CHAPTER
9
Nontariff Trade
Barriers and the New
Protectionism
LEARNING
GOALS:
After reading this chapter, you should be able
to:
Know the meaning and effect of quotas
and other nontariff trade barriers
Describe the effect of dumping and
export subsidies
Explain the political economy of
protectionism and strategic and
industrial policies
Describe the effect of the Uruguay
Round and the aims of the Doha Round
Introductio
n
• While tariffs have historically been the primary form of trade restriction, various nontariff trade barriers, such as
import quotas, voluntary export restraints, and antidumping measures, have gained significance as tariffs were
reduced during the postwar period. This chapter focuses on analyzing the effects of nontariff trade barriers,
beginning with Section 9.2, which compares the impacts of import quotas to those of import tariffs.
• Section 9.3 discusses other nontariff trade barriers, including regulations and trade barriers related to
international cartels, dumping, and export subsidies. Section 9.4 presents arguments for protectionism, ranging
from fallacious claims to those with economic validity, while Section 9.5 covers strategic trade and industrial
policies. Section 9.6 provides a historical overview of U.S. trade policy from 1934 to the present, and Section 9.7
reviews the outcomes of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the initiation of the Doha Round, and current
global trade challenges. The appendix addresses the graphical operation of centralized cartels and explores the
use of taxes and subsidies instead of tariffs to address domestic market distortions.
Import Quotas
A quota is the most important nontariff trade barrier. It is a direct
quantitative restriction on the amount of a commodity allowed to be
imported or exported. In this section, we examine import quotas. Export
quotas (in the form of voluntary export restraints) are examined in
Section 9.3a. An import quota is examined in this section with the same
type of partial equilibrium analysis used in Section 8.2 to analyze the
effects of an import tariff. The similarities between an import quota and
an equivalent import tariff are also noted.
Effects of an Import Quota
I mport quotas serve to protect domestic industries, agriculture, and for
balance-of-payments purposes. Following World War II, they were
prevalent in Western Europe and have since been adopted by industrial
nations to safeguard agriculture and by developing countries to promote
import substitution and enhance balance-of-payments.
The partial equilibrium effects of an import quota can be exemplified
by a market for commodity X. Under free trade at a world price of
$P_X = $1$, consumption is 70X, with 10X produced domestically and
60X imported. Imposing an import quota of 30X raises the domestic
price to $PX = $2$, similar to a 100% import tariff. This price
adjustment results in a reduction of consumption by 20X and an
increase in domestic production by 10X.
If the government auctions import licenses, the revenue effect would
total $30 for the quota. An upward shift in demand to 𝐷𝑋D X with a
fixed quota of 30X would raise the price to $P_X = $2.50$ and
domestic production to 25X, increasing consumption to 55X.
Conversely, under a 100% import tariff, the price remains at $2, with
domestic production at 20X, but consumption rises to 65X and imports
increase to 45X.
Comparison of an Import Quota to an Import
The shift from demand curve 𝐷𝑋D X to 𝐷𝑋D X highlights key differences between import quotas and equivalent import
Tariff
tariffs. An increase in demand under an import quota results in a higher domestic price and increased production than
under a tariff, where prices and production remain stable but consumption and imports rise. An import quota modifies the
market mechanism entirely, while a tariff adjusts the quantity of imports.
Another significant difference is that import quotas involve the distribution of licenses. If these licenses are not auctioned
competitively, firms that receive them can earn monopoly profits. License distribution may rely on arbitrary government
decisions rather than efficiency, creating opportunities for corruption through lobbying and rent-seeking activities.
Consequently, import quotas not only disrupt market operations but also engender inefficiencies and corruption.
Import quotas ensure an exact limitation on imports, while the impact of tariffs may be uncertain due to variable demand
and supply elasticities. Tariffs can lead to unexpected import reductions as foreign exporters may adjust pricing. In
contrast, import quotas define a clear quantity limit, making them preferable to domestic producers despite being more
restrictive. Notably, one outcome of the Uruguay Round aimed to convert import quotas and other nontariff barriers into
equivalent tariffs, a process referred to as "tariffication."
Other Nontariff Barriers and the New
Protectionism
This section focuses on trade barriers beyond import tariffs and quotas,
including voluntary export restraints and various technical and
administrative regulations. Nontariff trade barriers (NTBs), which also arise
from international cartels, dumping, and export subsidies, have gained
prominence over the past two decades. They represent a significant
challenge to global trade, often deemed as the new protectionism, and are
analyzed in detail, beginning with voluntary export restraints.
Voluntary Export Restraints
oluntary export restraints (VERs) are a significant form of nontariff trade barriers (NTBs),
V
whereby an importing country persuades another nation to limit its exports of a commodity
"voluntarily" to protect domestic industries from decline. Since the 1950s, the United States, the
European Union, and other industrial nations have negotiated VERs on textiles, steel, electronics,
and automobiles from countries like Japan and Korea. These arrangements, sometimes referred to
as "orderly marketing arrangements," allow industrial nations to maintain a facade of support for
free trade while curbing imports.
The Uruguay Round mandated the phasing out of all VERs by 1999 and prohibited new ones.
Successful VERs have economic effects akin to equivalent import quotas, with revenues captured
by foreign exporters. For instance, the 1981 restraint on Japanese automobile exports to the U.S.
and the 1982 agreements limiting steel imports were intended to protect domestic jobs but
resulted in increased prices. While VERs provided some job security, they were less effective than
quotas, as exporting nations often reluctantly agreed to them and tended to fill quotas with
higher-quality, pricier goods. Additionally, only major suppliers were usually involved, allowing
other countries to replace their exports and facilitating transshipments through third nations.
Technical, Administrative, and Other
Regulations
International trade faces numerous obstacles due to technical, administrative, and regulatory barriers.
These include safety regulations for automobiles and electrical equipment, health standards for food
products, and labeling requirements for origin and contents. While many regulations serve legitimate
purposes, some, such as the French ban on Scotch advertisements and British restrictions on foreign films,
effectively disguise import restrictions.
Government procurement policies also create trade barriers by mandating that governments purchase from
domestic suppliers. For instance, the "Buy American Act" of 1933 allowed U.S. agencies to favor domestic
suppliers by up to 12%, and 50% for defense contracts. In response, nations, including the U.S., agreed on a
government procurement code during the Tokyo Round to promote fair competition for foreign suppliers.
Additionally, border taxes, which include rebates for internal indirect taxes given to exporters and tariffs
imposed on importers, affect trade. U.S. exporters typically receive less favorable rebates compared to
European exporters, creating a competitive disadvantage. Other trade restrictions, such as international
commodity agreements and varied exchange rates, are more relevant to developing nations and
international finance, and are discussed in later chapters.
International Cartels
An international cartel comprises suppliers from different nations or a coalition of governments that
agree to restrict output and exports to maximize collective profits. While domestic cartels are illegal in
the United States and restricted in Europe, international cartels like OPEC (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries) operate beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. OPEC notably succeeded in
quadrupling crude oil prices between 1973 and 1974 by limiting production and exports.
The effectiveness of an international cartel is greater when there are few suppliers of a crucial
commodity with no close substitutes. OPEC met these criteria in the 1970s, but organizing a cartel
becomes more challenging with many suppliers or the availability of substitutes. This has hindered the
establishment of international cartels in minerals and other agricultural products, with few exceptions.
The fundamental challenge for cartels lies in their members' incentive to cheat by undercutting
agreed prices. This was highlighted for OPEC in the 1980s when high prices spurred oil production by
nonmembers, leading to excess supply and significantly lower prices. Cartels are often unstable and
prone to collapse, despite their potential to operate like a monopolist when successful in restricting
output and maximizing profits.
Dumping
Dumping occurs when a commodity is exported at a price below its cost or lower than its domestic market price,
categorized as persistent, predatory, or sporadic. Persistent dumping involves a monopolist selling at a higher
price domestically while undercutting prices internationally. Predatory dumping aims to temporarily sell below cost
to eliminate foreign competition, after which prices are increased for maximized profits. Sporadic dumping refers
to occasional sales below cost to relieve excess inventory.
To counteract predatory dumping, trade restrictions like antidumping duties are employed to protect domestic
industries. However, determining the type of dumping can be challenging. Historically, countries such as Japan
have faced accusations of dumping steel and electronics, while the EU has been noted for dumping cars and
agricultural products.
The U.S. established a trigger-price mechanism in 1978 to expedite antidumping investigations, particularly
concerning steel imports. Following the expiration of voluntary export restraints in 1992, numerous antidumping
actions were initiated by U.S. steel producers against foreign competitors. Further, a significant trade dispute
arose in the 1980s involving Japanese computer chip exports, leading to import duties.
By 2007, 29 countries had antidumping laws, with the U.S. resolving disputes related to imports of various
products through investigations and negotiations. Antidumping measures in force rose from 880 in 1998 to 1,683
in 2011, with many investigations leading to either duties imposed or price increases by exporters.
Export Subsidies
Export subsidies are direct payments (or the granting of tax
relief and subsidized loans) to the nation’s exporters or
potential exporters and/or low-interest loans to foreign buyers
to stimulate the nation’s exports. As such, export subsidies can
be regarded as a form of dumping. Although export subsidies
are illegal by international agreement, many nations provide
them in disguised and not-so-disguised forms.
Analysis of Export Subsidies
Export subsidies can significantly affect a country's
commodity pricing and trade dynamics. In Figure 9.2, Nation
2's demand and supply curves for commodity X are shown.
With a free trade world price of $3.50, Nation 2 produces
35X, consumes 20X, and exports 15X. By implementing a
subsidy of $0.50 per unit exported, the domestic price rises
to $4.00, leading to production increases to 40X,
consumption decreases to 10X, and exports rising to 30X.
While this price increase benefits producers, it harms
consumers, who incur a total loss of $7.50. Producers gain
$18.75, while the government subsidy costs $15. The
deadweight loss from the subsidy totals $3.75, reflecting the
inefficiencies and resource allocation losses incurred by
Nation 2. Despite these financial drawbacks, export subsidies
are often driven by lobbying from domestic producers or
government interests in promoting certain high-technology
industries.
oreign consumers benefit from increased exports, receiving
F
30X instead of 15X at the lower pre-subsidy price. If Nation 2
were larger, it would also experience a decline in its terms of
trade, necessitating price reductions to expand exports of
commodity X.
The Political Economy of
Protectionism
In this section, we analyze the various arguments for protection.
These range from clearly fallacious propositions to arguments that
can stand up, with some qualification, to close economic scrutiny.
Fallacious and Questionable Arguments for
Protection
The argument that trade restrictions are necessary to protect domestic labor from cheap
foreign labor is fallacious. It overlooks that even if domestic wages are higher, labor costs
can be lower if productivity at home is significantly higher. Furthermore, trade based on
comparative advantage allows countries with cheaper labor to specialize in labor-intensive
production, while countries with higher wages may focus on capital-intensive goods.
Another misleading argument is the notion of a scientific tariff, which claims that tariffs can
align import prices with domestic prices. This approach would effectively eliminate
international price differences, undermining trade.
Arguments for protection to reduce domestic unemployment and address balance-of-
payments deficits are also flawed. Such measures act as beggar-thy-neighbor policies,
creating greater unemployment and worsening deficits in other countries, potentially leading
to retaliation. Instead of relying on trade restrictions, domestic issues like unemployment and
deficits should be addressed through appropriate monetary, fiscal, and trade policies.
The Infant-Industry and Other Qualified Arguments for
Protection
The infant-industry argument for protection asserts that nations may need temporary trade protection for emerging
industries that lack the know-how and scale to compete with established foreign firms. This protection allows them to
develop until they can successfully face international competition and achieve economies of scale. However, the
argument carries significant qualifications.
It is mainly justified for developing nations, where capital markets may be underdeveloped, rather than for
industrialized countries. Additionally, identifying which industries warrant protection can be challenging, and once
granted, such protections tend to be difficult to remove. Importantly, while trade protection can support these
industries, direct production subsidies are typically more effective without distorting domestic prices and consumption.
Furthermore, market distortions can often be addressed more effectively with domestic policies rather than trade
measures. For instance, encouraging industries that create external economies via import restrictions is less beneficial
than providing subsidies, which stimulate growth without imposing higher costs on consumers. Although protective
measures might be proposed for industries crucial to national defense, production subsidies are generally preferable.
The concept of "bargaining tariffs" exists as a strategy to induce mutual tariff reductions among nations. The optimum
tariff can theoretically improve a nation's terms of trade if it holds sufficient market power; however, such tariffs often
lead to retaliation, causing overall losses. Empirical evidence from Broda, Limao, and Weinstein (2009) indicates that
countries impose higher tariffs on goods with lower export supply elasticities, complicating the argument for blanket
protectionist policies.
Who Gets Protected?
rade protectionism increases commodity prices, benefiting producers while harming consumers and often the
T
economy overall. Producers, being fewer in number, have strong incentives to lobby for protective measures, while
consumers face diffused losses and lack effective organization against such policies. This creates a bias favoring
protectionism, exemplified by the U.S. sugar quota.
Economists have explored various theories regarding the beneficiaries of trade protection. In industrialized nations,
labor-intensive industries employing low-wage workers tend to receive more protection, as these workers have limited
alternative employment options. Organized industries, such as automobiles, also benefit more from trade protections.
Additionally, industries producing consumer products often secure more protection than those producing intermediate
products due to the latter's ability to oppose higher input costs.
Geographic factors also play a role; industries with a larger workforce spread across multiple regions have more
electoral power in seeking protection. There is a tendency to maintain the status quo in trade policies, favoring
industries previously protected, and governments are reluctant to implement changes that significantly alter income
distribution.
Lastly, competition from developing countries leads to increased protection for domestic industries, as these nations
have less economic and political leverage against trade restrictions. Among various sectors, the textiles and apparel
industry remains the most protected in the U.S.
Strategic Trade and Industrial Policies
In this section we examine strategic and industrial policies, first in
general (Section 9.5a) and then by utilizing game theory (Section
9.5b). In Section 9.5c we discuss the U.S. response to foreign
industrial targeting and strategic trade policies.
Strategic Trade Policy
Strategic trade policy supports an activist approach to trade and protectionism, arguing that nations can create
comparative advantages in high-technology industries like semiconductors, computers, and telecommunications through
temporary protection, subsidies, and government-industry cooperation. Such industries often involve high risks and
require large-scale production to realize economies of scale, providing substantial external benefits.
This policy, taken to the infant-industry argument for developing nations, aims to bolster industrial nations' growth in
crucial sectors. Many countries employ some form of strategic trade policy, with some economists attributing Japan's
postwar industrial and technological success to these strategies. Notable examples include Japan's investment in
semiconductors in the 1970s and 1980s, which shifted market dominance from the U.S. to Japan, largely due to
government initiatives.
However, skeptics argue that Japan's success is more attributable to factors such as a strong emphasis on education and
long-term investments. In Europe, while the Concorde was technologically advanced, it was commercially unsuccessful
and Airbus relied heavily on government subsidies to survive.
Although strategic trade policy has theoretical benefits in oligopolistic markets, significant challenges arise in its
execution. Identifying potential winners and developing effective policies is notably complex. Additionally, when multiple
nations implement similar strategies, their efforts can cancel each other out, minimizing benefits. Furthermore, successful
policies often provoke retaliatory measures from other countries. Consequently, many proponents of strategic trade
ultimately concede that free trade, despite theoretical shortcomings, remains the best practical approach.
Strategic Trade and Industrial Policies with Game
Theory
Game theory can effectively analyze strategic trade and industrial policy through examples like the
Boeing and Airbus competition over a new aircraft. In this scenario, if both companies produce the
aircraft, each incurs a loss of $10 million. If only one produces, it makes a profit of $100 million
while the other gains nothing. With Boeing entering the market first, Airbus faces barriers to profit
without government intervention.
If European governments provide a $15 million subsidy to Airbus, it enables them to produce
despite initial losses, turning a $10 million loss into a $5 million profit. Consequently, Boeing would
find itself making a loss and would stop production, allowing Airbus to profit significantly without
competition.
Historically, Airbus announced the development of the A380, competing directly with Boeing's 747.
In response, Boeing planned its 787 Dreamliner and 747-8, prompting further competition. The
WTO later ruled both companies had illegally subsidized their aircraft development, with Airbus
facing heavier penalties. The analysis underscores the complexities of strategic government
policies and the challenges in forecasting accurate outcomes, which is why many economists still
advocate for free trade as the preferable policy.
The U.S. Response to Foreign Industrial Targeting and Strategic
Trade
The United States, while generally opposed to industrialPolicies
targeting and strategic trade policies, has responded to
countries that adopted these practices to the detriment of its economic interests. A notable instance of federal
support for civilian technology is the establishment of Sematech in 1987 in Austin, Texas. This nonprofit
consortium, comprising 14 major U.S. semiconductor manufacturers with an annual budget of $225 million
(including $100 million from the government), aimed to enhance manufacturing techniques for computer chips to
better compete with Japanese firms. By 1991, Sematech reported that U.S. companies had caught up with their
Japanese competitors. Over time, Sematech transitioned to a privately funded entity and created International
Sematech in 1998.
The U.S. has also taken unilateral actions to compel foreign markets to become more accessible to its exports,
employing retaliatory measures when necessary. For instance, under the 1991 semiconductor agreement, Japan
agreed to assist U.S. companies in capturing a 20% share of its semiconductor market, although the agreement
was modified in 1996 to focus on market monitoring rather than share requirements. Additionally, the U.S.
negotiated an agreement with Japan to open the Japanese construction market under the threat of restricting
access for Japanese firms to the U.S. market, alongside broader negotiations known as the Structural
Impediments Initiative aimed at enhancing access to Japan's distribution system.
Moreover, the U.S. has urged countries like Brazil, China, and India to eliminate excessive restrictions on U.S.
exports and insisted on stronger protections for intellectual property rights from unauthorized use.
History of U.S. Commercial Policy
This section surveys the history of U.S. commercial policy. We start by
examining the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and then discuss the
importance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Next we
examine the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and the results of the Kennedy
Round of trade negotiations. Subsequently, we discuss the Trade Reform
Act of 1974 and the outcome of the Tokyo Round of trade negotiations.
Finally, we examine the 1984 and the 1988 Trade Acts.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1934
In the early 1930s, global trade and U.S. exports sharply declined due to the Great Depression and the passage of
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. This act raised the average U.S. import duty to a record 59 percent by 1932,
prompting retaliatory tariffs from 60 countries and further exacerbating the economic downturn.Initially aimed at
supporting American agriculture, the act ended up imposing high tariffs on manufactured imports as well,
reflecting a beggar-thy-neighbor policy intended to stimulate domestic employment.
Despite warnings from 36 countries and over 1,000 economists urging President Hoover to veto the bill, it was
signed into law, resulting in a significant collapse of world trade—U.S. imports fell to only 31 percent of their 1929
level by 1932. To combat the declining trade, the Roosevelt administration enacted the Trade Agreements Act of
1934, which shifted trade policy authority from Congress to the President, allowing for mutual tariff reductions of
up to 50 percent. This act established the foundation for subsequent trade legislation, being renewed 11 times
before being replaced by the Trade Expansion Act in 1962. By 1947, the average U.S. import duty had decreased
significantly.
The Trade Agreements Act was based on the most-favored-nation principle, which ensured that any tariff
reduction negotiated by the U.S. would extend to all trading partners. However, this approach had limitations, as
tariff reductions were primarily negotiated for commodities prevalent in bilateral trade, allowing many non-
negotiating nations to benefit without contributing to tariff concessions.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established in 1947 in Geneva, Switzerland, to promote freer
trade through multilateral negotiations. Initially intended to be part of the International Trade Organization (ITO), GATT
was salvaged when the ITO was not ratified by the U.S. Senate and other countries due to its ambitious goals. GATT is
based on three core principles:
1. Nondiscrimination: This principle accepts the most-favored-nation concept, with exceptions made for economic
integration and trade with former colonies.
2. Elimination of Nontariff Trade Barriers: GATT seeks to remove nontariff barriers, such as quotas, except for agricultural
products and for countries facing balance-of-payments difficulties.
3. Consultation for Trade Disputes: GATT encourages consultation among nations to resolve trade disputes.
By 1993, 123 countries, including major economies but excluding former Soviet nations and China, had signed GATT,
covering over 90 percent of world trade. Through GATT's negotiations from 1947 to 1962, tariffs were reduced by about
35 percent. In 1965, GATT was expanded to provide preferential trade treatment to developing nations without requiring
reciprocity.
However, significant tariff reductions were limited due to U.S. Congress-imposed protectionist measures, including:
4. Peril-Point Provisions: Preventing the president from negotiating tariff reductions that could harm domestic industries.
5. Escape Clause: Allowing domestic industries to seek protection from imports, potentially leading to revocation of tariff
reductions.
6. National Security Clause: Blocking tariff reductions detrimental to industries crucial for national defense.
These restrictions represented considerable obstacles to achieving more extensive tariff reductions.
The 1962 Trade Expansion Act and the Kennedy Round
he Trade Expansion Act of 1962 was enacted by Congress to address the challenges from the formation of the
T
European Union, or Common Market.This act allowed the president to negotiate uniform tariff reductions of up
to 50 percent from 1962 levels, moving away from the earlier product-by-product approach. It also introduced
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers and firms displaced by tariff cuts, offering support such as
retraining, moving assistance, tax relief, and low-cost loans.
The principle of adjustment assistance was important as it made society share the burden of economic
adjustments. However, strict criteria limited recipients until the early 1970s. In 1980, peak assistance included
over 500,000 workers receiving about $1.6 billion, but post-1980 numbers dropped significantly to around
30,000 to 40,000 workers yearly, with funding between $200 million to $400 million. The Trade Adjustment
Reform Act of 2002 increased aid to $2 billion annually, and by 2010, approximately 140,000 workers received
TAA totaling $1 billion.
Under this act, the U.S. participated in the Kennedy Round negotiations through GATT, concluding in 1967,
which aimed to reduce industrial product tariffs by 35 percent over five years, achieving average rates below
10 percent by 1972. Despite these reductions, significant nontariff trade barriers, especially in agriculture,
continued to exist.
The Trade Reform Act of 1974 and the Tokyo Round
The Trade Reform Act of 1974 replaced the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, authorizing the president to negotiate
tariff reductions of up to 60 percent, eliminate tariffs of 5 percent or less, and address nontariff trade barriers.
This act relaxed the criteria for adjustment assistance.
Under the Trade Reform Act, the U.S. participated in the Tokyo Round multilateral tariff negotiations,
concluding in 1979. These negotiations led to averaged tariff reductions of 31 percent for the U.S., 27 percent
for the European Union, and 28 percent for Japan, phased over eight years starting in 1980. A code of conduct
was also established to guide nations in applying nontariff trade barriers, which included agreements on
government procurement, uniformity in countervailing and antidumping duties, and a generalized system of
preferences for exports from developing nations (excluding key products like textiles and electronics).
The estimated static gains from trade liberalization under the Tokyo Round were around $1.7 billion annually,
potentially rising to $8 billion when accounting for dynamic gains from economies of scale, efficiency, and
innovation. Despite these overall benefits, labor and industries with significant small business representation
in the U.S. faced some adverse effects due to the negotiated tariff reductions.
The 1984 and 1988 Trade Acts
The U.S. Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 followed the Trade Reform Act of 1974
and contained three significant provisions:
1. It authorized the president to negotiate agreements for the protection of
intellectual property rights and to reduce trade barriers in services,
high-technology products, and direct investments.
2. It extended the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for preferential
access to exports from developing countries until July 1993, although it
included "graduation," removing these preferences for the most
advanced developing nations, such as Korea and Taiwan.
3. It granted authority for negotiations leading to a free trade agreement
with Israel and initiated new multilateral trade negotiations, known as
the Uruguay Round, starting in 1986.
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 introduced the Super
301 provision, which mandated the U.S. Special Trade Representative to
identify priority countries with significant trade barriers, set a negotiation
timeline for eliminating these barriers, and impose retaliatory measures if
negotiations failed. Countries such as Japan, Brazil, and India were cited for
unfair trade practices, and they risked facing tariffs of 100 percent on
selected exports to the U.S. if restrictions were not lifted.
The average tariff rates on dutiable imports in the U.S. have declined over
time, similar to patterns in other developed nations, primarily due to an
increase in low-tariff imports, like petroleum, which contributed significantly
to the fall in average tariff rates after 1972.
The Uruguay Round, Outstanding Trade Problems, and the Doha
Round Round
The Uruguay
The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations was completed in December 1993, yet several trade issues persisted. The Round
introduced significant provisions, including:
1. Tariff Replacements: Nations were to replace quotas on agricultural imports and textiles with less restrictive tariffs by set deadlines.
Agricultural tariffs were to be reduced by 24% in developing nations and 36% in industrialized ones; textile tariffs were cut by 25%.
2. Antidumping Laws: The agreement allowed for quicker resolution of disputes regarding antidumping laws but did not eliminate their
use.
3. Subsidy Reductions: Agricultural export subsidies were to be reduced by 21% over six years, and government subsidies for industrial
research were capped at 50% of applied research costs.
4. Safeguards: Temporary tariffs could be raised against imports causing significant harm to domestic industries, with a restriction on
using health and safety standards solely to limit trade.
5. Intellectual Property: The agreement provided 20-year protections for patents, trademarks, and copyrights, allowing a 10-year
phase-in for pharmaceutical patent protections in developing nations.
6. Service Sector Access: The U.S. did not achieve access to several markets for its banking and securities industries and faced
restrictions in Europe regarding American film showings.
7. Trade-Related Investment Measures: Required foreign investors were phased out, which mandated local sourcing or export
commitments.
8. World Trade Organization: The GATT secretariat was replaced with the WTO, expanding authority over industrial and agricultural
trade and allowing for voting on disputes.
Despite these provisions, not all aims were met, leading to many unresolved trade problems. It was estimated that by 2005, the
implementation of the Uruguay Round increased world welfare by $73 billion, benefitting developed countries more than developing ones.
Additionally, while multilateral agreements on telecommunications and services were reached in 1996-1997, the new Doha Round began in
2001 but has faced significant challenges, nearly collapsing in 2006 without revival attempts succeeding to date.
Outstanding Trade Problems and the Doha Round
espite the benefits of the Uruguay Round, several serious trade issues persist. A major problem is the prevalence of trade
D
protectionism, as advanced nations and emerging market economies implement strategic trade policies to shield domestic
industries. For instance, Europe has increased protections to prevent industrial decline, while Russia raised tariffs on used cars, India
banned Chinese toys, and Argentina imposed stricter licensing on imports like auto parts and textiles. The U.S. and some European
nations are also subsidizing their struggling automotive sectors and farmers.
Additionally, high subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products continue, along with frequent misuse of antidumping measures,
leading to potential trade disputes. The emergence of powerful trading blocs, such as the EU, NAFTA, and less-defined Asian groups,
poses another challenge, as they can encourage protectionism and trade conflicts while complicating global trade relations.
Furthermore, calls from developed nations for labor and environmental standards seek to equalize working conditions internationally
and curb "social dumping." However, such movements risk being appropriated by protectionist interests. The effort to initiate a
"Millennium Round" of trade talks at the 1999 WTO conference in Seattle failed due to strong opposition from developing countries
against including labor and environmental standards, as well as disagreements on agricultural liberalization and competition
policies. The protests highlighted the rising anti-globalization sentiment, emphasizing concerns about the adverse effects of
globalization.
In 2001, the Doha Round focused on liberalizing agricultural, industrial, and services trade while tightening antidumping rules.
Nonetheless, developing nations were hesitant to make concessions, feeling the Uruguay Round fell short of promises. The Doha
Round, originally intended to conclude by 2004, nearly collapsed in 2006 over agricultural subsidy disputes, and revival attempts
remained unsuccessful by the end of 2012, prompting discussions on alternative paths forward alongside renewed bilateral
negotiations.
thank
you!