WTO and Development It’s All About Mercantilist Game

The founders of the WTO placed priority on raising standards of living and on sustainable development and expansion of trade was a means to achieve these ends. However, such broad objectives are now being equated by many with the broadening of the means as well. Such a tendency could be found even during the Uruguay Round of negotiations. The inclusion of a range of trade-related issues in the WTO implies opening the window for never ending non-trade issues. Against this backdrop, the paper revisits the ‘means’ and ‘ends’ of the WTO in the context of trade-related issues. The existing trade-related agreements at the WTO, like TRIPs, TRIMs and to some extent, GATS brought heavy obligations on developed countries while ignoring their export interests. The inclusion of the issues of environment and labour standards at the WTO are likely to restrict market access of developing countries without serving the purpose of sustainable development. Similarly, the Singapore issues, although have development implications, are likely put heavy burden on developing countries without bringing commensurate benefits. It must be recognised that the WTO essentially works as a platform for bargaining on market access and development is hardly a concern in the process. Moreover, overloading the WTO in the name of development could destabilise the very institution of the WTO, which may make the developing countries worse-off. It would be a far better option for developing countries to focus on market access and better terms of trade. The WTO needs to look back to its original purpose and instead of broadening the agenda, it must re-shift its paradigm to focus on “trade as an instrument for promoting development” rather than “development” per se.