How important is "development" to the Doha Round, which is officially titled the "Doha Development Agenda"? In a recent Q & A, Charlene Barshefsky says that the reference to development was a "false pretense" for the round:
[Daniel Altman]: Will the conclusion of the round live up to any of the original expectations?
[Charlene Barshefsky]: The round was launched on essentially false pretenses, in two respects.
First, it was launched almost immediately in the aftermath of 9/11. I believe that but for 9/11, it almost certainly would not have been launched. As the six-year delay since then shows, but for 9/11 there was almost no enthusiasm for the round. 9/11 changed that. Countries believed that they needed to show solidarity with the United States and make a statement about the global economy and the importance of economic growth. So the round was launched.
Second, the round was called a development round. Again, as the six-year delay shows, there may have been the broad “intention” on the part of the wealthy nations to make this a development round, but their ability to execute has always, in important respects, been absent – something clear from the outset, rhetoric aside. At the end of this process, what will undoubtedly be portrayed as an important victory will, I believe, be far less than what it should have been had the wealthy nations genuinely pursued a development round. (emphasis added)
While development issues have been addressed in a number of ways in the negotiations, naming the round the "Doha Development Agenda" does seem to overstate the case a bit. For the most part this round has been like any other, with the focus being on the market access concerns of the major trading powers. While large developing countries like Brazil, China and India now play a greater role in trade talks, the interests of the poorest countries still seem to be an afterthought in many ways.
What I've been wondering recently is whether and how the development component could be expanded. I was prompted to think about this by an invitation to this conference at Berkeley law school. They have since changed the title of the panels slightly, but the original panel I was on was called "The Road Ahead ... Proposals for Achieving the Doha Round's Development Goals." In preparation for the panel, I came up with one idea that I thought might help, although it is admittedly only one small step (and it may be a bit unrealistic to think it will actually happen). I'm going to talk about it at the Berkeley conference, but I thought I'd describe it briefly on this blog first to see if people have any reactions.
Currently, the WTO is taking on a role in pushing for and administering "aid for trade." While this type of aid is useful, I think the WTO should broaden its efforts and promote develoment aid more generally. My suggestion is for the WTO -- specifically, the Director-General and the key government ministries who represent the Members at the WTO -- to lobby for more development aid for poor countries. While the WTO should not become a development agency, it should use the "bully pulpit" to persuade the relevant domestic government agencies and international organizations, and even private citizens, to give more money for things like education and public health in poor countries. By taking on these issues, the WTO will be promoting good policy (i.e., encouraging more development aid) in a way that has the benefit of being good politics, in terms of enhancing developing countries' faith in the multilateral trading system and encouraging them to support the completion of the Doha Round.
I'll post more details once I've had a chance to flesh things out a bit more (in the presentation at Berkeley and a later article for an Australian law journal), but if anyone has any comments in the meantime I'd love to hear them.