¿Cuales serían las consecuencias de un fracaso de la ronda de Doha para el mundo en desarrollo? 
Autor : Jean-Michel Severino
Date : July 30th, 2008
Comentarios : 9
La ronda de Doha llega debilitada al fracaso de las negociaciones de Ginebra a finales de Julio. ¿Cuales serían las consecuencias de un fracaso de la ronda de Doha para el mundo en desarrollo?
“El fracaso del ciclo de Doha tendría consecuencias muy importantes en la vida económica internacional porque demostraría, de manera general, la imposibilidad existente de que los países desarrollados y los países en vías de desarrollo se pongan de acuerdo sobre un contexto comercial que podría facilitar y acelerar el desarrollo económico de los países más pobres.
Así pues, esto es inaceptable y, además de las importantes consecuencias que este fracaso pudiera tener en el desarrollo del comercio internacional y, en consecuencia, del lugar que ocupan los propios países en vías de desarrollo, este fracaso se extendería sin duda a otras negociaciones internacionales, aumentaría el clima de desconfianza que podría instaurarse entre países desarrollados y países pobres y debilitaría el conjunto de la gobernanza internacional tanto en temas como el medio ambiente, como en la gestión financiera internacional o la gestión de los riesgos sanitarios. Por tanto, es imprescindible que consigamos encontrar los compromisos adecuados mediante los cuales los países en desarrollo podrán insertarse progresivamente en un comercio internacional en donde tendrán la posibilidad de proteger sus actividades más sensibles y tener en cuenta sus especificidades. Al mismo tiempo, se trata de un ciclo que permitirá aumentar el nivel de apertura y de intercambio que todo el planeta necesita.”
Hugo
Date : August 18th, 2008 03:56:29
Le cycle de Doha a débuté dans un contexte international différent de ce qu’il est aujourd’hui.Les objectifs que l’on se fixe en temps de “paix” sont toujours plus amibitieux et optimistes que ceux qui résultent de la gestion de la pénurie ou du rapport de forces qu’elle dicte.
Ainsi, un échec de Doha serait-il vraiment un échec? Ne serait-il pas simplement l’illustration d’un contexte mondial très nouveau ces 4 dernières années? En ce sens, ne serait-il pas partiellement utile pour en esquisser des adaptations plus sérieuses que celles qui résultent des seules négociations actuelles? Par exemple conditionner beaucoup plus qu’aujourd’hui l’intégration des pays en développement (pas émergents) aux résultats effectifs de politiques de développement endogènes du secteur privé et la formation professionnelle…
Marcellin BITHA
Date : August 14th, 2008 08:38:30
Mes souvenirs ne sont pas précis mais je me rappelle d’une reflexion d’un économiste des années 50 qui diobservait avec justesse que l’égalité n’est pas de ce monde et que le développement ne se construit qu’avec la réduction des inégalités inutiles.
De fait, le diktat de certains pays est patent. Mais il faudra un jour que les responsables de ces pays se soucient de leurs approvisionnements et de leurs débouchés. Ne pas donner la possibilité à l’Afrique de s’exprimer aussi sur les marchés internationaux est alors faire preuve de myopie. Le risque : une rupture des approvisionnements faute de bras - pas de possibilité de reconstituer la force de travail; ou encore sur l’autre versant, pas de débouchés pour cause d’absence de consommateurs faute clients solvables.
Tout ceci est-il bien utile, bien pensé? Non. Les flux de jeunes aux frontières de l’Europe, de l’Occident en est bel et bien une illustration. Plausible et concrète.
Phillip Huggan
Date : August 11th, 2008 09:02:28
Typo. Meant to say sunflowers are directly substituble for corn. Even though all of the above are found in southern Manitoba. Not sure if it is really fair to attack corn on a feed basis but corn syrup and corn ethanol are good enough indirect reasons. The mentioned carbon price shift would have provisions for low income Canadians, maybe the same sort of thing could be engineered for low-income meat consumers under a hunger price shift?
Phillip Huggan
Date : August 11th, 2008 02:42:28
I recently read circa 1980’s “The Politics of Hunger”. The same process continually replays. Grain prices rise and urban poor and farm labourers are starved. Prices fall and 3rd world farmers are hit.
I’ve been inspired by the appearance in Canadian politics of a carbon price shift; these shifts are key to salvaging the capitalist economic model. I’m forwarding the concept of a hunger price shift: subsidize wheat storage and tariff feed grains.
Wheat is primarily consumed directly by people; only the lowest grade harvests are used for feed. Whereas barley and to my knowledge millet are feed crops primarily. The idea is to index a tariff on feed grains inversely proportional to the global level of wheat stores. Same for a wheat subsidy. When wheat stores are high, drop the wheat subsidy and feed tariff. When wheat is depleted, subsidize it and tariff feed grains.
The concept only works if wheat storage facilities are robust, otherwise the price shift can be mitigated by underfunding wheat elevators. I’ve omitted oats (feed) because they are relatively high in protein. I’ve omitted corn because I don’t think it is directly substitutable for wheat. Corn grows in a slightly warmer climate. A creative way to penalize corn is to subsidize sunflowers (directly substitutable for wheat), and tariff canola (can be grown where wheat is). This assumes consumers of these oils can switch easily.
A hunger price shift helps account for increasing develpoping world meat consumption, but makes poor 1st world consumers consume less meat.
Regarding Doha, there have been two main development models. The bad model is where countries farm export crops and import non-productivity enhancing consumer and (non-farm)capital goods that exceed crop export revenues. Rising debt levels affect ability to borrow for productivity enhancing investments.
The successful model is where the country borrows for farm machinery, pesticides, fertilizer, GMO seeds and irrigation. Non-labour agri-productivty advances release workjers to be absorbed in cities. Assuming there is higher wage labour-intesnsive employment in cities, a larger urban workforce creates more demand for agri-goods and a virtuous cycle is created eventually enabling industrial productivity advances to pay down the debt.
I think where debt was created to support the failed model, and the nation is now not using the exploitative model, debt should be forgiven. Especially if debt payments prevent social investments in non-corrupt regimes.
ekhf
Date : August 4th, 2008 01:36:56
La gouvernance internationale est aujourd’hui rendue difficile par le climat économique et financier mondial.
L’économie des pays industrialisés arrive à maturité, voire approche de la mauvaise pente.
La transmission de savoirs vers les pays les plus pauvres n’a jamais véritablement été réalisée et les pays industrialisés se retrouvent dépassés par les évènements.
L’ouverture tant voulue mais finalement jamais actée fait place à la méfiance!
Qui peut prendre le relais si ce n’est ces pays en développement!
L’échec du cycle de Doha serait d’ores et déjà une catastrophe économique silencieuse! Il faut passer la main et insuffler une nouvelle logique de dynamiques humaines, économiques, financières, de développement mondial.
La crise des pays du G8 approche! laissons la place sagement aux héritiers…
CHE THUY NHU
Date : August 2nd, 2008 02:32:24
Comment on the Ministers meeting from 21/7 to 31 / July
WTO have many functions.
Doha Negotiations is one of WTO functions .
Many persons ask me : why you follow this BLOG .As my experience : money is not all .development ideas are very important .Vietnam sign many projects, but hard implemented it. Reasons are : weak human resource , lack of information , lack of orientation in strategy .
We understand that : what we decide to day , we will pay in the future. What is inside the strategy of Global .
I follow this meeting because we are new member ( since January 2007 ) . Many things we don’t know . What will happen with us in the future ? What we will choose to do , what refuse .
This conference give me the Global picture : knowledge , management skill , working with countries … It help us in the development’s way .
Elsa
Date : August 1st, 2008 10:26:31
Bonjour,
Je suis d’accord avec vous M. Severino, il nous faut arriver à un compromis pour que les pays ne se retrouvent pas par la suite seuls à négocier au cas par cas, mais la devise de certains pays semble être “faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais” ! Pourquoi prôner un marché libre et concurrentiel d’un côté et subventionner fortement des activités comme l’agriculture ? Les pays développés souffriraient-ils d’un dédoublement de personnalité ? J’espère que cet échec sera source de réflexion et de remise en question pour tous.
Mrs. Anindita Dey
Date : August 1st, 2008 09:13:37
I consider the question of consequences of a collapse of the Doha negotiation from the perspective of developing nations is irrelevant since the very willingness to sit and discuss for a deal itself demonstrate that all is looser due the failure of Doha Round of talk. That’s why, all leaders have expressed that gains from current round of talk is to be carried forward. More importantly, the discussion should focus on why it has failed and what to do for the future. First of all, we have to remember– and WTO Director General Pascal Lamy knows it better — that deal is all about the democratic way of give and take for common goal of mutual benefit. Numerous bilateral trade agreements and large number of trade groups in practice worldwide, is a testimony that such an agreement is possible with larger group as was tried in Doha Round. The new confrontation line on distinction of livelihood and commerce is having immense socio-political importance not only in Indian sub-continent but also in many developing countries and more so in least developed countries. This new vista needs to be looked into for the deal to happen. There is no denying fact that the rural poor in many developing countries feel left out of the financial windfall. A more dangerous trend of sympathising and aligning such left-outs with anti-establishment rebel groups has amply demonstrated in many studies. Hence, ignoring livelihood and signing a deal that have a bearing on 300 million alone in India and more than about a billon in the world who live with less than a dollar a day may actually prove more disastrous for the world peace. This is not to paint a gloomy picture about the future of the talk but to put vividly the realty on ground. We need to optimistic for the talk, but at the same time consider the other side of the coin too. Because, as it is rightly said, both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the aeroplane and the pessimist, the parachute. We need to push the deal but not before dissecting and curbing the possible future ills properly, albeit those might have emerged later.
Chris
Date : July 31st, 2008 09:56:22
Exciting times… does this signal the end of economic globalisation as we’ve known it in the last decades? A move away from the (somewhat simplistic) understanding that freer trade ultimately benefits most actors of the system?
I agree that a collapse of the Doha round would be the failure of the first genuine attempt to reach a much fairer international trade regime. But the real question is how likely it is that talks in Geneva mean an end of the round. Any thoughts?