral trade system has benefited the developing world.
International integration is particularly important for smaller economies. Unlike India and China, countries such as Thailand, Kenya and Rwanda cannot fall back on large domestic markets. No wonder opposition to trade deals so often comes from larger developing countries such as India, Indonesia and Brazil. They can afford to turn their back on international trade if the terms of the proposed deal are not enticing enough.
Yet even these countries appreciate the benefits of participation in global trade. For example, India used the closing of the Ministerial Conference to reaffirm its commitment to negotiation and multilateralism, in principle.
The question, then, is why developing countries have such a negative view of the WTO specifically.
Their dissatisfaction dates back to 1995, when the WTO succeeded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
At the time, developing countries felt that they had just been pressured into signing a trade-related intellectual property rights agreement that would yield big payoffs for multinational corporations without offering many benefits to their own populations.
Another ongoing source of tension is agriculture, where developing countries traditionally have a comparative advantage. Existing trade agreements continue to permit high-income countries to subsidize local producers and impose tariffs on imports. Other rules, escape clauses and notification requirements have created de facto loopholes that only countries with abundant resources are able to exploit.
For example, fishing subsidies — another area of major contention — are permitted under certain conditions, but monitoring fishing stocks to prove that such conditions are being met is prohibitively expensive for most developing countries.
They therefore have good reason to complain that international trade rules are biased against them.
Looking ahead, a potentially bigger issue concerns advanced economies’ efforts to link trade agreements to labor and environmental standards, such as through the EU’s proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. While well-intentioned, advanced economies must recognize that their efforts to address climate, labor and human-rights issues could have serious distributional consequences, potentially coming at the expense of many developing countries.
This is especially true of climate change. Low-income countries could have the most to lose from the consequences of climate change, but they are understandably reluctant to impede their own growth to fix a problem caused by richer countries’ past sins. Combine these concerns with high-income countries’ push toward “friend-shoring” — which implies more trade among rich countries, given the current geopolitical map — and today’s world starts to look even more like one where advanced economies are pitted against developing ones.
Ironically, the obvious way to avoid such division is to revive multilateralism. Now more than ever, challenges are global in nature and thus call for global solutions.
However, shared objectives, by definition, must account for the concerns of developing countries. That is what successful multilateralism has always demanded.
Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, a former World Bank Group chief economist and editor-in-chief of the American Economic Review, is a professor of economics at Yale University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS