موافقت نامه های تجاری منطقه ای و سازمان تجارت جهانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23955||2001||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7950 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Volume 12, Issue 2, July 2001, Pages 193–211
The rapid growth in the number of regional trade agreements (RTAs) has led to concern about the weakening of the multilateral trading system. This paper looks at the spread of such agreements and the extent to which they pose a threat to the system.
There has been rapid growth in the number of regional trade agreements (RTAs) in recent years, giving rise to concerns about the relationship of these inherently discriminatory arrangements to the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade system based on the nondiscriminatory, most-favored nation (MFN) principle. There has also been an increase in the extent to which RTAs overlap, described by Bhagwati as a “spaghetti bowl-to capture the challenge of multiplying rules of origin and the maze of nontariff barriers that now apply almost everywhere to specific commodities” (The Economist, March 3rd 2001). In particular, Bhagwati (1992) raises the question as to whether RTAs pose a threat to the multilateral trading system, while Krueger (1995) worries that the establishment of regional FTAs might create beneficiaries (rent-seekers) who would form a political lobby against multilateralism. In the light of the failure of the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle, these arguments deserve attention, and in Section II we look at how these arguments square up with the new regionalism.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Does membership in an RTA weaken a country’s interest in multilateral negotiations and liberalization, as Bhagwati and Krueger argue? The background of unilateral reforms and increased membership of the strengthened multilateral system suggests that the recent strong trend towards regionalism is somewhat less dangerous to third countries and to the multilateral system than earlier experiences. This conclusion is reinforced by the nature of the new agreements, which have wider coverage of products and instruments than earlier agreements, and thereby enhance the degree of integration. On the other hand, we have certainly heard comments from negotiators to the effect that “If we do not get what we want in the negotiating agenda, why should we worry? We have our own RTA. That is where the action is!” Was this attitude a factor behind the failure of the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999, in line with Alan Winters’ predictions of disaster for the trading system? It is not possible to give easy answers to these questions, because some of the issues, such as labor and environmental standards, which contributed to the failure of Seattle are likely to emerge in FTAA and other regional negotiations. Is frustration with the failure of Seattle likely to increase interest in RTAs? Recent discussions in Japan, Korea, Singapore, and so forth seem to point in this direction.