Today's FT reports on the flaring of textiles as an issue, with the U.S. partially backing Turkey's position that textiles should be a separate sector, while the EU argues the opposite. Much of the rest of this article (p. 2) is consumed with the debate over where the liberalization from the Doha Round will take place, and who will benefit. Developing countries benefit more from agricultural liberalization than from manufactured goods, and according to some studies, the LDCs will benefit from moving to 100% tariff and quota free market access in the developed world. The U.S. apparently proposes 97%, which would allow it to maintain protection on textiles.
What I find interesting about all this is the discourse. While I have all along believed the Doha "Development Agenda" was cheap talk, I find it striking that the discourse seems to be focused on benefits to poor countries. I am not so much of a rationalist/realist that I think discourse does not matter, especially when the current U.S. President has suggested the world ought to do more for poor countries. Even cheap talk can matter at the margins. I am curious as to what has caused the change. Is this Oxfam's work, is it a change in developed country public opinion, or is it something else? How significantly will it affect a final deal? Will the WTO become a "development organization?"
