Developing country coalitions in the doha round : the liberal trade and development nexus

Abstract

This thesis investigates the nature and role of negotiating coalitions in pursuing development-oriented agendas during the WTO Doha Round. The thesis examines: (1) the Group of 20 (G-20) and Group of 33 (G-33) in agriculture negotiations; (2) the Core Group and Group of 90 (G-90) in the new 'Singapore' issues; and (3) the Coalitions on TRIPS and Public Health (CTPH), African Group (AG) and Coalition of Developing Countries (CDC) in TRIPS and public health negotiations. This thesis suggests that the core arguments of the above coalitions reflected a particular frame of reference linked to their agendas and that the coalitions assumed certain types of leadership that evolved over time. An instrumental frame prescribed material incentives-based arguments, which relates to the non-discrimination and reciprocity norms under the liberal trade principle, while a normative frame advocated normative values-based arguments, which relates to the flexibilities, special and differential treatment, and sustainable development norms under the developmental principle. The thesis finds that the G-20 used mixed instrumental-normative frames and exhibited a formidable strategic-based leadership that developed innovative solutions to create mutual gains. The G-33 used a normative frame and exerted a knowledge-based leadership that used reasoned arguments as a moral justification and later evolved to a strategic-based leadership. The Core Group/G-90 used a predominantly instrumental frame and demonstrated a structural-based leadership using collective coercive power and later adapted to strategic-based leadership. The CTPH used a predominantly normative frame that exhibited a knowledge-based leadership in negotiating for the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (DTPH). The AG and CDC used a similar normative frame as the CTPH, but could not develop into a strategic-based leadership in negotiating TRIPS flexibilities rules. This thesis also examines the coalitions' role in the rule-development process. Many negotiating coalitions attempted to influence the mode of trade negotiation by incorporating socio-humanitarian or socio-economic objectives; thus expanding the traditional trade negotiations that used reciprocal concessions and primarily concentrated on liberal trade objectives. The thesis finds that the G-20 was successful in maintaining an agenda to discipline trade distortions, but had to exchange concessions on specific agriculture rules and provide concessions on manufacturing. The G-33 succeeded in inserting special trade provisions for food security purposes in the agriculture modalities, but had to exchange concessions with agriculture exporters by accepting more stringent rules on flexibilities. The CTPH ensured a developmental-friendly interpretation of TRIPS flexibilities, but the AG and CDC had to accept the demand by the major powers for stringent rules on TRIPS flexibilities. The Core Group and G-90 were effective in opposing the inclusion of three new 'Singapore' issues in negotiations and succeeded in developing trade facilitation modalities and rules reflecting a balance between liberal trade and developmental objectives. The evidence suggests that coalitions of developing economies were relatively successful in re-emphasising developmental objectives during agenda-setting and modalities-setting processes. However, most of the developing economy negotiating coalitions were drawn into traditional bargaining through the exchange of concessions and consequently had to downgrade their original development-oriented objectives during the rule-making and near deal-making processes.