Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reconvering from Cancún: the EU responsibility

  • Articles
  • Doha Round
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

Against the background of the failure of the World Trade Organisation’s September ministerial conference, this article considers the main issues that emerged at Cancún—the Singapore issues, agricultural reform, and the credibility of the multilateral trading system. The authors present a plan of action meant to enable the Doha Development Round to be continued constructively and the credibility of the international trading system to be preserved. Special regard is paid to the role of the EU in repairing the damage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Wall Street Journal Europe. 15 September 2003.

  2. “The pretence of the development objective has finally been rejected and discarded”, said the Commerce Minister of India Mr. A. Jaitley (The Wall Street Journal Europe. 15 September 2003.

  3. The Wall Street Journal Europe. 23 September 2003.

  4. EU Commission: Collapse of trade talks in Cancun Directorate General for Agriculture, Newsletter. No. 57, September 2003.

  5. WTO: World Trade Report 2003, Geneva 2003.

  6. J. Clark, S. Evenett: The Deterrent Effects of National Anti-Cartel Laws: Evidence from an International Vitamins Cartel. University of Berne 2003 (mimeo).

  7. S.J. Evenett, B. Ferrarini: Developing Country Interests in International Cartel Enforcements in the 1990’s. Background paper to Global Economic Prospects 2002, World Bank, Washington DC 2002

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. Alan Winters Doha and the World Poverty Targets, paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2002/2003.

  9. WTO, op. cit. World Trade Report 2003, Geneva 2003.

  10. Including benefits from technological improvements in transportation (WTO, op. cit. World Trade Report 2003, Geneva 2003).

  11. S. Woolcock: The Singapore Issues in Cancún: A Failed Negotiation Play or a Litmus Test for Global Governance?, in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2003, pp. 249–255.

  12. L. Alan Winters, op. cit. Doha and the World Poverty Targets, paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2002/2003.

  13. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development): IFAD Rural Poverty Report, Oxford 2001, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. P. Lankes: Market Access for Developing Countries, in: Finance & Development, Vol. 39, No. 3, September 2002, pp. 8–13, 2002.

  15. It is outside the scope of the present article to discuss in detail the development of the CAP. Such an overview can be found in for example, European Commission: EC Agricultural Policy for the 21st Century, European Economy. No. 4, 1994

  16. T. Gylfason: The Macroeconomics of European Agriculture. Princeton University. Studies in International Finance. No. 78 Princeton NJ 1995.

  17. P.F. Donald, G. Pisano, M.D. Rayment, D.J. Pain The Common Agricultural Policy. EU enlargement and the conservation of Europe’s farmland birds, in: Agriculture. Ecosystems & Environment. Vol 89, No. 3, 2002, pp. 167–182.

  18. Cf. D.E. Hathaway, M.D. Ingco: Agricultural liberalisation and the Uruguay Round, in: W. Martin, L.A. Winters (eds.): The Uruguay Round and the developing countries, Cambridge/New York 1996, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. IMF: How Do Industrial Countries Agricultural Policies Affect Developing Countries, in: World Economic Outlook, September 2002, pp. 81–91.

  20. H. Badinger, F. Breuss, B. Mahlberg: Welfare Effects of the EU’s Common Organization of the Market in Bananas for EU Member States, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3. 2002, pp. 515–526.

  21. WTO: The WTO and LDCs: delivering a better future through trade, Speech by Mr. M. Moore, UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries, Brussels 2001.

  22. C. Michalopoulos: Developing Countries in the WTO. Basing stoke 2001, Palgrave.

  23. See L. Alan Winters: The Economic Consequences of Agricultural Support: A Survey, in: OECD Economic Studies, No. 9, 1987. pp. 7–53 and the references there

  24. IMF, op. cit. How Do Industrial Countries Agricultural Policies Affect Developing Countries, in: World Economic Outlook, September 2002, pp. 81–91.

  25. See above and B. Borrell, L. Hubbard: Global Economic Effects of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, in: Economic Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000, pp. 18–26.

  26. L. Hubbard, C. Ritson: Reform of the CAP: from Mansholt to Mac Sharry, in: C. Ritson, D.R. Harvey (eds.): The Common Agricultural Policy, 2nd edition, Wallingford/New York 1997, CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  27. (Cf. e.g. J. Kol, L. Alan Winters: Collapse At Cancun. What is to be done?, Working Paper, 2003, mimeo).

  28. A. Sen: Poverty and Famines. Oxford 1981, Clarendon Press, and N. Alexandratos: World food and agriculture. Outlook for the medium and longer term. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 96, 1999, pp. 5908–5914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M.W. Rosegrant, M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer J. Witcover. Global Food Projections: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures, International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC 2001.

  30. European Commission: Commission opens discussion to reform the EU sugar regime. Brussels. IP/03/1286, 23 September 2003 and European Commission: Reforming the European Union’s sugar policy. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels 2003

  31. WTO: World Trade Report, op. cit. World Trade Report 2003, Geneva 2003.

  32. J. Tinbergen: International Economic Co-operation, Amsterdam 1945, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  33. WTO: Annual Report 1998, Geneva 1998.

  34. WTO: World Trade Report, op. cit. World Trade Report 2003, Geneva 2003.

  35. See e.g. WTO Trade Policy Review of the EU Geneva, various issues: and J. Pelkmans, European Integration Methods and Economic Analysis. 2nd edition. Harlow 2001, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Wolf: An Unholy Alliance: The European Community and the Developing Countries in the International Trading System. Ch. 2. in L.B.M. Mennes, J. Kol (eds.) European Trade Policies and the Developing World, London 1988, Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zehn Kun Wang, L. Alan Winters Including Developing Countries in a Consensus for the WTO. School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, 2003

  38. Ibid. Zehn Kun Wang, L. Alan Winters Including Developing Countries in a Consensus for the WTO. School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, 2003.

  39. Wall Street Journal Europe, 30 October 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus Centre for Economic Integration Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Jacob Kol

  2. School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, UK

    L. Alan Winters

Authors
  1. Jacob Kol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Alan Winters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kol, J., Winters, L.A. Reconvering from Cancún: the EU responsibility. Intereconomics 38, 339–345 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02914025

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02914025

Keywords

Search

Navigation