|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
 Posts:September 21, 2009A Good Start, but the G-20 Must Do More on Trade Preferences for Poor CountriesBy Randall SoderquistThis is a joint posting with Kimberly Elliott and also appeared on the Huffington Post. With one important reservation, we welcome last week’s EU proposal that the upcoming Pittsburgh G-20 Summit “should adopt the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) initiative without delay to support people in developing countries suffering from the crisis.” The EBA nominally provides 100 percent duty-free, quota-free market access for exports from least-developed countries, so suggesting that the rest of the G-20 replicate it is clearly in line with a Sept. 2 letter sent by members of the CGD Global Trade Preference Reform Working Group. The letter called upon: Read More… 1 Comment »September 2, 2009Time to Deliver on Duty-Free, Quota-Free Market Access for the World’s Poorest CountriesBy Randall SoderquistThis blog entry also appeared on the Huffington Post. Leaders of the world’s richest nations have repeatedly pledged to offer the world’s poorest countries duty-free, quota-free (DFQF) access to their markets. Such access is one of the most powerful tools that high-income countries have to help poor countries to help themselves. The upcoming G-20 summit in Pittsburgh is an opportunity for the world’s leaders to finally deliver on this promise. Read More… 5 Comments »August 13, 2009In Kenya, Questions and Suggestions on AGOABy Randall SoderquistLast week Secretary of State Clinton, U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, and other U.S. government officials were in Nairobi at the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Forum, making new and improved promises about the commitment of the United States to African development. I was in Nairobi last week too to moderate our fifth consultation meeting for the CGD Global Trade Preference Reform Working Group. Previous consultations were held in Jaipur, Delhi, Dhaka, and London, but the AGOA Forum offered a unique opportunity to discuss global trade preference program reform and coordination – an initiative specifically designed to assist lesser-developed countries expand exports and increase opportunities for economic growth – with individuals from the public, private, and non-profit sectors in Africa. Read More… 3 Comments »March 20, 2009NGO Leaders and Business Community Urge Obama and Congress to Act on Trade & Development Agenda — with a Little Help from CGDBy Randall Soderquist
Concern about “backsliding” on trade – governments moving away from previous commitments to cut tariffs and subsidies – grew stronger. Government officials from other countries contacted us and asked what would come next on U.S. trade policy, and, significantly, whether CGD would play an active role in doing new research and creating viable policy alternatives that would benefit developing countries in a changing global economy. This led us to consider the possibility that we might influence the Obama Administration trade agenda if we inserted innovative policy ideas in a constructive way. To this end, we invited approximately 15 representatives from the development, business, and faith-based communities to CGD and carefully considered if there were areas where we could find common interest and pursue collective action. The meeting was remarkably congenial and productive. There were far more areas of agreement than disagreement, although some controversial issues, such as whether and how to address labor and environmental concerns in trade agreements (see the May 10th Agreement), were left firmly on the backburner. The group decided to draft a carefully balanced letter to President Obama and key Congressional leaders that outlines the critical importance of global trade as a mechanism for poverty alleviation, economic growth, and political stability. That letter, released today, urges the Administration and Congress to enact policies that promote global economic growth and increase international trade and investment flows. It says, in part:
The timing of this letter could not be better. If crisis creates the conditions for change, now is the time for action. Recent reports from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund reinforce the fact that the global economy is in an increasingly precarious position, with developing countries in particular suffering potentially irreversible damage from declining exports, lowering commodity prices, decreasing investment, and repatriating capital. The long term consequences of this economic vortex have yet to be seen. As social spending collapses in developing countries, and as education and healthcare become unaffordable, it is obvious that impacts will worsen. Already it is likely that the crisis will undermine decades of the admittedly insufficient progress that has been made on development, and will most certainly lead to social unrest and political instability. Trade policy thus becomes a national security issue. It is encouraging that that USTR-designate Ron Kirk has been confirmed by the Senate and will be sworn into office today by Vice-President Joe Biden. The USTR has released a 2009 Trade Agenda, but much remains to be done in terms of defining concrete policy proposals. This joint letter not only sends a strong message about what U.S. priorities should be on trade, but also provides tangible evidence that new coalitions on trade are possible. CGD will be extremely active in this effort. Comment »March 13, 2009Re-thinking Trade, Re-creating ConsensusBy Randall SoderquistBased on the testimony of USTR-designate Ron Kirk this week before the Senate Finance Committee – brief though it was – the Obama Administration is moving in an entirely different direction than we have seen over the last eight years. The concept of a “progressive trade agenda for America,” though as yet undefined, certainly suggests that the administration will be looking at the global economy from a very different perspective. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they keep in mind the big picture links between trade and development. Read More… Comment »February 9, 2009Good News for Pro-Development Trade Policy: A Breakthrough on U.S. Trade Adjustment AssistanceBy Randall SoderquistAlmost seven years have passed since the Trade Act of 2002 was enacted, and finally we have a truly bi-partisan agreement on Trade Adjustment Assistance that reflects the changing conditions of the global economy. The provisions contained within the package, as reported by Reuters last Friday, were inconceivable from a political point of view just a few years ago. Ironically, nearly all of them — innovative and essential ideas like TAA for communities, coverage for workers in the service sector, eligibility for secondary workers in the supply chain, and availability of health care coverage as specific examples — were contained in legislation that passed the Senate in 2001 but were deleted in conference negotiations between the Senate and the House. Comment »December 11, 2008As Downturn Chokes Trade, Beware ProtectionismBy Randall SoderquistThe excellent article by Anthony Faiola and Ariana Eunjung Cha in today’s Washington Post (Downturn Choking Global Commerce) shows how close we are to the precipice in the global trading system and what is at stake with the trade negotiations in Geneva. Although there has been a long-standing assumption that countries would continue to ride the bike of trade liberalization forward, there are no guarantees. With too little forward motion, bicycles topple. As the economic crisis widens, there will be a tendency to focus inward and to increase tariffs, increase subsidies, and engage in competitive devaluations, all in a misguided attempt to protect national economic welfare. Comment »September 17, 2008Comments on Trade Saves the Day, Fred Bergsten’s Washington Post Op-EdBy Randall SoderquistIn an Op-Ed today’s Washington Post (free registration required), our neighbor Fred Bergsten, the director of the Peterson Institute, argues that “globalization is paying off for the United States just when we need it” and that we should be pursuing more trade agreements to open markets. He writes that while the U.S. presidential candidates
I think that Fred is right that globalization and trade can provide positive benefits for the United States, but in my view his Op-Ed is too sanguine about the political obstacles we face at this time. Comment »September 17, 2008Comments on Trade Saves the Day, Fred Bergsten’s Washington Post Op-EdBy Randall SoderquistIn an Op-Ed today’s Washington Post (free registration required), our neighbor Fred Bergsten, the director of the Peterson Institute, argues that “globalization is paying off for the United States just when we need it” and that we should be pursuing more trade agreements to open markets. He writes that while the U.S. presidential candidates
I think that Fred is right that globalization and trade can provide positive benefits for the United States, but in my view his Op-Ed is too sanguine about the political obstacles we face at this time. Comment »July 30, 2008Doha Collapse No Surprise But Extremely Unfortunate — Especially for Developing CountriesBy Randall SoderquistAlthough there were significant efforts made on all sides throughout the negotiations and more progress made than anyone expected, the collapse of the Doha Round yesterday was unsurprising to anyone who tracked the discussions in Geneva over the past several years. What is surprising is that WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy managed to somehow keep the process alive despite increasingly explicit signals from key players that anything short of an agreement that magically delivered both market access for developed economies and market protection for emerging and developing countries would be unacceptable. The true goal has been a compromise that would not yield the large gains that were predicted at the outset but still allow everyone to declare victory and keep the multilateral trading system alive. It is a testament to the persistence of the multilateral ideal that an agreement was close despite the many obstacles ahead. 1 Comment » |
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
In early 2009, before the inauguration of President Obama, Kim Elliott and I decided it was time to think seriously and coherently about the future direction of U.S. trade policy, especially as it relates to developing countries. The collapse of the Doha Round was one of the critical motivating factors, as it was now clear to all involved that there was no obvious trajectory for the international trading system. There was also talk among key trade leaders of a complete freeze on trade agreements of any type, leading one to wonder what the next step might be for the United States and whether we would maintain a leadership role on trade.
