The Doha Round negotiations are beginning to jerk forward again with informal trade minister meetings at the Davos World Economic Forum. Are we likely to see progress this year?
Simon Evenett (of the University of St. Gallen) doesn't see the Doha Round ending until 2009 if things don't come together shortly: The WTO Ministerial Conference In Hong Kong: What Next?.
There are reasons to worry about the prospect of a deal in 2006:
- The U.S. administration won't provoke protectionist interests in a mid-term, Congressional, election year.
- It's not just the French, and it wasn't just this fall. E.U. concerns about compromising further on agriculture are widespread and deep.
- E.U. leadership in the crucial first half of this year (Austria has the E.U. presidency) is not as willing to make agricultural concessions as the leadership late last year.
- German Chancellor Merkel may be interested in agricultural compromise, but is likely to be constrained by coalition partners representing heavily agricultural areas.
- Russia (not yet a WTO member) is unlikely to use its G8 Presidency to provide Doha leadership.
and in 2007:
- U.S. fast track authority expires mid-year.
- French Presidential elections this year are likely to make the French even more gun-shy of reform.
- During the second half of the year candidates will be preparing for the Presidential primaries in the spring of 2008. This may not be a good time for trade concessions.
and in 2008:
- Reductions in U.S. agricultural subsidies during a presidential election year are unlikely.
But in 2009:
After a scramble in the first half of 2006, the next window of opportunity will probably open in 2009.
Given the doubts expressed above about the likelihood of concluding the Doha Round in 2006-2008, the next window of opportunity for the hard bargaining necessary to wrap up the Doha Round would appear to be in 2009.
There's a lot in this article - a nice, brief summary of the Hong Kong results, reflections on the appropriate metric to use for measuring success in Hong Kong, a much more careful analysis of the argument for 2009 than I've given here, and a discussion of steps that could be taken to lay the groundwork for successful negotiations if things are delayed to 2009.
Comments