Carnegie Endowment: Winners and Losers
Headlines were made this year when Sandra Polaski, former U.S. secretary of state's special representative for international labor affairs, released her study Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries. The results revealed a sharp contrast to those released during the early stages of the Doha Round negotiations, and sparked much debate over the value of a new WTO agreement. The reports message is clear: "any of the plausible trade scenarios will produce only modest gains for the world; agricultural trade is not a panacea for most poor countries; the poorest countries may actually lose from any agreement; and additional special measures will be needed to ensure that the least developed countries succeed."
World Bank Trade Research
Of all players in the debate over the expected benefits trade liberalization, the research from the World Bank is some of the most influential. A series of research papers by World Bank economists have tracked the Doha Round negotiations from the beginning and the falling numbers in these studies have caught the attention of trade policy community. Still, the World Bank numbers are perceived as optimistic by some critics, although it should be kept in mind that the highest figures come from "full trade liberalization", not a Doha Round scenario. A recent report authored by Will Martin, the lead economist in the Bank's trade research group, concluded that the "abolition of tariffs, subsidies and domestic support programs would boost global welfare by nearly $300 billion per year by 2015."
Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE)
The Global Development and Environment Institute, a program at Tufts University, has taken a more skeptical view of the benefits that would arise from a Doha Round agreement, compared with the other modelers mentioned in this list. Researchers at GDAE, led by Research Director Frank Ackerman, have highlighted the flaws and limitations in the global trade models. As its most recent policy brief argues, the Doha Round is looking increasing like a bad deal for many developing countries: "some countries will experience a loss in national production after opening their manufacturing and services sectors to rich-country competition, and all face the loss of autonomy to pursue the kinds of national development policies that have proven effective in the past."
Oxfam
Oxfam has released a research report, by Lance Taylor and Rudiger von Arnim (both of the New School for Social Research, New York) that presents a review and critique of the most widely used trade models based on computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. The emphasis throughout Modelling the Impact of Trade Liberalisation: A Critique of Computable General Equilibrium Models is on methodology. The authors set out concise analytical arguments explaining what they see as the fundamental weaknesses of CGE models, paying particular attention to the way that these models conceptualize and measure welfare. The authors also argue that the manner in which the World Bank uses CGE modeling is highly problematic, making implausible assumptions about elasticities, the exchange rate, and macro causality. Using a table-top, two-region and three-sector CGE model which represents sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world, the authors illustrate that the results of modeling are radically different when alternative – and, they contend, more plausible – assumptions are made.
Last updated: 13 October, 2009
