A Doha Round trade agreement should make most people better off. It can play a role in reducing poverty in developing nations. Why are the negotiations so difficult? Why is this so painful?
In March, Aaditya Mattoo and Arvind Subramanian argued that the negotiations would only produce a modest result: Why Prospects for Trade Talks are not Bright (Finance & Development, March 2005).
Mattoo and Subramanian noted that the pressure for past multilateral trade agreements has come from business interests in developed countries.
Many businesses may benefit enough to find that working for an agreement is a good investment (Global trade advocacy offers huge commercial returns, Peter Gallagher, July 20, 2005). People who might also benefit as individual consumers or workers, either may not see the connection between liberal trade rules and benefits, or may not benefit enough themselves to find an investment in this issue worthwhile. Thus the importance of business leadership, although Mattoo and Subramanian don't get into this.
They do note, however, that this time business interests have been relatively disengaged. And, Mattoo and Subramanian argue, why not: Many developing countries have been reducing trade barriers unilaterally, often at the urging of the World Bank and IMF. This reduces the incentive of businesses in developed countries to negotiate. They can also get much of what they want through regional trade agreements. Moreover, multilateral agreements take a long time to reach - bilateral or regional agreements may be quicker.
Moreover, areas in which developing countries have special interest - agriculture, textiles, labor mobility, and services - are very sensitive for developed countries.