#18: doha dumped
Another WTO Ministerial Meeting ended in a failure. Now begins the usual finger-pointing .... between US, EU, and the group of developing countries (led by Brazil and India) on who was the central culprit. But for now, and a long foreseeable future, the deal is as dead as it could be.
The Doha Development Agenda was amibitious, but it was overdue. Leaders preach that we are in this all together, and that the world's poorest have to be moved from the margins into the mainstream – if lasting peace and prosperity across the world is to be realised. But when it needs real action, old habits trump the politically-correct noises.
Trade negotiations are stalled by the misperception of a zero-sum game. It is the leaders' responsibility to educate the public (they do so very well when it serves their purposes of re-election). But the effort it takes to reach the tipping point of public opinion, and the political price it induces in the interim – is daunting to the most fearless of public officials. So we go through this recurrent charade of ministerial meetings. No one on any side has any conviction in their own bargaining position or that of the others. Should failures be surprising then?
I have heard two competing arguments. One that big changes occur in incremental steps. Even a faulty deal would be better than the "perfect solution". The other claims that a "no deal" is better than a faulty one. Frankly I find the latter a lame excuse. I doubt if there is an ideal solution out there just lurking for a eureka moment. These solutions don't "just happen". People, policies, markets, and economies adapt and respond to changing incentives and developments; they learn from experience and mistakes. Unless we begin somewhere how will we know what works and what does not?
We have lived the last 90 years in a relatively fragmented world. Disparities, volatility, tensions – they have all grown. The safety-first-and-last mindset will only exacerbate it. We do so at the peril of having more dissatisfied and disillutioned joining the margins of the society every day. And we know where their swelling ranks lead to ....
The Doha Development Agenda was amibitious, but it was overdue. Leaders preach that we are in this all together, and that the world's poorest have to be moved from the margins into the mainstream – if lasting peace and prosperity across the world is to be realised. But when it needs real action, old habits trump the politically-correct noises.
Trade negotiations are stalled by the misperception of a zero-sum game. It is the leaders' responsibility to educate the public (they do so very well when it serves their purposes of re-election). But the effort it takes to reach the tipping point of public opinion, and the political price it induces in the interim – is daunting to the most fearless of public officials. So we go through this recurrent charade of ministerial meetings. No one on any side has any conviction in their own bargaining position or that of the others. Should failures be surprising then?
I have heard two competing arguments. One that big changes occur in incremental steps. Even a faulty deal would be better than the "perfect solution". The other claims that a "no deal" is better than a faulty one. Frankly I find the latter a lame excuse. I doubt if there is an ideal solution out there just lurking for a eureka moment. These solutions don't "just happen". People, policies, markets, and economies adapt and respond to changing incentives and developments; they learn from experience and mistakes. Unless we begin somewhere how will we know what works and what does not?
We have lived the last 90 years in a relatively fragmented world. Disparities, volatility, tensions – they have all grown. The safety-first-and-last mindset will only exacerbate it. We do so at the peril of having more dissatisfied and disillutioned joining the margins of the society every day. And we know where their swelling ranks lead to ....
Labels: economie
2 Comments:
Howdy,
Where exactly do these swelling ranks leading to??? Are you speaking perhaps of Marxist revolution??? Hugo Chavez started a world tour recently and I believe stated today in Belarus that "Belarus was a shining example of the revolutions we are trying to lead", or something along those lines, refering of course to socialist autocratic states. Interesting stuff.
It may or may not be a Marxist Revolution. I was referring to great disparities fuelling anarchy, chaos, fragmentation, and civil strife. This will only increase if a growing number of people feel that the "prosperity" has passed them by, that they have been forsaken by those who were on that bus, and they have no stake in the well-being of the community or the system.
Post a Comment
<< Home