Read on Twitter
W/ @USTradeRep support over the weekend for @NOIweala it seems as if multilateralism didn't see its shadow after all. This week, my IEL & Development students get to consider the development dimension in trade, and can listen to my interview w/ the great @_AnabelG @PIIE.
In addition to the WTO Agreements, my students will consider the historical and political contexts of "special and differential treatment" w/ @AmritaNarlikar recent book https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108234191 and @nicolas_lamp review on how developing countries became "special."
Its interesting that @snlester recently asked about the relationship between trade & development. FWIW, its not just that there are different approaches to what development is and how to achieve it, but also how the GATT solidified a particular approach to economic growth.
Just a quick example, is Clair Wilcox (head of US delegation for constructing multilateral trading system) laid out key tensions that fed into how developing countries became "special". First, was the Cold War veil & US determination that countries steer clear of collectivism:
But also, the quick dismissal of individual proposals from "undeveloped" countries. On one hand, the focus here was on industrialization and not poverty ( @AmritaNarlikar) but also, it rejects options to consider plurality in state interventions.
Wilcox acknowledges the ITO (re: US) cannot force countries to abandon state interventions (he's concerned about socialism), but the US seeks an international economic order conducive to 'the preservation of private enterprise' within those countries that choose it.'
@RichardToye cites to the fact the US could "divide and conquer" the capital-seeking countries in the negotiations, which mattered as the US also treated the "Latin American" bloc as a hurdle to the success of the Charter for the ITO.
Also, measurement of development was just developing. ITO members may aspire to develop, but strategies, whether newly independent or war-torn, were homogenous. Today, @inumanak & Bacchus and @_AnabelG seek scrutiny of indicators and look to more tailored, case-by-case approach.
Work citations!
@_AnabelG work here: https://www.piie.com/experts/senior-research-staff/anabel-gonzalez
@inumanak and Jim Bacchus work @CatoTrade is here: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-04/PA-887-update.pdf
Nicolas' work here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2455952
@richardtoye here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07075332.2003.9640997
@_AnabelG work here: https://www.piie.com/experts/senior-research-staff/anabel-gonzalez
@inumanak and Jim Bacchus work @CatoTrade is here: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-04/PA-887-update.pdf
Nicolas' work here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2455952
@richardtoye here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07075332.2003.9640997
I also want to note that @inumanak and Bacchus share @clairgammage recent reflection on her own work, and expanding out the idea of development by considering the development of human capabilities. https://twitter.com/clairgammage/status/1358493130161553408?s=20
