Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 126–133 | Cite as

The future of cooperation between the EU and ACP countries

  • Susanna Wolf
North-South Relations
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Something over 20 years after the first Lomé Agreement came into force, most of the ACP countries are still among the poorest in the world. Why have these countries' situations not improved despite the Agreements? Why has their share of total EC imports from developing countries fallen in spite of the tariff preferences they are granted? What conclusions ought to be drawn for future cooperation between the EC and ACP countries?

Keywords

Uruguay Round Development Cooperation Trade Preference Maastricht Treaty Structural Adjustment Programme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. World Bank: World Development Report 1995, Washington D.C. 1995, Tables 1 and 1a in the Appendix.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Cf. Thorsten Amelung and Rolf Langhammer: ACP Exports and EC Trade Preferences Revisited, Kiel Working Papers, No. 373, Kiel 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Cf. Joachim Betz: The New International Environment and EC-ACP Cooperation, in: Stefan Brüne, Joachim Betz and Winrich Kühne (eds.): Africa and Europe. Relations of Two Continents in Transition, Münster and Hamburg 1994, p. 137.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Cf. Matthew McQueen and Christopher Stevens: Trade Preferences and Lomé IV: Non-traditional ACP Exports to the EC, in: Development Policy Review, Vol. 7 (1989), pp. 239–260.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    This analysis is described in detail in Susanna Wolf: Begrenzter Erfolg …, op. cit.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    See Paul Armington: A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production, in: IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 16 (1969), pp. 159–176.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Cf. Drusilla Brown: Trade Preferences for Developing Countries: A Survey of Results, in: The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 24 (1988), pp. 335–363; Drusilla Brown: Trade and Welfare Effects of the European Schemes of the Generalised System of Preferences, in: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 37 (1989), pp. 757–776.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    Cf. lan Goldin, Odin Knudsen and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe: Trade Liberalisation: Global Economic Implications, Paris and Washington D.C. 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Cf. Anton Reithinger: Probleme und Perspektiven Europäischer Entwicklungspolitik, in: Nord-Süd aktuell, 1995, pp. 387 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Cf. Dieter Frisch: Coherence in North-South Policy: the Role of the European Union, in: Gemeinsame Konferenz Kirche und Entwicklung: Towards Coherence in North/South Policy: the Role of the European Union, Bonn 1994, p. 6.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    The Courier, No. 155, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    The African countries involved are Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and South Africa, and the Latin American countries are Colombia, Costa, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Cf. Robert Kappel: Scheitern der Lomé-Verhandlungen—Die Kooperation zwischen Europa und den AKP-Staaten zeigt Risse, in: Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit, Vol. 36 (1995), No. 4, p. 97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanna Wolf
    • 1
  1. 1.HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations