Overlooked in the daily onslaught of negative global financial
and economic news-not to mention campaign rhetoric-is the vital and
positive role that international trade and open markets have played
in helping companies stay afloat in today's tough economic climate.
America's free trade policies-that favorite bugaboo of
protectionists on both sides of the political aisle-and a
relatively open investment regime have cushioned the U.S. economy
as domestic consumers and investors have tightened their purse
strings and cashed out their mutual funds. Now that the economic
storm has spread from the U.S. to much of the world, the need to
keep the nation's trade and investment barriers low and competitive
is even more critical.
With many countries' economic well-being linked through trade
and investment, the need for all nations to embrace trade and
investment liberalization is crucial to helping the global economy
recover and grow. Sadly, rather than calmly assessing what policies
are needed to restore confidence in U.S. and world financial
markets, politicians everywhere are stumbling over each other to
design interventionist schemes that could reverse many hard-won and
beneficial open market policies-policies that many leaders are
wrongly blaming today's economic turmoil on precisely such
interventionist policies. Rather than panicking or pandering to
special interests, policymakers in the U.S. and around the world
need to commit to getting multilateral trade talks back on track in
the World Trade Organization and should remain vigilant against
implementing protectionist investment policies as important
elements to any long-term economic recovery strategy.
Trade and Development in the Doha
Round
As its name implies, the current Doha Development Round of
multilateral trade negotiations was founded on the principle of
promoting economic development along with freer trade. Member
nations, developed and developing alike, went into the negotiations
with the idea that any new agreement would result in developing
countries being better integrated with and benefiting from the
global economy.
When a country lowers its barriers to trade, it opens its
economy to competition and a wider variety of goods and services
than was previously available. Competition spurs the movement of
labor and capital from industries that cannot compete to those that
can, enabling the country to both produce more efficiently and
attract new investment-critical elements of any long-term
development strategy. Of course, freer trade also means that
exporters can sell their products in more countries' markets.
However, for a country trying to develop its economy, merely
gaining additional access to wealthy markets is not enough to spur
the same kind of momentum needed for sustainable growth as the
efficient use of resources and new inflows of investment.
In that regard, one of the biggest boosts to freer trade and
sustainable development would come not only from developed
countries making meaningful progress on dismantling remaining trade
barriers but also from developing countries making binding
commitments under the Doha Round to reduce what are some of the
world's highest tariffs and other trade barriers against the
developed world. Yet even more critically, developed countries must
reduce tariffs and other barriers to trade against each other. The
IMF reports that manufacturing tariffs in developing countries are
four times higher than in developed countries, and separate
research has determined that 70 percent of tariffs paid by
developing countries go to other developing countries.[1]
Rather than highlighting broad disagreement over what a
comprehensive multilateral trade agreement should look like, the
collapse of global trade negotiations in July of this year
reflected the inability of countries to agree on a handful of
"deadlocked" issues. Of particular concern was the demand that
developing countries be granted an excessive special safeguard
mechanism as a means to protect domestic producers from import
surges. Had this demand been fulfilled, developing countries would
have been able to apply higher, temporary tariffs in excess of
current bound rates, undermining not only the fundamental objective
of negotiating for freer trade but also reversing progress made
earlier under the Uruguay Round and in the accession agreements
defining the trade liberalizing commitments of newer members.
Such a reversal of progress would have a tangible impact on rich
developing and developed countries alike. For example, since the
WTO was established in 1995, real growth in trade of goods and
services among lower-income and lower-middle-income countries has
averaged more than 7.5 percent, while high-income countries have
experienced 7.2 percent average growth-faster on average than these
countries' average rate of GDP growth.[2] With countries trading more,
it is no surprise that they are more integrated with the global
economy. Measured by the ratio of trade to GDP, lower-income and
lower-middle-income countries' trade integration rose from an
average 71 percent in the early 1990s to 94 percent today. Trade
integration increased for high-income countries as well, climbing
from an average 113 percent to 132 percent.[3] With international
trade playing an increasing role in the economic performance of
nations and countries becoming ever more connected to global
markets, the cost of backtracking on the commitments WTO members
have already made would not only result in a slower recovery from
today's economic slump, but it would also undermine efforts to
advance economic development.
Reduce Barriers to Trade
There is nothing wrong with developing countries taking extra
time to implement trade reforms, especially when these countries
are clearly striving to introduce broad policy changes as part of a
comprehensive reform of their economic policies and institutions.
However, the overarching goal of the trade talks is to reduce
barriers to trade, not erect more of them. International trade has
been a source of growth for all participants, and WTO members need
to make meaningful contributions towards an agreement-if one is to
be had. Nations can strike the biggest blow against poverty and
achieve a faster pace of economic recovery by helping to conclude
the Doha Round with an agreement that eliminates trade-distorting
polices in all countries, rich or poor. And the faster the pace of
trade liberalization, the better. After all, doggedly holding on to
protectionist trade policies for as long as possible only further
delays economic development.
Daniella Markheim is
Jay Van Andel Senior Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for
International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Uri
Dadush and Julia Nelson, "Governing Global Trade," Finance and
Development, Vol. 44, No. 4, December 2007; Thomas W. Hertel
and Will Martin, "Liberalising Agriculture and Manufactures in a
Millennium Round:Implications for Developing Countries," The
World Economy, Vol. 23, Issue 4, December 2002.