1

A REPORT ON

WTO AND THE GROWTH OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Prepared For:
Dr. N.Kubendran
Instructor in charge
Global Economic Environment
XIME, Kochi
Report submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of

Global Economic Environment
(11 December 2013)
By
Aditya Sarwate
S.V.S. Akhilesh
Amit Jaiswal
Anuja Singh
Abrity
Amy Francis
Anuja Sunny
Amit Sam
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to sincerely thank Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship for
giving us an opportunity for doing a report on WTO and the growth of International Trade.

We would also like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our instructor and mentor, Dr. N.
Kubendran for his guidance and constant supervision, which was the key ingredient of this
report. We are thankful to the various sources of data which are of utmost importance to the
report.
















3

ABSTRACT
The study aims at findings the impact of WTO on the growth of International Trade. There
are three types of nation that are considered namely Developed countries, Developing
Countries and Under Developed Countries. For a time period from 1995-2013, we try to look
at how the WTO was formed and the role that it plays towards the development of a country.
We will be using the subsidies and the trade barriers to showcase the impact of WTO on
international trade. We will also be looking how we can forecast the future of International
Trade.


















4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i. Introduction
ii. Significance of study
iii. Research Questions
iv. Research Objectives
v. Period of study
vi. Tools of analysis
vii. Methodology
viii. Limitations
ix. Review of Literature
x. Analysis
xi. Conclusion
xii. Appendix
xiii. References










5

INTRODUCTION
The WTO provides a forum for negotiating agreements aimed at reducing obstacles to
international trade and ensuring a level playing field for all, thus contributing to economic
growth and development. The WTO also provides a legal and institutional framework for the
implementation and monitoring of these agreements, as well as for settling disputes arising
from their interpretation and application. The current body of trade agreements comprising
the WTO consists of 16 different multilateral agreements (to which all WTO members are
parties) and two different plurilateral agreements (to which only some WTO members are
parties).
Over the past 60 years, the WTO, which was established in 1995, and its predecessor
organization the GATT have helped to create a strong and prosperous international trading
system, thereby contributing to unprecedented global economic growth. The WTO currently
has 159 members, of which 117 are developing countries or separate customs territories.
WTO activities are supported by a Secretariat of some 700 staff, led by the WTO Director-
General. The Secretariat is located in Geneva, Switzerland, and has an annual budget of
approximately CHF 200 million ($180 million, 130 million). The three official languages of
the WTO are English, French and Spanish.
Decisions in the WTO are generally taken by consensus of the entire membership. The
highest institutional body is the Ministerial Conference, which meets roughly every two
years. A General Council conducts the organization's business in the intervals between
Ministerial Conferences. Both of these bodies comprise all members. Specialized subsidiary
bodies (Councils, Committees, Sub-committees), also comprising all members, administer
and monitor the implementation by members of the various WTO agreements.





6


SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The WTO's main activities are:
Negotiating the reduction or elimination of obstacles to trade (import tariffs, other
barriers to trade) and agreeing on rules governing the conduct of international trade
(e.g. antidumping, subsidies, product standards, etc.)
Administering and monitoring the application of the WTO's agreed rules for trade in
goods, trade in services, and trade-related intellectual property rights.
Monitoring and reviewing the trade policies of our members, as well as ensuring
transparency of regional and bilateral trade agreements.
Settling disputes among our members regarding the interpretation and application of
the agreements.
Building capacity of developing country government officials in international trade
matters.
Assisting the process of accession of some 30 countries who are not yet members of
the organization.
Conducting economic research and collecting and disseminating trade data in support
of the WTO's other main activities.
Explaining to and educating the public about the WTO, its mission and its activities.
The WTO's founding and guiding principles remain the pursuit of open borders, the
guarantee of most-favored-nation principle and non-discriminatory treatment by and among
members, and a commitment to transparency in the conduct of its activities. The opening of
national markets to international trade, with justifiable exceptions or with adequate
flexibilities, will encourage and contribute to sustainable development, raise people's welfare,
reduce poverty, and foster peace and stability. At the same time, such market opening must
be accompanied by sound domestic and international policies that contribute to economic
growth and development according to each member's needs and aspirations.


7



RESEARCH ISSUES
1. To understand the significance of WTO and how it has evolved?
2. What is the role of WTO in the economic growth and development of a nation?
3. What is the role of WTO and the impact that it has on International Trade?
4. To evaluate if the WTO is just a mechanism or tool by which The U.S.A. controls the
international trade?
5. To evaluate the different provisions given by the WTO to developed, developing and
under developed countries?
















8



RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an organization that intends to supervise and
liberalize international trade. Hence it is very important for economic students like us
to understand what the WTO stands for and what the WTO does and how it has
evolved over the years.
2. To observe and understand the change in dynamics of trade in developed, developing
and under developed countries with evolving WTO policies and regulations.
3. To understand how WTO causes amelioration of trade by offering special and
differential provisions for developed and under developed countries. Are these
provisions really beneficial to the developing and under developed countries or are
they there just for namesake.













9



PERIOD OF THE STUDY
The period of study is from the inception of GATT till today. We have only confined the
notable changes that took place. The primary aim of WTO was to improve world trade and
that can be done by focusing on more period.



















10



TOOLS OF ANALYSIS
The study uses the secondary data obtained from previous studies, reports, database of
international institutions, internet etc. The analysis uses trade and tariff policies put forth by
the WTO and various countries. These tools have been used to show the relationship between
the relevant variables and to assess the impact of WTO on international Trade in Developing,
Developed and Under-developed countries.

















11



METHODOLOGY
The complete analysis in the report is based on how changes in the policies of trade and tariff
made by the WTO affect or impact the international trade from the multi-dimensional
perspective of developed, developing and under developed countries.



















12



LIMITATIONS
Each and every field in the field of economics has some limitations associated with it and this
study is no exception. Some of the limitations of the study are mentioned below.
1. This Study is conducted through available information in the public domain.
2. We have not interacted or interviewed any industry body, industry representative
directly.
3. In View of above limitation, it can be safely said that our views may have been
formed by the consent of material available in the public domain or perceptions
arrived by the information in the public domain.
4. The study only relates the relevant variables and interprets the numerical results and
does not go into causal analysis.
5. We take into consideration only the country Mali for under developed nations, U.S.A.
for developed and a general view for developing nations.















13



REVIEW OF LITERATURE
We went through the WTO official website and collected articles based on which we have
made this report.
The data collected is based on the articles available on the website.
The numbers and the graphs drawn are taken with view of the articles that were available on
the website of WTO.





















14



CHAPTER PLAN
The report has been divided into four main chapters. The description of each chapter is as
follows:
1. Introduction
The first chapter is introduction which gives a brief description of the topic of the
study and includes different aspects of the report such as significance of the study,
research questions, objectives, time period for which the study is being done, different
tools of analysis used during the study, the methodology followed for the study,
limitations of the study and chapter plan of the report.
2. Analysis
The main analysis has been done in this section. Graphs have also been plotted for the
corresponding variables.
3. Conclusion
The final chapter of the report is the Conclusion. It derives conclusions from the
analysis and answers the objectives of the study. Appendix has been provided at the
end which includes some terminologies related to the topic in the report. At the end of
the report, references based on the papers reviewed have also been included.











15


ANALYSIS
The World Trade Organization, (WTO), is the primary international body to help promote
free trade, by drawing up the rules of international trade. However, it has been mired in
controversy and seen to be hijacked by rich country interests, thus worsening the lot of the
poor, and inviting protest and intense criticism.
WTO principles
Founded in 1995 after the 8-year Uruguay Round of talks, it succeeded the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was created in 1948 to lower trade
barriers. The scope of the WTO is greater, however, including services, agriculture,
and intellectual property, not just trade in goods.
The main principles of the WTO boil down to the following:
1. Non discrimination
National treatment implies both foreign and national companies are treated the
same, and it is unfair to favor domestic companies over foreign ones. Some
countries have a most favored nation treatment, but under WTO the policy is
that all nations should be treated equally in terms of trade. Any trade
concessions etc. offered to a nation must be offered to others.
2. Reciprocity
Nations try to provide similar concessions for each other.
3. Transparency
Negotiations and process must be fair and open with rules equal for all.
4. Special and differential treatment
A recognition that developing countries may require positive discrimination
because of historic unequal trade.
Reality different from the principles
As principles, many of these sound good. Certainly the vast majority of the worlds nations
believe so for they have signed up to the WTO.
16

However, in reality, power politics has meant that the WTO has received criticized by various
groups and third world countries for numerous things, including:
Being very opaque and not allowing enough public participation, while being very
welcoming to large corporations. (That doesnt help the claims of free, open and
democratic!)
That while importing nations cannot distinguish how something is made when
trading, though it sounds good at first along the lines of equality and non-
discrimination, the reality is that some national laws and decisions for safety and
protection of peoples health, environment and national economies have been deemed
as barriers to free trade. Take the following as a very small set of examples:
o Countries cannot say no to genetically engineered food or milk that contains
genetically engineered growth hormones known to cause health problems or
trees that have been felled from pristine forests and so on.
o Guatemala took efforts to help reduce infant mortality, in accordance with the
World Health Organizations guidelines, and to counter aggressive marketing
by baby food companies aimed at convincing mothers their products are
superior to the more nutritious and disease-protecting breast milk for their
babies. The result? The affected corporations managed to take this to GATT
(the predecessor to the WTO) and get a reversal of the law amidst the threat of
sanctions. Profits prevailed.
o Canada complained to the WTO about Frances ban on asbestos. (The
previous link also makes the point of how the victims views are not heard in
WTO proceedings, nor are they part of the debate, even though there may be
thousands of them.)
o The United States attempt to ban shrimp caught using apparatus that were
harmful to endangered sea turtles has been ruled as WTO-illegal, forcing the
US to reverse its decision.
If for example, health or environmental protections get in the way of the trade
agreement, then they often have to be revoked or changed in favor of trade
agreements:
That instead of respecting the reasons why there has been special and differential
treatment for developing countries, rich countries instead want to push poor countries
17

to reciprocate equally, in what would therefore actually be an unequal result (as it
would maintain the unequal terms of trade.)
A number of countries have also spoken out against the WTO saying that there needs to be
more co-operation between the North and South (a general term to refer to the Rich and
Developing countries, respectively) with regards to international trade.
During the week of May 20, 1998, celebrations marked 50 years of multilateral trade.
However, as the following link mentions, the African nations did not feel that there
was much to rejoice at and said that it was a party where only the rich nations has
something to celebrate.
Most people in the world have not benefited from the current form of multilateral
trading systems.
At a Mercosur (South Americas Southern Common Market) summit, then South
African President, Nelson Mandela, had spoken of the need to ensure that there is
more fairness in the globalization process. Mercosur is the worlds fourth largest
economic power, after the United States, European Union and Japan.
There have been so many examples, it is impossible to list here. For more, see other
parts of this sites section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues.
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
Another area, amongst many, that is a cause for tension, is the TRIPS agreement that defines
how products can be protected from piracy. While just reward for ones efforts is reasonable,
politics and power influences have affected how patent processes work and what can or
cannot get patented. A major criticism then has been that in its current form, intellectual
property rights regimes like TRIPS serve to stifle competition and protect ones investments
and profits from it in that way. For poor nations it makes developing their own industries
independently more costly, if at all possible.
Furthermore, as shown in the genetically engineered food section, indigenous knowledge that
has been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years in some developing countries have
been patented by large companies, without consent or prior knowledge from indigenous
communities. People then find that they have to buy back that which they had already
known and used freely.
18

As summarized from various articles from the Third World Network on pharmaceuticals,
patents and profits, TRIPS has a number of problems including the following:
TRIPS aims to prevent imitation of products (which is ironic, given that this would
allow further competition and better prices for drugs and other products, which is
something that transnational corporations have often sung as being the benefits of free
trade and corporate-led capitalism with minimal restrictions).
The effect of the 20 year period of a patent protection is to basically deny others (such
as developing countries and their corporations) from developing alternatives that
would be cheaper.
Technology transfer is prevented (again, a direct contradiction to those who support
the WTO, free trade in its current forms etc., which includes western multinational
pharmaceutical corporations.)
Transnational corporations will be able to continue to grow more due to their profits
from this, while others will decline further.
While there are some provisions, such as compulsory licensing to allow creation of
alternatives in cases of emergency and parallel importing to effectively permit
shopping around the international market for the cheapest price of the same product, it
doesnt go far enough as many nations have faced pressure from the likes of the
United States, when they have used these measures (even though they use it a lot
themselves.)
TRIPS, WTO and general international trade related agreements do not take public
health needs into account. Instead, commercial interests are promoted.
As Noam Chomsky points out, The World Trade Organization regime insists instead on
product patents, so you cant figure out a smarter process. Notice that impedes growth, and
development and is intended to. Its intended to cut back innovation, growth, and
development and to maintain extremely high profits.
As J.W. Smith of the Institute for Economic Democracy describes, this is partly how
inequality is subtly structured into law. These types of agreements strengthen subtle
monopoly rights.
Oxfam also make important distinctions between reality and rhetoric and point out that
TRIPS will Exacerbate the technological divide:
19

While this is a large topic itself, to start with, you can start at the following sections of this
site that discuss some of the problems in the context of specific issues:
Pharmaceutical corporations and
o Medical research. (There are many links here.)
o AIDS.
Genetically engineered food and food patenting.
Global health issues overview provides more details of how TRIPS affects people
from a health perspective
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was one such example of a trade and
investment related treaty which would emphasize the ability for corporations to be allowed
more freedom and less constraints. As seen in the MAI section on this web site, enormous
global activism by ordinary citizens saw this derailed for now.
While for the moment, the MAI has officially been held back, this is not a halt to the MAI
and trade negotiations still continue and will continue that very much represent the ideas and
objectives of the MAI.
While the initial agreement was in the domain of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development), many are pushing for it to be moved to the WTO.
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
GATS is similar to the multilateral agreement on investment, except that it is within the
WTO. It is less well known than the MAI and is still undergoing negotiations, unlike its
forerunner, which was derailed.
The Seattle Millennium Round of the WTO
At the end of November 1999, Seattle saw major governments meet at a WTO ministerial
meeting to discuss various trading rules. Seattle also saw free speech cracked down on in the
name of free trade. Enormous public protests ensued. There were many differences in the
perspectives of developing industrialized nation on the current reality of free trade and how it
20

affected them. It resulted in a WTO failure to agree on many issues. Developing countries
were sidelined and one delegate even physically barred from a meeting, according to the
previous link.
Chinas Entry into the WTO
A very intense and passionate subject (in the US, anyway), had been whether or not to give
permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China, by the US. As China achieves
this, then China is able to get closer and closer to entry into the World Trade Organization.
(And as of November 2001, China has gained entry into the WTO.)
Pro-China entry into the WTO and NTR status in the US is basically from the business
community who see the large population of over a billion as more consumers to buy and
consume products. There is also the equally mouth-watering possibility of an enormous
source of cheap labor that global corporations would benefit from. (There is little concern
about how the Chinese population would benefit, but more about how this would benefit
American businessesnot even American people. A set of distinctions that clearly indicates
underlying agendas of overly corporate-led globalization).
Anti-China perspectives are more interesting and concerning. In the US, there has been an
incredible amount China-bashing from elements of the right wing as well as many on the left.
Reasons are many, some which are legitimate, such as concern for human rights in China, the
loss of jobs in the US etc. (largely left concerns) but others that reek of US unilateralism,
anti-communism, imperialism to isolationist and racist right wing sentiments. For example,
there are those that describe China and others as the new enemy to replace the Soviet Union
resulting in increasing rhetoric in the US about China being a security threat to the US, which
is not likely. It thereby plays a part in helping to justify the large Pentagon budget and hence
a large military presence around the world to safeguard American interests.
However, most of these views fail to tackle more fundamental issues. For example, if these
concerns such as human rights were the basis of entry and acceptance into the WTO, then
many nations, including the US would most likely fail such criteria. (Some environmentalists
in the first world say that China is a threat to the global environment due to the large
population. However, as mentioned in the population section of this web site, when looked at
from a per-capita perspective, the US, with five percent of the worlds population has
21

disproportionately the largest amount of consumption and environmental pollution.) The US
also has the largest prison population in the world and the largest disparity between rich and
poor of any industrialized nation due to various economic and social policies. For more about
the hypocritical reasoning used to either criticize or support Chinas entry see some of the
links to more detailed analysis, below.
So, if these are not meant to be the criteria from which to judge whether or not to allow China
entry into the WTO, then why should China either be accepted into the WTO or not be
accepted?
That is still a tough question to answer. Given that that the underlying problem is still about
the way the global economy is being formed, and who it tends to benefit and who it tends to
marginalize, on the one hand, it may be against the interest of most Chinese citizens to enter
the WTO. On the other hand, does it make sense to isolate the worlds most populous nation
from a global organization, which, if it is to be reformed or changed in any way to become
more open and democratic, China would need to play a part in? Also, if the Chinese economy
is not ready to cope with international competition, then social costs may be high.
If entry is subject to the whims of Washington, EU and Japan deciding the criteria for entry
for other countries, then this unilateralism would not help serve the drive towards globalism.
(Especially when some of these countries, would not pass their own criteria, as mentioned
above, and as links below will show.) The real issue is about the way the global economy is
being shaped and the legitimacy of the current institutions serving this purpose (IMF, World
Bank, WTO, etc.).
For a more detailed look into these perspectives, that also criticize much better, the
mainstream left, right and others reasons and level of discourse for or against China in
the WTO you can start at the following:
Dangerous Liaisons: Progressives, the Right, and the Anti-China Trade Campaign by
Walden Bello and Anuradha Mittal, looks at how some mainstream political groups in
the US have portrayed China, and set about an anti-China campaign and what the real,
larger issues at stake are.
From Foreign Policy in Focus:
22

o Their look at China and the US Policy debate. You will find many good
articles here both pro and against Chinas entry into the WTO and/or
permanent NTR status. Like the first link above, these articles provide more
in-depth reasoning, not what the mainstream media and other campaigns use
as their reasons. Examples of their articles include:
How to Debate the China Issue Without China Bashing by John
Gershman
Historic and Strategic Contexts of China Debate by Joseph Gerson
Dont Strengthen the WTO by Admitting China by Sarah Anderson,
John Cavanagh, and Bama Athreya provides good reasons why China
should not be admitted into the WTO.
Argument for Engagement by Doug Guthrie provides good reasons
why China should be admitted to the WTO.
o China and the WTO looks at many of the issues in detail as well.
The Right and Wrong Reasons for Opposing Chinas Entry into the WTO by Robin
Hahnel
Corporate Influence at the WTO
Transnational corporations (TNCs) are able to exert enormous influence in no less a powerful
body as the World Trade Organization (WTO). These TNCs are closely linked to the WTO
decision-makers themselves
HISTORY OF THE WTO US LEADERSHIP (DEVELOPED COUNTRIES)
Throughout the history of the multilateral trading system America has led the way.
It was the US that invited its wartime allies to negotiate a new International Trade
Organization in December 1945 to complement the institutions created at Bretton Woods
the previous year.
US officials made a major contribution to the drafting of the original 1947 GATT text and the
ITO charter from which it was taken.
In the 60s, President Kennedy was instrumental in launching the round that would bear his
name. The round sharply reduced tariffs and brought development issues under GATT rules.
23

In the 70s, the Tokyo Round was another US initiative, and began the process of extending
the GATT system to nontariff measures, such as product standards and subsidies.
Then, in the 80s and 90s, the Uruguay Round was championed by the US and proved to be
the most ambitious round yet. It aimed to reflect the changing world and the end of the Cold
War by bringing, eventually, all of the trading powers together in the open, rules-based
system. As well as launching the WTO as we know it today, it also brought agriculture and
textiles into the system, tackled services and intellectual property, and dramatically
strengthened the dispute settlement mechanism all of which were US priorities.
Now, more than ever, the multilateral trading system belongs to the world from the
original GATT members, to the least developed countries, to the emerging economies but
if anyone can claim primary authorship of the system, it is the US.
And in recent years we have seen the validation of one of the core aims of this leadership.
Contrast the financial crisis that we are still living with today to the crisis of the interwar
years.
In the 1930s governments responded by throwing up trade barriers, such as the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff Act, which pushed the world into a spiral of protectionism.
Between 1929 and 1933 retaliatory trade restrictions wiped out two thirds of world trade.
But the mistake was not repeated.
After the financial crisis hit in 2008 the value of world trade did fall, but the decline was only
a fraction of that seen in the 1930s and it rebounded straight away.
Instead of a protectionist panic the response was one of restraint and caution.
Why was the response so different? One key reason was the multilateral system that had been
painstakingly constructed in Geneva covering 97% of the world economy.
Because governments knew that they were bound by rules and obligations that were common
to all, they had the confidence to resist protectionist pressure. And so we avoided turning a
damaging financial crash into an economic catastrophe.
24



Positive Steps to be taken by Developed Countries
There are three kinds of actions that developed countries have agreed to take to support
developing countries participation in international trade: (a) provide preferential access to
their markets; (b) provide technical and other assistance to permit them to meet their WTO
obligations and otherwise enhance the benefits developing countries derive from international
trade; (c) implement the overall agreements in ways which are beneficial or least damaging to
the interests of developing and least developed countries.
1. Preferential Market Access
As noted earlier, in recognition of the importance for developing countries to diversify their
exports into manufacturing and the difficulties that they may face in breaking into international
markets for such products, developed countries have provided tariff preferences to exports of
manufactures from developing countries under the GSP and, within that context, for special
treatment of the LDCs. As already discussed, many analyses of these programs have been
prepared which highlight their limitations.
1


2. Technical and other Assistance

The WTO agreements contain numerous references to the desirability of developed country
members and international institutions to provide technical assistance to developing and least
developed countries. The main objective of such assistance is the strengthening of the
institutional capacity of developing and least developed countries in way which would enable
them to meet the obligations they have assumed under the agreements. The main areas in which
technical assistance is envisaged include TBT, SPS, Customs Valuation, Pre-shipment
Inspection, Dispute Settlement, TPR and TRIPS.
2
In most cases, the relevant articles call for

1
For a good overview and detailed references see UNCTAD, 1994.

2
See inter alia SPS Article 9.1; TBT Article 11, 12.7; Implementation of GATT Article VII--
Article 20.3; Pre Shipment Inspection, Article 1.2; TRIPS Article 67; DSB Article 27.2; TPRM Section
25

the assistance to be provided upon request by the developing country or Least Developed
countries and on terms and conditions appropriate to the countries involved.

The conceptual underpinning of these provisions relates to the emerging analytical consensus
that institutional constraints are of major significance in inhibiting the effective integration of
poorer and least developed countries in the multilateral trading system. While it may be
relatively easy to promulgate policies to liberalize trade, it is far more difficult to develop the
capacity to take advantage of the opportunities international trade provides. Weaknesses in the
human and physical infrastructure and institutions related to international trade have been
identifying as key impediments in developing countries capacity to benefit from international
trade and technical assistance support by developed countries and international institutions ( as
well as longer transition periods, see below) have been recommended as means to address
these problems.
3
But a number of concerns have been raised regarding whether technical
assistance can deal with the heavy investment in both physical and human costs needed to build
capacity in areas where developing countries have assumed WTO commitments.

Pursuant to the mandate provided by these articles and other decisions, such as the Decision on
Measures in Favor of Least Developed Countries, a variety of technical assistance activities and
programs are being provided by international organizations, in particular the WTO, UNCTAD
and ITC and the World Bank. The main question which arises in this area of implementation of
special and differential provisions, is the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the efforts of the
WTO itself as well of WTO members and the international community in general, in providing
technical and other assistance relative to the needs of developing countries and to the least
developed.

3. Implementation of WTO Provisions in a Manner Favorable to Developing Country
Members: The WTO agreements contain many references in the preambles as well as in the
substantive provisions of the various texts committing members to implement the agreements
in ways which take into account the interests of developing and least developed countries.

3
See UNCTAD/WTO, 1996, for a discussion of the specific structural weaknesses in
developing country trade which would justify differential treatment and policies.
26

These references are of two kinds: (a) some are of a general nature and are expressed in broad
"best efforts" terminology; (b) in a few cases there are more explicit provisions as to how
developing countries are supposed to be treated more favorably or in ways which are least
damaging to their interests.

Examples of general preambular statements include "the need for positive efforts designed to
ensure that developing countries and especially the least developed. secure a share in the
growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development",
(Preamble of the Agreement for establishing the WTO); that " in implementing their
commitments on market access (in agriculture), developed country members would take fully
into account the particular needs and conditions of developing country members by providing
for a greater improvement of opportunities and terms of access for agricultural products of
particular interest to these members", ( Preamble of Agreement in Agriculture); that "members
shall give particular attention to the provisions of this agreement (TBT) concerning developing
country Members' rights and obligations ..." ( Article 12.2); and the recognition " that special
regard must be given by developed country Members to the special situation of developing
country Members when considering the application of antidumping measures", (Article 15).

There are serious questions as to whether developed countries have lived up to spirit of these
commitments. For example there has been no concerted effort to provide preferential treatment
to least developed countries and small exporters in the context of the agreement on textiles
under articles 2.18 and 6.6. Similarly, there is no evidence that the provision regarding the use
of constructive remedies before applying anti-dumping duties on imports from developing
countries (article 15) has been employed. On the contrary, there is evidence that the proportion
of total antidumping investigations and the imposition of definitive antidumping measures
against developing countries is much higher than the share of these countries in world exports
(Michalopoulos, 1999b). And very few developed countries appear to have notified the WTO
regarding the establishment of contact points to facilitate access of developing country service
suppliers (article IV:2).
27

THE IMPACT OF WTO (OR GATT AS THE CASE
MAYBE) POLICIES ON TRADE OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES

The problem of our age is growing economic disparity between developed and industrialized
country on the one hand, and the developing world on the other. WTO deals with the
amelioration of condition for trade and investments. The problem facing the WTO is how to
do a better job of integrating developing countries and their specific concerned into its work.
This is a particularly urgent task now that two-thirds of the membership of the WTO fall into
the developing country classification
In the last fifty years, the rules affecting developing country participation in the multilateral
trade system have evolved, as has the thinking about the nature of trade policies appropriate
for development. This portion of the paper reviews how concerns about development have
been addressed within the GATT and subsequently the WTO in the context of developing
countries. Its objective is to trace the evolution of the principles of participation of the
developing countries in the GATT, and later the WTO, and to link this evolution to the
changing consensus on the international trade policies that may be conducive to development.
To get a better understanding of the same we will now look at what all policies have been
implemented , the change in outlook towards developing countries in the context of trade that
has been observed over the past half century by W.T.O (G.A.A.T prior to 1995) for
developing nations.

28

TIMELINE OF GATT AND WTO TRADE ROUNDS

29

Principles and Practices of Developing Countries in the GATT, 1947-1986
A. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE EARLY GATT
When the GATT was established in 1947, 11 of the original 23 contracting parties would
have been considered developing countries
4
although at the time, there was no formal
recognition of such a group, nor were there any special provisions or exceptions in the
agreement that covered their rights or obligations. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the
original agreement was that the rights and or obligations. Indeed, the fundamental principle
of the original agreement was that the rights and obligations applied uniformly to all
contracting parties. The preamble to the agreement stressed the importance of substantially
reducing discriminatory treatment and emphasized reciprocal and mutually advantageous
arrangements (GATT, 1948). No principles applying specifically to developing countries
existed in the GATT at the time of its inception.
While the original GATT contained no explicit provisions regarding developing countries,
soon thereafter developing countries started to raise concerns and identify special challenges
that they faced in international trade. The starting point of their concerns was that
sustainable increases in income and output could only be brought about through increased
industrialization. In most countries there was a consensus that liberal trade policies would
not promote industrialization and development because of the then prevailing patterns of
international specialization: developing countries tended to specialize in raw materials and
primary commodity exports, which were characterized by low price and income elasticitys
of demand as well as considerable price volatility; while they were dependent on imports for
manufactures, especially capital goods and intermediate inputs needed for investment and
industrialization.
Moreover, it was thought that the development process tended to be inherently associated
with balance of payments difficulties which could be addressed in the short term through
trade controls. The trade strategy that emerged from this thinking and which was practiced by
most developing countries at the time emphasized three main strands:
the promotion of industrialization through import substitution behind protective tariff
and non-tariff barriers;

4
These were Brazil, Burma, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Rhodesia and Syria.
30

the promotion of exports of manufactures aimed at diversifying the export structure
in part through export subsidies, perceived as necessary to offset advantages of
established developed country producers;
The use of trade controls in response to actual or potential balance-of-payments
difficulties.
The trade strategies pursued by developing countries during this early period gave rise to
requests for changes in the multilateral trading system in four main areas:
(i) improved market access for developing country exports of manufactures to
developed markets, through the provision of trade preferences, in order to
overcome the inherent disadvantages developing countries were facing in
breaking into these markets
(ii) non reciprocity, or less than full reciprocity, in trade relations between developing
countries and developed countries, in order to permit developing countries to
maintain protection that was deemed necessary to promote development
(iii) Flexibility in the application by developing country members of GATT, and later
WTO, disciplines, for the same reason.
(iv) Stabilization of world commodity markets.
B. THE GATT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 1954-1986
The manner in which the international community sought to accommodate the specific
concerns of developing countries in the period between the early 1950s and the 1980s was
heavily influenced by the consensus prevailing at the time regarding the type of trade strategy
best suited to meeting development objectives. Throughout this period, developing countries
sought to emphasize the uniqueness of their development problems and challenges and the
need to be treated differently and more favorably in the GATT, in part by being permitted not
to liberalize their own trade and in part by being extended preferential access to developed
country markets.
The notable changes in outlook of GAAT towards addressing Developing nations that
happened during this period are as follows:
The 1954-55 GATT review session was the first occasion on which provisions were
adopted to address the needs of developing countries as a group within the GATT.
31

In 1958 GATT published a report that recommended the following, on considering
commodity issues that was plaguing global economy at that point of time:
a) stabilization programs to address commodity price fluctuations through
buffers stocks, and
b) Reductions in developed countries internal taxes on primary products such as
coffee, tea and tobacco which restrained consumption and import demand.
In 1961 the GATT adopted another declaration on the Promotion of Trade of Less
developed Countries, which inter alia called for preferences in market access for
developing countries not covered by the preferential tariff systems (such as the
Commonwealth preferences) or by preferences in customs unions or free trade areas
which were subsequently established. This was the first mention in the GATT of what
would later on become the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for developing
countries. "Generalized Scheme of Preferences" (GSP) allows developing country
exporters to pay less or no duties on their exports to the developed countries.
In 1968 the developing countries succeeded in establishing a Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP) under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and
development (UNCTAD) that came into being in 1964, and became the main
institution through which developing countries tried to pursue their international trade
agenda. The system was established on a voluntary basis by the developed
countriesmeaning they were not legally bound under the GATT to maintain it.
Both the Kennedy Round of negotiations, which ended in 1967, and the Tokyo
Round, which ended in 1979, resulted in cuts on tariffs on industrial goods on the
basis of an agreed formula.
5
However, the average reduction in tariffs following each
round was less favourable to developing countries than developed countries: 26 per
cent, compared to an average reduction of 36 per cent on goods of export interest to
developed countries after the Kennedy Round (UNCTAD,1968) and 26 per cent
compared to 33 per cent after the Tokyo Round (GATT, 1979). This was because of
the following reasons

5
The formula for the Kennedy Round required a cut of 50 per cent on tariffs on industrial goods. The
so called Swiss formula for the Tokyo Round reduced tariffs to a level z, where z=14x/(x+14), where x is the
pre-round tariff; it thereby generated greater reductions in higher tariffs than lower ones.
32

a) Many products of export interest to them were either exempted from formula
cuts or subject to lower than formula cuts. On the other hand, a number of
developed countries extended to developing countries non-reciprocal
reductions in duties on tropical products.
b) The relatively less favourable outcome of the two Rounds for the developing
countries was in part attributable to the limited active participation by them in
the actual GATT process of negotiating concessions

Finally, following a series of negotiations in UNCTAD, the Common Fund for
Commodities (CFC) was established in 1980 and went into effect in 1989. The Fund
has two objectives pursued by its two Accounts. The First Account is designed to
finance international buffer stocks and internationally coordinated national stocks.
The Second Account is to be used to finance measures for commodity development,
as well as promote co-ordination and consultation on commodity issues.

C. Rethinking Trade and Development in the 1980s.
It could be argued that by the beginning of the 1980s the developing countries had achieved
their objectives in establishing international trade rules that were responsive to their
perceived needs for development:
a. they had ample flexibility under the existing GATT rules in providing
protection on infant industry or balance of payments grounds
b. they did not have to liberalize their trade on a reciprocal basis in the context
of multilateral trade negotiations
c. they could support their exports through subsidiesalthough subject to the
risk of countervailing duties
d. they had preferential access to developed country markets under the GSP; and
e. They had a new Fund to support commodity stabilization schemes.
Yet, all was not well in the international rules governing developing country trade. There
were two sets of problems:
33

a) access conditions for developing countries in developed country markets were far
worse than one might suspect given the existence of GSP and extensive reductions in
tariffs on manufactures negotiated in previous GATT Rounds;
b) Just as the developing countries appeared to have attained success in establishing a set
of trade rules that would be beneficial to their development, the intellectual logic and
motives for these rules started to be extensively questioned.
Now let us look at both problems in a bit more elaborate fashion
MARKET ACCESS:-
a) While considerable reductions in tariffs on manufacturing imports to
developed countries had been made, non-tariff barriers continued to exist, and
if anything, to increase especially on products of interest to developing
countries. Example:- textiles and clothing (under the so called Multifibre
ArrangementMFA)
b) While tariffs had been reduced, tariff escalation was substantial, restraining
developing country entry into the processed goods marketsand to that extent
inhibiting their industrialization efforts.
c) The agricultural sector remained essentially outside the GATT, permitting
developed country exporters to constrain imports and subsidize exports at will
including on a number of products of export interest to developing countries.
THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS PROMPTED THE QUESTIONING OF
THE INTELLECTUAL UNDERPINNING OF RULES BY DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES:-
a) The GSP turned out less than it was touted to be at its inception. Being a
voluntary scheme, it meant that developing country suppliers had less
certainty regarding market conditions than under the contractual arrangements
involving bound tariffs in the GATT
b) At the same time the benefits of preferences seemed to be concentrated on the
more advanced developing countries which needed them the least.
c) But, perhaps most important, a number of products, such as textiles, of great
export interest to developing countries were either excluded from preferential
treatment completely or severely limited.
34

At the same time serious rethinking of the trade policies appropriate for development was
taking place in many developing countries. From the early seventies and throughout the
decade many had started to seriously question the effectiveness of infant industry protection,
supported through trade controls and foreign exchange restrictions as a vehicle for
industrialization and long term sustainable development. Various potential perils in persisting
with import substitution strategies had been identified. Trade barriers designed to protect
infant industries created disincentives to export, since high rates of effective protection
distorted relative prices in favor of import competing production. As a result, many infant
industries remained inefficient and failed to achieve export competitiveness.
The experience gained in the 1960s and 1970s also seemed to suggest that countries that
had pursued more "open" trade policies i.e. the ones which broadly balanced incentives
favoring import competing production with incentives in favor of manufacturing exports,
were the ones that had experienced strong growth in both exports and per capita income. On
the other hand, countries which had persisted with import substitution behind high trade
barriers had broadly experienced slow growth or declines in per capita income.
Many developing countries introduced stabilization and adjustment programmers, during this
period (supported by the World Bank and/ or the International Monetary Fund) which
frequently involved the conversion of quantitative restrictions into tariffs, tariff reduction,
the phasing out of selective export subsidies, and the liberalization of foreign exchange
markets.
6

All this was done outside the GATT and involved no changes in the formal commitments of
developing countries in that context.
Both as a consequence of the waning interest in GSP and commodity stabilization and the
emerging consensus on more liberal trade policies as being more conducive to development
and the rising importance of reciprocal liberalization as a means of attaining greater market
access, the importance of GATT as an institution within which developing countries wanted
to pursue trade objectives started to rise. This was manifested by the decision of a number of
developing countries, especially in Latin America (e.g. Mexico) to join the GATT. It was in
this setting of evolving attitudes towards trade policy and participation of developing

6
" In the broad swing of the pendulum, developing countries have been shifting from severe and
destructive protection to free trade fever" (Dornbush, 1992); "The 1980's have seen the beginnings of a change
of heart among developing country policy makers with regard to trade policy. The import substitution
consensus of the previous decades, with its preference for high levels of tariff and non-tariff barriers, has all but
evaporated (Rodrik, 1992).
35

countries in the GATT that the Uruguay Round was launched, symbolically enough in a
developing country in 1986. The Round which was to conclude eight years later brought
about a fundamental restructuring of the rules guiding the international trading system as well
as significant change in the role developing countries played within the system.
D. The Uruguay Round and the Development Dimension of the WTO.
The Uruguay Round is a complex agreement that covers six broad areas:
Tariff reductions in manufactured products.
The tariffication of non-tariff barriers in agriculture, as well as binding commitments
to reduce the level of agricultural protection.
The elimination of voluntary export restraints (VERs) and of quotas in textiles and
clothing.
Institutional and rule changes, such as the creation of the WTO and safeguards, anti-
dumping, and countervailing duty measures.
New areas such as Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the General Agreement on Trade
in Services (GATS).
Areas receiving greater coverage than earlier, such as customs valuation.
After more than four decades of legal limbo, during which the GATT was essentially a
provisional arrangement, it was, on January 1, 1995, finally transformed into the WTO a
permanent organization with a sound legal basis.
The Uruguay Round resulted in the multilateral trading system being greatly strengthened
and deepened in ways which carry the potential for greater integration of the developing
countries. This was achieved through the extension of trade rules to cover services, trade
related intellectual property rights and investment measures, as well as through the
establishment of a strengthened dispute settlement mechanism. One of the issues that
emerged in the late 1990s however, was precisely whether this potential was being realized.
There were two aspects of the UR agreements of great potential importance to developing
countries.
the strengthening of dispute settlement mechanism through the introduction of greater
certainty in the adoption of the quasi-judicial decisions of dispute settlement panels
36

was of great potential benefit by offering developing countries judicial system
protection against the larger and more powerful developed countries and a better
chance of prevailing in a bilateral trade dispute with them than they would have
outside the WTO rules.
Several UR agreements carried the potential for significant market access
improvements in areas of interest to developing countries. Specifically, market access
negotiations in the Uruguay Round covered areas not previously subject to GATT
disciplines - namely, Agriculture, Textiles and Clothing of particular interest to
developing Members. Moreover, the Agreement on Safeguards benefited developing
Members' market access though the elimination of Voluntary Export Restraints,
which had been significant barriers in areas such a footwear and leather products.
And, of course, the UR negotiations on tariffs resulted in further reductions in tariffs
on industrial imports with the average trade weighted tariff rate on such imports from
developing Members declining by 34 per cent.
At the end of the UR a number of studies were undertaken which attempted to estimate
through quantitative model simulations some the prospective potential net benefits from the
UR agreements to developing countries. Invariably, these studies suggested large potential
gains to developing countries in the aggregate, although the distribution of benefits was
expected to favor countries in Latin America and East Asia, while countries in Africa seemed
to benefit little if at all. In part this appeared to result from the fact that the African countries
liberalized their trade less, while they could be expected to lose more as a consequence of the
potential increases in prices of food imports ensuing from reduced agricultural export
subsidies in developed countries. Moreover, the dynamic benefits that could be visualized as
a consequence of increases in trade and incomes worldwide tended to dwarf the estimated
static effects of trade liberalization.
The UR also saw an evolution of developing country attitudes regarding Special and
Differential (S&D) provisions. The basic reason underlying the S&D treatment was simply
that developing countries did not have the institutional capacity to implement the
commitments demanded of them in some of the new areas covered by the WTO. We will
look at the S& D provisions in a bit more detail in the next segment.


37


Differential Commitments and Obligations by Developing Countries

There are two fundamental ways in which developing and least developed countries have
accepted differential obligations under the WTO agreements: (a) they enjoy freedom to
undertake policies which limit access to their markets or provide support to domestic producers
or exporters in ways which are not allowed to other members-- all of which can be viewed as
exemptions from WTO disciplines to take into account particular developing country
circumstances; (b) they are provided with more time in meeting obligations or commitments
under the agreements. In some cases, more favorable treatment involves a combination of (a)
and (b).
To elaborate on the above:-
Exemptions from Disciplines: - The most general and fundamental way in which
developing countries continue to be exempted from WTO disciplines regarding market
access policies is the recognition of the principle of non-reciprocity in trade negotiations
with developed countries to reduce or remove tariffs and other barriers to trade. This
principle is recognized in GATT (1994) Article XXXVI and in the "Enabling Clause".
Consistent with these provisions, many developing countries have not bound tariffs on
their industrial products to the same extent as developed countries or have agreed to
bind at substantially higher than applied levels.
Protection to Domestic Industry:- A second way in which developing countries have
greater flexibility in providing protection to domestic industry is through the provisions
of GATT Article XVIII, which give developing countries the freedom to:
a. be able to grant the tariff protection required for the establishment of a
particular industry and
b. Apply quantitative restrictions for balance of payments purposes. Since
the establishment of WTO there have been very few instances in which
these provisions have been actually invoked.



38

Time Extensions: - The final way in which special and differential treatment is
provided in the WTO is through the provision of extension in the time frame over
which certain obligations under the agreements are to be implemented by developing
and least developed countries. Flexibility in transition times is provided for in
practically all the WTO Agreements, with the exception of the Agreement on Anti-
Dumping Procedures and on Pre-shipment Inspection. Time extensions are provided
for a variety of obligations assumed especially under the TBT, SPS and TRIPS
agreements.
E. Between Rounds 19941998
The developing countries which had participated in the Uruguay Round continued to
participate in the committees set up after it, and their ambassadors were increasingly
frequently seen as chairs. Those which had not negotiated had to participate in
implementation. In the absence of negotiations and bargaining, the formation of alliances has
been less evident. All the existing groups continued. The only new grouping to emerge,
driven partly by the costs and difficulties of implementation, was small island countries.
Developing country demands would be in conflict in a negotiating round, but until then they
did not need to choose whether to emphasize the differences or the general unity of
developing countries. All countries supported (or did not oppose) all the groups. The G77
positions also continued to exist, taking positions for all developing countries.
F.THE DOHA ROUND
The latest World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiation round, launched in November 2001
in Doha, was seen as a positive response to the terrorist attacks on the USA. The negotiations,
known as the Development Round, had the ultimate objectives of reducing poverty and
promoting development
The Doha talks were suspended in July 2008, with trade negotiators increasingly lacking
support from their governments. Future elections and rising food and energy prices have
exacerbated protectionist tendencies and shifted the focus from international development to
self-interest. There are serious concerns as to whether talks can be revived.


39



The deal-breakers: Why the talks were suspended
The Doha negotiations stalled at the end of July 2008 for a number of reasons. Broadly
speaking, the European Union (EU) and India were blamed by the USA for trying to exclude
too many agricultural products from tariff cuts, while the USA was blamed by many develop-
ing countries for not being ready to reduce the present level of its trade-distorting subsidies
(particularly for cotton).
As a result of rising food prices and protected agricultural markets in the EU and USA, some
developing countries, like China and India, became increasingly reluctant to reduce barriers
for low-priced, often subsidized, agricultural imports. In turn, the USA argued it could not cut
domestic agricultural support if it did not win new markets, such as China and India.
What had been on the table?
The degree of actual liberalization that would have arisen from the trade round is very
difficult to predict. First, it is important to note that WTO members negotiate over bound,
(i.e. maximum) tariffs and ceilings for agricultural subsidies. These can be significantly
higher than actual applied tariffs and subsidy levels, as shown in figure 1, which contrasts the
bound tariffs with the applied tariff rates. The basic formulas agreed might, therefore, result
in few meaningful cuts for actual applied tariffs. A similar story applies to the definition of
the trade-distorting subsidies over which the EU and the USA were battling. The definition is
crucial to determine the real value of any subsidy cut. As the EU and USA have different
agricultural subsidy systems, they could not agree a formula that would reduce the subsidies
while accommodating their different interests.
The compromise for non-agricultural tariff cuts would have taken account of the interests of
industrialized countries by, for example, improving EU and US access to the Chinese car
market. The proposed tariff cuts by developed countries had the additional potential to reduce
the practice of tariff escalation, i.e. the levying of higher tariffs on processed goods compared
to raw materials. As with the tariff reductions for agricultural products, this would have been
mainly in the interests of large exporters of agro-processed products, such as Brazil or India.
40


Furthermore, the USA signaled its readiness to reduce the level of trade-distorting
agricultural subsidies below the average level applied in the past four to seven years, though
still higher than the current level. The hopes of cotton producers from developing countries
(mainly in West and Central Africa) for a compromise that would lock in reduced cotton
subsidies were dashed.
Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries
In the short run, both existing trade patterns and the results of econometric models suggest
that middle-income countries, most notably Brazil, Argentina and Thailand, will be the big
winners from agricultural liberalization. Many low-income countries would also benefit if the
Doha Round liberalizes barriers to imports of tropical products, such as sugar, rice, tobacco
and peanuts; addresses tariff escalation on processed products derived from primary
commodities, such as cocoa powder and roasted coffee; and eliminates specific tariffs that
discriminate against low-value basic commodities. Some countries, however, could lose from
a Doha Round agreement if the value of preferential access they have in rich country markets
is eroded, or if they are net food importers. In general, agricultural trade liberalization in rich
countries will lead to lower internal prices, production and exports, and increased demand for
imports, which will put upward pressure on world prices. For example, expansion of sugar
import quotas in rich countries would allow competitive exporters, including much of Central
and South America, Thailand and South Africa, to increase their market share in the protected
markets and earn more on their exports to unprotected markets as a result of the increase in
world prices. But less competitive exporters in the Caribbean and Africa that rely heavily on
preferential access to the U.S. and European markets would earn less on their exports and
could see the volume fall as well, depending on the degree of liberalization that occurs.
41

Fortunately, serious preference erosion problems are likely to be limited to a small number of
products and countries, mainly those less competitive sugar and banana exporters with
guaranteed access in the European Union. And, with respect to higher food costs in net-
importing countries, World Bank simulations suggest that increases in food prices from
global free trade would be modest. Increases from the partial liberalization expected from the
Doha Round would likely fall in the low single digits and would be phased in over a number
of years. This is less than the average annual fluctuations of up to 15 percent in the prices of
rice, wheat and corn that has been normal over the past 20 years. Moreover, many
developing countries have tariffs on food products that could be lowered if global prices rise.
Preference erosion and the problems of net food-importing countries should be addressed, but
they should not be used as excuses to block an agreement. The more serious challenges to
developing countries come from the supply-side constraints that could easily prevent many of
them, and especially poor farmers within them, from taking advantage of any new trade
opportunities that arise. In addition to the indicators of inadequate transportation and
communication infrastructure shown in Table 4, most poor farmers suffer from low
productivity with little or no technical or financial capacity to raise it. Complementary
policies and aid-for-trade are also needed if the Doha Round is to deliver on the development
part of the agenda.
LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRY AND WTO

A least developed country (LDC) is a country that, according to the United Nations, exhibits
the lowest indicators of socioeconomic development, with the lowest Human Development
Index ratings of all countries in the world. The concept of LDCs originated in the late 1960s
and the first group of LDCs was listed by the UN in its resolution 2768 (XXVI) of 18
November 1971. A country is classified as a Least Developed Country if it meets three
criteria:
Poverty (adjustable criterion: three-year average GNI per capita of less than US $992,
which must exceed $1,190 to leave the list as of 2012)
Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and
adult literacy) and
Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of
exports of goods and services, economic importance of non-traditional activities,
42

merchandise export concentration, handicap of economic smallness, and the
percentage of population displaced by natural disasters).

LDC criteria are reviewed every three years by the Committee for Development Policy
(CDP) of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Countries may "graduate" out of
the LDC classification when indicators exceed these criteria. The United Nations Office of
the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing
Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) coordinates UN support and
provides advocacy services for Least Developed Countries. The classification (as of 24
January 2014) applies to 49 countries.
Since the LDC category was initiated, only three countries have graduated to developing
country status. The first country to graduate from LDC status was Botswana in 1994. The
second country was Cape Verde, in 2007. Maldives became the third country to graduate to
developing country status on 1 January 2011. In 2011 the UN suggested that Equatorial
Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are among the candidates for promotion from LDC
status. At the UN's fourth conference on LDCs held in May 2011, delegates endorsed a goal
targeting the promotion of at least half the current LDC countries within the next ten years.
Least developed countries suffer conditions of extreme poverty, ongoing and widespread
conflict (including civil war or ethnic clashes), extensive political corruption, and lack
political and social stability. The form of government in such countries is often authoritarian
in nature, and may comprise a dictatorship, warlordism, or a kleptocracy. AIDS is a major
issue in many of these countries. The majority of LDCs are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Over
population and lack of proper distribution of wealth and resources is also a common matter
within the LDC countries.
There have been four United Nations conferences on LDCs, held every ten years. The first
two were in Paris, in 1981 and 1991; the third was in Brussels in 2001.The Fourth UN
Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV) was held in Istanbul, Turkey, 913 May
2011. It was attended by Ban Ki-Moon, the head of the UN, and close to 50 prime ministers
and heads of state.
The List of "least developed countries" according to the United Nations with some that are
categorized into the landlocked developing countries

and the Small Island Developing States:
43


Africa (34 countries)
Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Central African
Republic
Chad
Comoros
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Niger
Rwanda
So Tom and
Prncipe
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Togo
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Asia-Pacific (14 countries)
Afghanistan
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Cambodia
East Timor
Kiribati
Laos
Myanmar
Nepal
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Yemen
44


Americas (1 country)
Haiti
Former LDCs
Sikkim (Became a state within the Republic of India in 1975)
Botswana (Graduated from LDC status in 1994)
Cape Verde (Graduated in 2007)
Maldives (Graduated in 2011)

LDCs: a diverse group
Not all LDCs have the same opportunities and constraints to develop: a majority are
medium-size countries with a small export base. Some have started to diversify into agro-
processing and manufacturing, others into mining or modern services. Six oil producers are
among the LDCs as well as a group of vulnerable small islands. Finally, a number of LDCs
are in the throngs of civil strife and unresolved statehood.
Future development prospects
Many LDCs are in a good position today to move towards a sustainable high-growth
path and reduce absolute poverty through employment, following the example of more
advanced developing countries. We reach this conclusion after reviewing the LDCs track
record in the past decade and their reaction to the crises of the past years.
In the past decade development progress in many LDCs was remarkable. Before the financial
crisis set in, growth of investment, GDP and exports was typically high, reaching
Asian proportions. This was not only due to a price boom for agricultural and mineral
commodities but also to foreign and domestic investment in infrastructure and productive
sectors.
45

LDCs were struck first by a doubling of food prices (2007), then by a near-doubling
of oil prices (2007-08) and, finally, by the financial crisis starting in September 2008.
Confronting these challenges, many LDCs policy stance was sound and revealed
strong economic governance: Many lowered import tariffs on food, increased subsidies and
reinforced safety net programs as a reaction to the food crisis. Oil importers absorbed the
price hike of oil by increasing subsidies or lowering taxes on oil products. Most oil exporters
saved the additional revenues in contrast to earlier oil booms.
When the financial crisis turned into an economic crisis, LDCs were severely
affected, although on average less than other developing countries, owing to their low
integration in the international economy. Investment inflows and remittances from
Diasporas slowed considerably. However, reduced commodity prices reversed the earlier
shock for oil importers. Overall, LDCs recovered quite well from the financial crisis. In 2009,
the GDP of African LDCs, without oil exporters, is estimated at 3.5 percent, and of
Asian LDCs at 5.5 percent. Foreign direct investment picked up again starting in the second
semester of 2009.
It is probable, therefore, that investment and growth will recover and that many LDCs will be
Able to pursue structural change towards more diverse production and exports. This is why
we propose a development agenda for LDCs which focuses on trade competitiveness
and investment. Such an outlook builds on the assumption that the recovery of the
world economy including a driving role of emerging market economies will
continue on the present path. It also takes for granted that international cooperation is able to
change from its earlier focus on social sectors and emergency aid to a strengthening of
the business environment, trade and investment. Finally, it assumes that trade and investment
policies of developed and advanced developing countries will support and not hinder the
LDCs dynamic integration in the world economy.
A development agenda for LDCs
Opportunities for structural change and diversification are multifaceted and depend on the
endowments and policies of each LDC. They may concern a broadening and increased
processing of agricultural and mineral exports, finding niches in international manufacturing
value chains and engaging in modern services.
46

As most LDC have small and shallow markets, a division of labor in productive investment
with neighboring countries will in many cases allow for a scale of production which
make output and exports internationally competitive and enhance trade. Therefore,
stronger regional economic communities (REC) as well as regional investment in
economic infrastructure are essential conditions for a successful diversification strategy.
Strategies for trade expansion and diversification have to be prepared. Their planning and
monitoring should be inclusive, they have to be based on a sound analysis of the countrys
potential, and they should have an anchor in the government with considerable clout.
A manageable group of policy reforms and projects should be selected to create and
strengthen an enabling business environment, institutions to lower trade transaction costs,
trade-related infrastructure, well informed trade policies, sustainable domestic and foreign
investment, and a public-private partnership on trade promotion and information. Sound
investment governance is a must. Of particular concern are oil, gas and mining
investments which are prone to non-transparent business practices. This is why LDC
governments, involved in mineral investments, should adhere to the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative which ensures that investments are properly appraised
and then monitored, tracing payments made by extractive firms to host governments. Foreign
investment in agriculture has the potential to raise productivity and welfare but only if it
respects the rights of existing users of land, water and other resources, associates local
communities and improves their livelihoods, and does not harm the environment. All sizable
investments in a country should be screened beforehand to ensure their sustainability. Such
appraisal techniques should find their way into international investment treaties and
host State-investor agreements, and LDC governments should acquire the skills to appraise
and screen projects.
Another essential aspect of governance concerns trade and financial relations. LDC
governments should partner with business associations, think-tanks and civil society groups
not only for the development and monitoring of trade strategies but also for the preparation of
specific reforms, for instance in trade facilitation. They should take into account the
importance of exchange rate policies in the competitiveness of exports. Also they
should better mobilize domestic revenues and other financial resources. This is a
particularly important aspect in the selection of foreign investments but concerns more
generally tax collection, the fight against tax fraud, mispricing and smuggling of
traded goods, and international tax agreements to fight tax evasion.
47

At WTO the LDC Group has emerged as a negotiating partner with a single and strong voice
over the last years. This role has now to be strengthened to deal with new challenges in the
trade agenda. Therefore, a small permanent Secretariat will be required which will be able to
organize meetings, inform members of the group, and prepare analytical inputs for LDC
governments and international negotiations. LDC countries should come up with the core
funding for the Secretariat themselves but get support for policy studies from development
partners. Advice should extend to LDCs role in regional economic communities and
trade and investment agreements.
Given the diversity in the LDC group, trade and investment strategies will have to be adapted
to each case. Oil and mineral producing countries will be concerned particularly with
avoiding a negative incidence of high revenues and prices on other sectors of the economy
(Dutch disease) and will seek to create the fundaments of a more diversified range
of exports. Small islands will want to reduce their vulnerability to climate change and
external economic shocks hitting their mainstay sectors. Finally, fragile States will often not
be in a position to focus on trade and investment but should strive to maintain and
create jobs wherever possible.
International community: trade and investment policies
Even more important than development cooperation are trade, investment and technology
policies of developed and advanced developing countries that give strong production
and export incentives to LDCs. In trade that means that the coverage of duty-free and quota-
free preferences should be expanded to all products and all LDCs and even other small
market low-income countries. Rules of origin should promote trade and investment and
allow for inputs to LDC production to come from all developing countries. It also
means concluding new-style trade agreements which maximize the positive effects on
regional integration and market access of LDCs These agreements should have as a
companion aid for trade measures that are enabling, comprehensive and practical.
Industrialized and emerging market countries should put an end to the stalemate of
the Doha Round and agree to conclude the negotiations which, with all their limitations, are
to the benefit of LDCs. If this is impossible, at least an immediate early harvest should
include the commitment to duty-free and quota-free preferences, the agreement on
trade facilitation, and the more than proportional reduction of cotton subsidies.
48

A new type of North-South and East-South investment agreement should replace the
thousands of old style investment agreements which have proved to be of little use. Besides a
legitimate protection of investors this would imply giving support to a screening
mechanism for important investments to ensure that investment projects follow sound
practice and take into account also the interests of other stakeholders than the
invested enterprise. Such agreements could give official support to proven voluntary
guidelines for investors. Dispute settlement modalities also have to become more
transparent, predictable and independent. A model agreement for sustainable investment was
prepared in 2005 by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
These recommendations are particularly appropriate for advanced developing countries
which have become important trading and investment partners of LDCs. LDC trade
with China, India and other advanced developing countries is highly imbalanced. In fact,
there are cases where cheap imports from these countries displace local production in
LDCs sometimes built up earlier by investors from the same Asian countries. Market
access for LDC exports is still limited for many products by tariffs and, in some
countries, complex product standards. Also, Asian countries have made substantial
investments in mineral resources and infrastructure in LDCs. As a consequence, the risk
of making unsustainable investments is considerable.
Development cooperation
The time has come to give priority in LDCs to trade competitiveness and economic
diversification. Governments and cooperation agencies should focus more decisively on these
reforms than in the past. Aid requirements are considerable. Only a small number of LDCs
has been able to obtain adequate support so far to pursue this new agenda. And now
additional demands will have to be addressed on the account of climate mitigation and
adaptation in order to reach climate-resilient development.
The donor community should help each LDC to plan and implement a trade and investment
strategy. This is not yet the case today. For instance, most bilateral donors in Africa have
chosen only a few partners, and often these are the same for many donors.
Multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the African Development Bank are able
to give some counterweight to this aid concentration but are limited themselves by
tight resource constraints in their field presence in a number of LDCs. Strong technical
49

representation in LDCs by donors is a must for an enhanced dialogue which will lead to
effective assistance.
The Enhanced Integrated Framework is a good framework for aid alignment and
harmonization to the extent that it becomes operational and down-to-earth. Yet, in many
LDCs strengthened investment, trade policy and private sector development are still in the
starting blocks. This has good reasons and cannot be by-passed by donors. But non-
controversial reforms, capacity-building and trade infrastructure should make progress even
if ideal institutional arrangements have not yet been sorted out. Donors and LDC
stakeholders have a shared responsibility to make the Enhanced Integrated Framework work
and accelerate its implementation. They should jointly report on progress and difficulties
annually, country by country. Support to this agenda requires an expertise and presence in
LDCs of cooperation agencies which often goes beyond their resources and skills. Bilateral
agencies should make an effort to train and upgrade their staff to become familiar with
trade and investment policies of developing countries and particularly LDCs.
Finally, monitoring and evaluation of projects and country programs are essential tools but
serve only their purpose if institutions learn by heeding recommendations made. Not many
cooperation agencies have established reliable feed-back into new programs they
finance. Both cooperation agencies and LDC governments should give more weight to
monitoring and evaluation. Particular care has to be taken to ensure a rigorous feed-back of
the track record into new operations, a function which the Enhanced Integrated
Framework could coordinate.
Examples of initiatives in investment and trade cooperation
Regional cooperation and integration. The most important task now is to take stock of trends
and develop policy prescriptions. This is best done in common with LDC researchers and
policy makers in a combination of research studies and dissemination workshops. Based on
this analysis cooperation agencies should give support to LDCs in their regional
integration policies. Regional economic communities should run parallel to regional
partnerships around a single common cause, for example in economic infrastructure.
Aid should enhance investment initiatives by LDCs. Diversification requires strong
investment by the domestic private and public sectors as well as by foreign companies. Tools
50

have to be found which enable higher investment and technology absorption as well as a
sustainable choice and management of investment with high benefits to the society as
a whole.
Specialized equity funds, often funded by public resources because of the high risk involved,
have been a preferred tool used in advanced developing countries in the past.
Other investment enabling tools are a one-stop shop for foreign investors and local investors
looking for technical and marketing partners, regulation and incentives for backbone
and business services, best-practice investment codes, and technical assistance to
domestic public-private partnerships for investment projects.
A science and technology culture to facilitate technology transfer. Academic and vocational
training as well as technological adaptive research should be attended to and reinforced in
close cooperation with private enterprise. An essential element is literacy in information
technology which has to be tied to improved access to telecommunications and information
infrastructure. Adaptive research and development centers should be established in the
main productive sectors helping to disseminate good practice. LDCs should explore and
build-up capacity in intellectual property rights focusing on those rights which correspond to
the countrys present interests.
Agricultural exports and food security. Aid agencies have to focus much more than in
the past on giving support to LDC agriculture. Particularly African LDCs have to invest
in technologies and irrigation to use the sizable untapped potential and produce higher yields,
following the lead of other developing countries. Higher production and exports, particularly
to neighbors and the region, are essential for small countries as food security will improve if
it is organized at the regional level. Agricultural research should also be considered a
cooperative undertaking of the region.
Processing of commodities. Concrete proposals are to engage in research and development
and market research of commodity-based products for instance through partnerships of
research institutes and universities, provide credit and technical assistance to build up
domestic processing capacity, encourage direct investments by international food retailers,
and promote equity investments of domestic enterprises.
51

Modern services. LDCs should develop strategies to get services on their development map.
They should then implement the action and reform program resulting from the
strategy.
LDCs would then be in a position to include trade in services in international
agreements taking into account the countrys interest and priorities.
Trade facilitation. It is uncontested today that a combination of thorough reform of Customs
and other border agencies, more efficient trade logistics services and regulation, and
improved infrastructure have a good potential to lower export and import costs, often more
than reducing tariffs. The positive impact on land-locked LDCs is greater, if efficient
trade corridors to ports are organized.
Lowering business costs by improving business procedures and management. In the last
years, cooperation agencies have increased their support to the business sector in low-
income countries. One vector has been complex business procedures, that is the time
required to establish enterprises, and the cost of public intervention in their management and
their trade.
The international and domestic private sector
Dynamic pre-crisis investment is expected to recover. Besides major investment in extractive
industry, private investment in LDCs is increasing again. LDC governments have to gear up
to engage with investors, be they foreign or domestic. While developed countries remain the
main source of foreign direct investment in many LDCs, the field has increased not only to
some emerging market countries such as China, India, Malaysia, and Russia but to
many others including African countries.
Contracts between host States and investors. It will be essential for foreign investors and
financiers to follow sound investment criteria which have been anchored in voluntary
investment codes and international agreements. Also, LDCs should now lay down the criteria
which they will use in screening foreign investment and make them public so that investors
know the rules. Recently, the International Bar Association took the initiative to develop a
model mining development agreement to serve as a negotiation template for investor-State
agreements in the mining sector in developing countries.
52

Foreign direct investment has to be beneficial for LDC stakeholders and has to draw in local
investors. Investments have to be profitable also for workers, suppliers, service
providers, and the government. Local producers and investors should be associated
through joint ventures or supplies and services. The investment has to be environmentally
and socially sound. Finally, in the case of sizable and intrusive investments, local
communities have to be consulted.
Domestic investment is essential, independently from FDI. In many cases investment grows
out of domestic trading activities, SMEs and microenterprises, be it in agriculture,
manufacturing or services. Governments have to create a level playing field for these new
entrepreneurs and strengthen the local business culture through good training opportunities.
Remittances for investment of the Diasporas. Some emigrates would like to invest in
their country of origin but not as direct investors. They have to be able to rely on sound
investment agencies (investment companies or operational entrepreneurial NGOs) which are
willing to submit projects, report on investments transparently and fully, and know how to
cope with domestic administrative rules.
Growing Malis Mango Exports
Mali exported small quantities of mangoes by airfreight, mainly to France, since the
1970s. A decisive change came about in the year 2000, when Malis export
promotion agency, in partnership with an Ivorian firm, was able to successfully export
by sea from Abidjan. Malian trade authorities, in consultation with professionals and
local export promotion agencies, defined strict quality, calibration and conditioning norms
for mango exports in 2005. A Mango Task Force was established that included the
three producers associations for fruits and vegetables, export intermediaries and public
export promotion and competitiveness units. The Netherlands, the World Bank and USAID
made available funding to establish and manage a pack house including cold storage,
calibration, and quality control, and located close to Bamako airport (PLAZA). It
opened in 2008. ITC contributed by training Malian exporters in marketing and having them
participate several times in a major European fair. The joint effort of Malian producers
and their associations, the Malian promotion agency, private transport and shipping firms
and several cooperation agencies have so far resulted in a major increase of mango
exports, from 2915 tons in 2005 (only to France) to12677 tons to eight export markets in
53

2008. The volumes decreased in 2009 to 10000 tons but the2010 season has been buoyant
again. Now attempts are made to diversify exports into dried mangoes, mango jam and
juice. The pack house PLAZA will be used also for the export of French beans, melon and
pawpaw, as the mango season lasts only five months. It is now owned by the three
producers associations and managed by a private firm.
Modernizing Customs in Ghana
In Ghana, a single electronic window was established to manage border passage of
goods (imports, exports and transit). It started in 2000 and took about three years to
become operational at an investment cost of USD 6 million. To initiate and implement the
reform, a Joint Venture Company was formed that obtained a ten year mandate to operate
Customs, using Customs staff. Ghana Customs has a 20 % share. The total public share
is 35% (including two other public shareholders), while two private shareholders hold
65% of the shares. The main private shareholder and technical partner of the venture is SGS,
a Geneva based Inspection Company. It holds a 60% share. Operation of the system as
well as dividends to shareholders are paid through a 0.4% FOB price levy on imports
(all other transactions are free of charge). Ghana took over software (Trade net) that was first
used in \Singapore and then in Mauritius. Since 2003 government revenues from Customs
tariffs and other border charges have increased annually between 20% and 40 %, passage
times at the main border points are now mostly below one day compared to about 5 days
before. The company serves as a model for other e-government ventures in Ghana and
as export to other countries in the region. The two ports in Ghana have become main entry
points to the West African region serving several Sahel countries.
Two examples of international partnerships:
An integrated textile production chain: the COOP experience
Since 1991, REMEI AG, a small Swiss textile trading firm, has built up an integrated chain
of textile production forming alliances with cotton farmers in India and Tanzania,
using a network of firms for spinning and processing in many countries but predominantly in
India and Eastern Europe, and selling, today, 8400 articles through the Swiss retail
chain Coop (Naturalize), representing a CHF 57 million turnover in 2006. Similar
retail partnerships have been developed since 2002 with Monoprix, France, and Coop, Italy.
An eco-social label, bioRe is used for all products and is independently monitored.
54

Biological cotton is used and farmers are remunerated, in cash and in kind (training,
social community projects) between 20% and 40 % above local market prices. Part of the
farmers are also shareholders in the Indian bioRe company. Spinning and manufacturing
follows ecologically-friendly methods (e.g. non-chlorine bleaching, no use of formaldehyde,
dyestuff use following high environmental standards, adequate waste water treatment) and
respects international labor rights (SA 8000 criteria).

An initiative of international retailers
International food retailers envisage to guarantee the buying of food products in the future
from developing countries following investments in projects and capacity-building of
smallholders with the participation of specialized technical agencies. Such triangular projects
might be interesting for LDCs provided that they contribute to satisfying local and regional
markets needs in the first place, reaching higher productivity in farming and improving the
organization.
Similar initiatives have been undertaken by eighty European retail firms using a social
standard as basis for labeled food products sold in their stores (BSCI) and helping the
suppliers to conform to these standards. As far as we know, this standard have been used
mainly with plantation farmers including outsourcing schemes.









55



CONCLUSION
The main motive of the WTO and all other countries is to expand international trade
in various fields like agriculture, retail, and engineering and defence.
The Developed countries already have a strong RND base. They are also strong in
agriculture, engineering, retail, defence and pharmaceuticals because of strong RND
base.
But the Developing and under developed cannot spend on RND.
Developed countries have a limited market within themselves and have been
saturated. Hence they want to go beyond their boundaries.
Basically they are not price competitive so they are not able to compete in developing
or under developed countries because of various issues of local subsidies and tariff
barriers of developing or under developed countries.
There are environmental issues also, because developed countries while in their RND
field have damaged environment and after realising stopped it.
Developing and under developed countries require the same RND and environment
that is there in developed countries.
So there are three basic points which developed countries want to address. They are as
follows:
1. Environmental issues so that other countries do not go into RND.
2. They want these countries to reduce their subsidies and tariff barriers so that they
are price competitive.
3. Development in the international trade in the fields of agriculture, engineering,
pharmaceutical and defence.
Its a complex issue. India is resisting and want to go in for a big way in RND and
want to protect its subsidies and tariff barriers in agriculture and engineering.
But USA wants to sell more.
India wants its own companies to export more.
The double speak of U.S.A. and other developed countries is that they do not want to
reduce their own agricultural subsidies and want to export their produce whereas they
56

are asking Indian and other developing countries to reduce subsidies in agricultural
sector and reduce tariff. So far India has only partially agreed. Thats why we see a lot
of imported food products in India.


Environmental Issues: India and other developing countries are insisting that the
developed countries should pay for deterioration of RND ventures and compensate to
developing counties for their RND work, which the developed countries are opposing
and want developing countries to stop RND in the name of deterioration.

From the recent rounds of meets, for the fields of Engineering, pharmaceuticals and
defence, there is a consensus. For example. In India, EU countries are selling more
cars only because of reduction in tariffs and further tariffs will be reduced.

Earlier china was not ready to join WTO. Then they tried to become the member. It
was only India because of which it could become a member.

We think the cause of trade and the multilateral system has never been stronger:
For growth and jobs
For recovery and development
For businesses large and small
For the values that we hold dear, and which are indivisible from the very idea of
America.
If the WTO didnt exist today, we would have to invent it.
We can also see that yes the USA is in fact using the WTO as a tool to show its dominance
over the other countries.




57




APPENDIX
Multilateral Trading Facility:
A trading system that facilitates the exchange of financial instruments between multiple
parties. Multilateral trading facilities allows eligible contract participants to gather and
transfer a variety of securities, especially instruments that may not have an official market.
These facilities are often electronic systems controlled by approved market operators or
larger investment banks. Traders will usually submit orders electronically, where a matching
software engine is used to pair buyers with sellers.
TRIPS:
The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an
international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets
down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation as applied
to nationals of other WTO Members. It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.
OECD:
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (French:
Organisation de coopration ET de dveloppement conomiques, OCDE) is an international
economic organization of 34 countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and
world trade. It is a forum of countries committed to democracy and the market economy,
providing a platform to compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems,
identify good practices and coordinate domestic and international policies of its members.
GATS:
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) that entered into force in January 1995 as a result of the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system to service
58

sector, in the same way the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a
system for merchandise trade.
All members of the WTO are signatories to the GATS. The basic WTO principle of most
favored nation (MFN) applies to GATS as well. However, upon accession, Members may
introduce temporary exemptions to this rule.
TBT:
Technical regulations and product standards may vary from country to country. Having many
different regulations and standards makes life difficult for producers and exporters. If
regulations are set arbitrarily, they could be used as an excuse for protectionism.
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade tries to ensure that regulations, standards,
testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles, while also providing
members with the right to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such
as the protection of human health and safety, or the environment.
UNCTAD:
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in
1964 as a permanent intergovernmental body.
UNCTAD is the principal organ of the United Nations General Assembly dealing with trade,
investment, and development issues. The organization's goals are to: "maximize the trade,
investment and development opportunities of developing countries and assist them in their
efforts to integrate into the world economy on an equitable basis.






59




REFERENCES
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10thi_e/10thi00_e.html
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/wto_dg_stat_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/mdg_e/development_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_World_Trade_Organization
Journals Referred
We went through the journals and articles on the WTO official website.