WT/GC/W/765  
 
18 February 2019  
(19-0944) Page: 1/39 
General Council  
28 February and 1 March 2019  Original: English  
 
THE CONTINUED RELEVA NCE OF SPECIAL AND D IFFERENTIAL TREATMEN T IN FAVOUR  
OF DEVELOPING MEMBER S TO PROMOTE DEVELOP MENT AND ENSURE INCL USIVENESS  
COMMUNICATION FROM C HINA, INDIA, SOUTH A FRICA AND THE BOLIVARIAN REPUB LIC OF 
VENEZUELA  
"There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."  
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)  
The following communication, dated 15 February 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation s of China, India, South Africa and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezu ela. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
1.1.  The persistence of the enormous development divide between the developing and developed 
Members of the WTO is reflected on a wide range of indicators. It is evident in levels of economic 
development, industrial str ucture and competitiveness, such as GDP per capita, poverty levels, levels 
of under -nourishment, production and employment in agriculture sector, trade in services, receipts 
from IPR, share of trade in value -added under GVCs, energy use per capita, financi al infrastructure, 
R&D capacity, company profits, and a range of institutional and capacity constraints, among other 
things. Despite impressive progress achieved by developing Members since the creation of the WTO, 
old divide s have not been substantially b ridged and, in some areas, they have even widened, while 
new divides, such as those in the digital and technological spheres, are becoming more pronounced.  
1.2.  Against this backg round, recent attempts by some M embers to selectively employ certain 
economic and  trade data to deny the persistence of the divide between developing and developed 
Members, and to demand the former to abide by absolute "reciprocity" in the interest of "fairness" 
are profoundly disingenuous. The world has indeed changed in many ways sin ce the GATT and the 
establishment of the WTO, but in overall terms the development divide remains firmly entrenched. 
It is therefor e of greater concern that some M embers would attempt to ignore this reality in an effort 
to deprive developing Members of their right to develop.  
1.3.  Capacity constraint remain s a serious problem for developing Members at the WTO. Notably, 
they often lack the requisite human resources, negotiating capacity, well -functioning intra -
governmental coordination mechanisms, and the effect ive participation of social partners in trade 
negotiating processes. These deficiencies diminish not only the ability of developing Members to 
negotiate, but also the effectiveness of translating negotiated outcomes into measures for domestic 
economic grow th.  
1.4.  The multilateral trading system, from the early days of the GATT until the establishment of the 
WTO, has recognized the differences in levels of economic development and wisely ensured that 
Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) would be one of its  cornerstone principles. The S&DT 
principle was understood as a way to ensure that negotiated outcomes would accommodate 
differences in levels of economic development as well as the capacity constraint of developing 
Members. It would allow developing Membe rs the space to calibrate trade integration in ways that 
help them support sustainable growth, employment expansion and poverty reduction.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  The current S&DT provisions in the WTO agreements were established through negotiations 
and compromises and were not  gifts granted by developed Members. Nevertheless, most of the 
current S&DT provisions are "best endeavour " clauses, lack precision, effectiveness, operationality 
and enforceability. Their actual benefits to developing Members have fallen far short of expe ctation. 
In contrast, it is developed Members that have reaped substantial benefits by seeking and obtaining 
flexibilities in areas of interest to them; a form of "reversed" S&DT. The WTO rules -based system 
has helped in the growth of trade but has not mad e it equitable.  
1.6.  Since 1995, more developing Members have acceded to the WTO pursuant to Article XII of the 
Marrakesh Agreement. Their accession processes, in which they made tremendous efforts, 
significantly contributed to upholding the core values of the  WTO including free trade, openness and 
non-discrimination; supporting the rules -based multilateral trading system; and maintaining a 
transparent , stable and predictable global trade environment.  
1.7.  The dichotomy of developed and developing Members is freque ntly used by almost all 
International Organizations (IOs) to describe the structure of today's global economy. Various 
indices and classification methodologies may be adopted to determine the constraints and thresholds 
that divide developed and developing Members but the underlying rationale throughout is twofold: 
(1) that there are structural features behind the UN classification that distinguish countries in terms 
of their development challenges; (2) that these features form the basis on which countries c lassify 
themselves and are adapted to the various mandates, functions and statistical work of the IOs. For 
the WTO, the status of developed and developing Members are reflected in the bargaining process, 
and incorporated into the final rules themselves. Th e self -declaration approach has proven to be the 
most appropriate to the WTO, which best serves the WTO objectives.  
2  DEVELOPMENT  DIVIDE  
2.1.  Many  developing Members of the WTO have made significant economic progress over the past 
decades. However, it is also a r eality that despite their efforts, they have not come anywhere near 
catching -up with the developed Members. Further, the gap between the developed and developing 
Members appears to have actually widened over time, instead of getting reduced. The developmen t 
divide, which was taken note of in mid -1960s in Part IV of the GATT, continues to remain relevant 
today - perhaps even more relevant. Attempts at ignoring the need for S&DT provisions, or diluting 
it, is fraught with the risk of making future negotiation s in the WTO even more difficult than today.  
2.2.  In spite of significant efforts made by the developing Members, the standa rds of living in most 
of these M embers fall far behind that in the developed Members. The gap between the developed 
and developing Member s is manifested in two ways. First, with reference to an indicator, the 
difference in value between the developed and developing Members widens over time; and second, 
even if the difference in value does not widen over time, the gap between the developed a nd 
developing Members during a time period is substantial. In respect of the indicators discussed below, 
the gap between the developed and developing Members has remained substantially high. In fact, 
in many cases the gap has considerably widened.  
2.3.  Besides,  the essence of development is the human being. Hence, per capita indicators must be 
given the top priority when assessing the development level of a country. In WTO agreements, all 
the indicators used to assess development are based on per capita calculat ion. For example, in 
Article 8.2 (b) (iii) of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), "income per 
capita", "household income per capita" and "GDP per capita" are mentioned for the purpose of 
measuring the economic development of a member . 
2.1  Economic Indicators: GDP Per Capita, Poverty Population, Under -nourished 
Population  
2.4.  In 2017, the GDP per capita (Current US$) of the United States, Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand and the European Union  was $59,531, $45,032, $53,800, $42,941, and $33,715, 
respectively, while the GDP per capita of developing Members, including China, India, South Africa 
and Brazil , were all below $10,000, as shown in Graph 1. With the United States  as the 
comparator, the extent to which the developing Members fell further behind the United States can 
be understood from the fact that, for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia , the gap in GDP per 
capita and that of the United States increased by at least 71% (2014 -2016 vs 1994 -1996). With WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Germany  as the comparator, the gap for China, India and Indonesia  with Germany increased by 
at least 23%. With the United Kingdom  as the comparator, the gap for Brazil, China, India and 
Indonesia , increased by at least 65%. The trend in widenin g gap of GDP per capita (Constant 2010 
US$ and PPP) between developed and developing Members is similar to that observed in respect of 
GDP per capita (Current US$).  In general, the gaps in GDP per capita between developed and 
developing Members were signif icant, and have been expanding in absolute terms since 1995 when 
the WTO was created, as shown in Graph 2.  
2.5.  As shown in Table 1, the top 10 countries  with the largest proportion of the world's poor are: 
India  (35.6% of world's poor), Nigeria  (6.3%), Ethiop ia (5.9%), Pakistan  (5.4%), Bangladesh  
(4.5%), China  (3.9%), DR Congo  (3.7%), Indonesia  (2.7%), Tanzania  (2.1%) and Uganda  
(1.7%). 38.2% of the world's poor are in LDCs, and 61.8% live in non -LDC developing Members 
who are called the "new bottom billion".1 
2.6.  According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 10 countries  with the largest number 
of the world's under -nourished people are: India  (195.9  million), China  (124.5  million), Pakistan  
(39.5 million), Bangladesh  (24.8 million),  Ethiopia  (21.9 million ), Nigeria  (21.5 million),  
Indonesia  (20.2 million), Tanzania  (17.8 million),  Uganda  (17.2 million)  and Philippines  
(14.2 million). The under -nourished people of these 10 developing countries  account s for 62% of 
the world total, as shown in Graph 3.  
2.2  Agricu lture  
2.7.  Agriculture is one of the most important sectors of a country, where developed Members enjoy 
significant advantages over developing ones. In many developing Members, despite agriculture 
being the largest source of employment, this sector remains char acterized by small farm size, but 
with large number of farmers dependent on it. In contrast, in the United States, agriculture is 
characterized by extremely large farm size with few farmers dependent on agriculture for their 
livelihood. Any discussion on a griculture must recognize the reality that in many developing Members 
agriculture continues to remain mainly non -commercial in nature. Unlike the developed Members 
where agriculture is commercial, in many developing Members it is for subsistence and mainly  for 
livelihood.  
2.8.  The difference in the nature of agriculture in developed and many developing Members is 
further evident when we compare the value -added per worker for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing. 
As shown in Graph 4, the value -added per worker for New Zealand , Australia , the United States , 
the European Union  and Japan , in the period of 1995 -1997 and 2015 -2017, was $77,600, 
$37,649, $31,003, $13,137, $20,763, respectively; and $105,115, $85,858, $80,040, $25,952, 
$24,009, respectively. In contrast, th e figures for China , Indonesia , India  and Sub-Saharan 
Africa  were $1,073, $1,975, $863, $791, respectively; and $5,323, $3,485, $1,604, $1,311, 
respectively. During 1995 -1997, the value -added per worker in the United States  was 36 times 
that in India , 28 times that in China  and 16 times that in Indonesia . During 2015 -2017, the gap 
widened further for India  (50 times) and Indonesia  (23 times).  
2.9.  A high number of subsidies to the farmers in developed Members led to huge competitive 
advantage of their agr icultural products in international market. As shown in Graph 5, in 2016, the 
domestic support per farmer in the United States  was $60,586; the corresponding figures for some 
other WTO Members were the following: Japan  ($10,149), Canada  ($16,562), the Euro pean 
Union  ($6,762), China  ($863), Brazil  ($345) and India  ($227). Thus, the per farmer subsidy in 
the United States  was 70 times that in China , 176 times that in Brazil  and 267 times that in 
India . Per farmer subsidy in Japan  was 12 times that in China , 29 times that in Brazil  and 45 
times that in India . Per farmer subsidy in Canada  was 19 times that in China , 48 times that in 
Brazil  and 73 times that in India . In the European Union , per farmer subsidy was 8 times that in 
China , 20 times that in Brazil  and 30 times that in India . 
2.10.    As shown in Graph 6, the total rural population in Germany , Japan , the United Kingdom  
and the United States  during 1994 -1996 was 121 million, which declined to 99 million during 2014 -
2016. During the first period, the rural popula tion in the following developing Members exceeded 
                                                
1 The Bellagio I nitiative on "Poverty in Middle -Income Countries ", in November 2011, referring to this part 
of the world 's poor that live in middle -income countries, called this the "new bottom billion '" 
www.cbm.org/article/downloads/82788/ Summary_Poverty_in_MIC.pdf , accessed on 25 January 2019.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the total rural population in the four developed Members: China  (831 million), India  (704 million) 
and Indonesia  (125 million). In China and India, the rural population was around 6 times that the 
total rur al population in the four developed Members. During the second period (2014 -2016), the 
rural population in the following developing Members exceeded the total rural population in the four 
developed Members: Bangladesh  (105 million), China  (610 million), India (879 million), 
Indonesia  (120 million) and Pakistan  (121 million). While China's rural population continued to 
remain around 6 times that of the four developed Members, in I ndia this increased to around 8  times. 
It is also relevant to note that during 2014-2016, the rural population of China  was almost thrice 
the combined rural population in Australia , Canada , the European Union , Japan , New Zealand  
and the United States ; while the rural population of India was more than four times the combined 
rural population of these developed Members. These details highlight the enormity of challenges of 
rural population confronting some of the larger developing Members.  
2.11.    As shown in  Graph 7 , the number of farmers per hectare in most developing Members far 
exceeds that in the United States. To illustrate, in 2016 Egypt had 145 times the number of farmers 
per hectare as compared to the United States. Some other developing Members show similar 
situation of intensive farming. These include Indonesia (97 times), India (81 times), China (70 times) 
and Pakistan (53 times). Further, Graph 8 highlights that the average farm size in the United States 
is substantially larger than that in some de veloping Members - Egypt (216 times), Indonesia 
(205 times), India (134 times), Pakistan (58 times) and Turkey (30 times). The comparison of 
number of farmers per hectare and average farm size should leave us in no doubt about the 
fundamental difference in  the nature of farming in some developing Members and the United States.  
2.12.    Many M embers have attempted to shift employment away from agriculture to other sectors. 
While some movement of the workforce away from agriculture has been witnessed, agriculture 
continues to be the main source for providing employment in most developing Members, as shown 
in Graph 9. This contrasts sharply with the situation in the United States , where agriculture 
accounts for less than 2% of the total employment. The figures for many  developing Members are 
substantially higher - Turkey  (20%), China  (20%), Philippines  (29%), Indonesia  (33%), 
Nigeria  (36%), India  (44%), Bangladesh  (42%) and Vietnam  (44%).  
2.3  Trade: Trade in Services, IPR, GVC Trade in Value -added  
2.13.    According to UN's World Economic Situation and Prospects Report 2018 , in 2016, the 
population of developing economies constituted 85% of the global total, while their share in global 
services export was less than 30%, and their shares in the export of financial, telecommunication  
and other high value -added services were even lower, as shown in Graph 10 .2 According to the WTO, 
the services export per capita of major developing Members was only 10% that of developed ones, 
as shown in Graph 11 .3 
2.14.    Since the creation of the WTO in 1995 , in terms of the receipts of charges for the use of 
intellectual property rights, developed Members have not only maintained a dominant position but 
also witnessed much higher growth in contrast to developing Members. As shown in Graph 12, in 
1995, the IP R receipt of charges of the European Union , the United States  and Japan  was 
$14.7  billion, $30.3 billion and $6.7 billion, respectively; by 2017, the figures had increased to 
$144.1 billion, $127.9 billion and $41.7 billion, respectively. The 201 7 figures were respectively 
30 times, 27 times and 9 times that of China  ($4.8 billion); 206 times, 183 times and 60 times that 
of India  ($700 million); 240 times, 213 times and 70 times that of Brazil  ($600 million).  
2.15.    Compared with developed Members, developing Mem bers have a heavier yet fragile reliance 
on trade. In the process of globalization, thanks to the comparative advantages in labour , some 
developing Members have been integrated into the global value chain. However, they remain at the 
lowest end of the "smi le curve" by providing raw material, cheap manufacturing or assembling 
services, with low added -value but high risk, as shown in Graph 13.  
2.4  Energy Use Per Capita  
2.16.    As shown in Graph 14, in respect of the indicator of energy use per capita during 2012 -2014, 
the gap between the developed and developing Members remained substantial. The number for the 
                                                
2 United Nations: World Economic Situation and Prospects Report 2018 , p.26.  
3 WTO, World Trade Statistical  Review  2018, p.127 and p.131.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 5 - 
 
  United States  was 11 times that of India , 8 times that of Indonesia , 5 times that of Brazil  and 
3 times that of China , respectively.  
2.5  Finance  
2.17.    Commercial banks pla y a crucial role in financial system and the overall economy of a country 
by providing formal channels for saving money, securing loans and transferring money. Low indicator 
of banks per hundred thousand shows lack of formal financing and more reliance on informal 
channels, which are often costly and unreliable. This adversely affects entrepreneurship, income 
generation and growth of agriculture, industry and services sector in an economy. Number of 
commercial bank branches per 100,000 of adult population i s a useful indicator of availability of 
banking facilities. As shown in Graph 15, most of the developing Members lag far behind the 
developed Members. While there were 32.68 commercial bank branches per 100,000 of adult 
population in the United States , the figures for some of the developing Members are the following: 
Brazil  (20.74), Indonesia  (17.69), India  (13.49) and China  (8.43).  
2.18.    The study of McKinsey Global Institute shows that two billion individuals and 200 million 
small businesses in the develo ping world (such as China , India, Brazil and South Africa) lack access 
to secure savings and credit, a financing gap estimated at $2.2 trillion.4 They have to resort to non -
formal channels. Graph 16 shows that the number of unbanked adults is 1.7 billion g lobally, while 
930 million of them are from the 10 largest developing Members , 55% of the total.5  
2.6  Research and Development (R&D) Capacity  
2.19.    As shown in Graph 17, only 4 of the world's top 100 universities are located in developing 
Members (2 in China  and 2  in Singapore ), while the rest 96% are located in developed Members 
(48% in the United States ). Only 12% of the world's top 200 universities are located in developing 
Members, while the rest 88% are located in developed Members (36% in the United States ). Graph 
18 shows the number of researchers in R&D (per million people, 2017). The number of the United 
States , the European Union  and Japan  was 4,313, 3,639 and 5,173, respectively; while the 
number of China , India  and South Africa  was only 1,159, 216, 473, respectively. If we look at 
the number of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) from ISO, IEC and ITU, most of them come from 
developed Members: the United States , the European Union  and Japan  took the dominate 
position with 3,790, 3,660 and 1,517 SEPs, respec tively, accounting for 87.49% of the total, as show 
in Graph 19.  
2.7  Digital Divide  
2.20.    The rapid development of digital economy brings challenges to developing Members, who 
generally lack relevant infrastructure and technologies. In terms of internet users, as shown in 
Graph  20, the percentage in the developing world was only 8%, 21% and 41.3% in 2005, 2010 and 
2017, respectively; while for the developed world, it was much higher, 51%, 67% and 81%, 
respectively. As shown in Graph 21, in terms of broadband subscri ptions, the percentage of fixed 
broadband in the developing world was only 2%, 4% and 8.2% in 2007, 2010 and 2016, 
respectively, while for the developed world, it was much higher, 18%, 24% and 30.1%, respectively; 
the percentage of mobile broadband was 1%,  4%, 40.9% for developing world and 19%, 43%, 
90.3% for developed world. The difference therefore has increased from 18 percentage points in 
2007 to almost 50 percentage points in 2017. Graph 22 indicates that the skill of processing 
electronic files, inst alling and configuring software and processing data are generally lower in 
developing Members than in developed Members .6 
                                                
4 James Manyika and Rodger Voohries, What digital finance mean s for emerging economies . See: 
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in -the-news/what -digital -finance -means -for-emerging -economies , 
accessed  on 25 January 2019.  
5 World Bank, Gains in Financial Inclusion, Gains for a Sustainable World . May 18, 2018. See: 
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive -story/2018/05/18/gains -in-financial -inclusion -gains -for-a-
sustainable -world?cid=ECR_TT_worldbank_EN_EXT , accessed on 21 January 2019.  
6 ITU, Measuring the Information Society Report , Volume 1  2018 p.32. WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.8  Company Efficiency  
2.21.    The Fortune Magazine ranks the "Fortune Global 500" by companies' total revenues, and it 
also displays the profits  of these companies. As shown in Graph 23, the average profit of "Fortune 
Global 500" manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom , the United States , Germany  and 
Japan  in 2017 was $7.38 billion, $5.2 billion, $3.78 billion and $3.14 billion, respectively , while the 
number of their counterparts in China  and Brazil  was only $891 million and $1.519 billion. The 
profit of "Fortune 500" manufacturing companies in China  and Brazil  are only 12%, 17%, 24% and 
28%, or 21%, 29%, 40% and 48% that  of the above four M embers, respectively. Most other  
developing Members have few or no Fortune 500 companies.  
2.9  Benefits from Globalization  
2.22.    The Bertelsmann 2018 Globalization Report - Who Benefits Most from Globalization  took into 
account the economic, political and social asp ects of the worldwide network to calculate the 
globalization index of each economy. The Report concluded that, among the 42 economies under 
the study, the bottom five that benefit the least from globalization are India , Argentina , Brazil , 
China  and Mexico , as shown in Graph 24.  
3  CAPACITY CONSTRAINT  
3.1.  Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, rejected the narrow argument of 
measuring growth only by means of GDP, and broadened the development measurement from 
promoting economic growth to "expanding people's capabilities". He argued that the ultimate goal 
of development should focus on the individual's freedom of choices, i.e. to improve the "capabilities" 
of individuals to choose to live lives that they have reason to value .7 
3.2.  As stated on the WTO website, the multilateral trade rules, the neg otiating forum and the 
dispute settlement system of the WTO are not policy goals in themselves. Rather, they should be 
translated into the negotiating and participating capacity for developing Members .8 Thus, it is of vital 
importance to strengthen capacit y building.  
3.3.  The OECD divides the level of negotiating capacity into five folds: (1) the negotiating skills and 
performance of negotiators; (2) the management capacity and potential of the institutional 
mechanisms; (3) the capacity of intra -governmental pol icy coordination; (4) the regulatory 
framework and public governance; and, (5) social norms and public awareness .9 
3.4.  Based on relevant research and case studies of international organizations, the capacity 
constraint of developing Members in the WTO is refle cted in the following aspects:  
a. The lack of negotiating capacity at human resources level: From the GATT to the WTO, 
developed Members have been in a dominant position in the initiation of negotiations, the 
design of rules, the assertion of rights, and even  the "flexible use of rules". However, 
developing Members, due to lack of resources are usually short of negotiators (especially 
experienced ones) and thus they are unable to achieve their objectives in the negotiations, 
as well as manage negotiation outco mes. Furthermore, the government budget is so 
limited that it is often the case that negotiation officials are not able to participate in 
negotiations in a systematic way.  
b. The lack of coordinating capacity at institutional level: Multilateral trade negotia tions 
involve governmental agencies of foreign affairs, economy, industry, trade and other 
agencies of a member, which require overall coordination, speedy response and flexible 
adaptation. However, developing Members usually lack a unified policy across d ifferent 
departments and have difficulties in fully assessing and accurately analyzing the impacts 
                                                
7 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom  (New York, NY: Knopf 1999). See also Michael J. Trebilcock & 
Mariana Mota Prado, Advanced Introduction to Law and Development  (2014).  
8 WTO, Building trade capacity , See: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/build_tr_capa_e.htm , accessed on 21 January 2019.  
9 OECD (2003a), The DAC guidelines: Strengthening Trade Capacity for Development, International 
Development , available at www.SourceOECD.org , access ed on 21 January 2019. OECD (2003b), Stéphane 
Willems and Kevin Baumert, Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions . WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 7 - 
 
  of multilateral trade negotiations on the economic system, industrial development, among 
others; and formulating the national trade negotiation strategies an d tactics accordingly. 
Such incapability leads to deficiencies in the leadership, stability and continuity of trade 
negotiations.  
c. The lack of negotiating and supporting capacity at social level: Think tanks and experts 
have insufficient foresighted visions  and suggestions on trade negotiations, and thus 
failing to provide sufficient academic support to the government's engagement in the 
global governance. The business community has not fully recognized the benefits of the 
trade negotiations and lacks an awa reness of cooperation with negotiation officials. The 
popularization and advocacy of knowledge of multilateral trade negotiations are also 
insufficient.  
d. The former Chairperson for Group of 77, Ambassador Luis Fernando Jaramillo from 
Colombia, stated that " …in many instances translating these multilateral trade rights into 
concrete trade advantages requires action by governments with active support of the 
business community. Many developing Members have found themselves poorly equipped 
in terms of institutio ns, human and financial resources dedicated to this objective. "10 
3.5.  In a word, the fact is that, for the multilateral trade negotiations, developed Members are 
usually well and proactively prepared, while developing Members often rush to respond in a reactiv e 
manner. There is a big asymmetry between the two in formulating multilateral trade rules due to 
the capacity constraint. The formal " de jure " equality cannot mask the " de facto " inequality in reality.  
4  TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUT IONS BY NEW MEMBERS  
4.1.  Since the cre ation of the WTO in 1995, developing Members, newly acceded ones in particular, 
have made great contributions in integrating into and strengthening the multilateral trading sy stem. 
Compared to the original Members, Article XII M embers made more extensive c ommitments when 
acceding to the WTO.  
4.2.  On agriculture domestic support, developed Members have reserved more subsidy tools and 
policy space. Such disparity becomes even more evident in the market access area. Graph 25 
indicates that the average bound rate o f developed Members (39%) i s 2.4 times that of the 
Article  XII Group (16.4%).  
4.3.  On Non -Agricultural Market Access (NAMA), the a verage tariff rate of original M embers is three 
times that of the Article XII group. Article XII Group has 100% bound coverage, whi le many original 
Members are still lagging behind with only 74.5% bound coverage avera ge and only 37 of the original 
Members have 100% coverage.  
5  S&DT AND SELF -DECLAR ATION  
5.1  S&DT that Applies to Developing Members is an Integral Part of the WTO Agreements  
5.1.  In 1947, 11 developing Members acceded to the GATT based on the same conditions and 
obligations as developed Members. To help developing Members better benefit from the multilateral 
trading system, the concepts of "less than full reciprocity" and "non -recipr ocity" gradually emerged 
during 1960s, gaining an acceptance which gave birth to Part IV of the GATT. The issue of 
development was explicitly addressed in that part for the first time in history. Decision on Differential 
and More Favourable  Treatment, Reci procity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries  
("Enabling Clause") adopted in 1979 provided a permanent legal basis for S&DT Clause .11 
5.2.  In 1986, developing Members agreed to launch the Uruguay Round, with S&DT being an 
integral part of the negotiat ions as stated in the Ministerial Declaration. However, the negotiation 
outcomes were far less than expected. A prominent expert observed that, "most of the concessions 
                                                
10 Strengthening the Participation of Developing Countrie s in World Trade and the Multilateral Trading 
System, UNCTAD/WTO Report, 1996.  
11 Alexander Keck and Patrick Low, Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Why, When and How,  
2004.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 8 - 
 
  and commitments have come from  developing countries and very few from industrialized 
countries."12 In 1994, all developing GATT Contracting Parties joined the WTO,  adopting the results 
of the Uruguay Round as a single -undertaking. In Article XXXVI: 1(c) of GATT 1994, the Contracting 
Parties noted that "there is a wide gap between standards of  living in less -developed countries and 
in other countries". Provisions in paragraph 3 of the article specified the following: "There is need 
for positive efforts designed to ensure that less -developed contracting parties secure a share in the 
growth in in ternational trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development". What 
could constitute positive efforts was specified in paragraph 8 of the article, which states that "The 
developed contracting parties do not expect reciprocity for commitments  made by them in trade 
negotiations to reduce or remove tariffs and other barriers to the trade of less -developed contracting 
parties".  
5.3.  As assessed by UNCTAD, developed Members' obligations to developing Members  exist only in 
the form of "best endeavour  clauses"13. It is also the reason for the Paragraph 44 of Doha Ministerial 
Declaratio n adopted in 2001, calling for M embers to "review all provisions with a view to 
strengthening them and making them more precise,  effective and operational". Until the 2017 
Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, minimal progress had been achieved on 
development. In the meantime, developing Members' legitimate rights to utilize S&DT has been 
challenged. However, history has shown that, without the strengthened S&DT  stipulation and 
enforcement, there is no way to achieve the objectives of the multilateral trading system as stated 
in the Marrakesh Agreement. This should be taken serious account of in the WTO reform process.  
5.2  "Reversed" S&DT  
5.4.  The claim by the United Sta tes that "all rules apply to a few (developed countries)" totally 
ignores the 70 plus year history of GATT/WTO. First, "Being carried along" due to capacity constraints 
is a factual description of the relationship between most developing Members and the mu ltilateral 
trading system. A phenomenon of "rules deficit" and "development deficit" widely existed in the 
Uruguay Round as a result of the lack of capacity of developing Members and the dominant role 
developed Members played in those negotiations. Second,  there were many instances wherein the 
developed Members secured exceptions and failed to adhere to even the fundamental principles of 
the multilateral trading system. Some of these exceptions were in place for decades, thereby 
undermining the rules and di sciplines under the GATT/WTO. And during the Doha Round, many 
developed Members had secured country -specific carve -outs from rules that would have been 
generally applicable to them, for example country -specific carve -outs for some developed Members 
provide d in the Draft Agriculture Modalities Text Rev.4, such as paragraphs 42 and Annex A of the 
Draft Modalities Text providing the United States an exception from the provision applicable for 
calculating product -specific limits on Blue Box, which gave the Unit ed States higher limits in product -
specific support under Blue Box, particularly for corn, wheat, cotton and rice. In addition, exceptions 
for developed Members are also contained in the Nairobi Decision on Export Subsidies. While these 
were not labelled a s S&DT provisions, it does not hide the reality that in effect these were S&DT 
provisions for some of the developed Members, which is usually referred to as "reversed S&DT". 
Such reserved S&DT has led to the long -lasting imbalances in the multilateral trad ing system as well 
as distortions in the international trade. It is, thus, inaccurate and disingenuous of the United States 
to assert that all rules have applied only to a few (developed countries).  
5.5.  Article XI:1 of GATT prohibits import restrictions and im port duties exceeding those bound in 
a Schedule of Concessions in Article II:1(b). In 1955, pursuant to a request made by the United 
States14, the Contracting Parties, acting under Article XXV:5 of the General Agreement, decided to 
waive the obligations of the United States under Articles XI and II to the extent necessary to prevent 
a conflict with these provisions in the case of action required to be taken by the Government of the 
United States under Section 22 of the Agriculture Adjustment Act. Pursuant to  the Waiver, the United 
States was free to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural products, otherwise not 
permitted under provisions of Article XI:1 of GATT. While the Waiver was supposed to be "temporary" 
                                                
12 Bhagirath Lal Das, The WTO Agreements: Deficiencies, Imbalances and R equired Changes , Chapter 1, 
1998.  
13 UNCTAD, The Outcome of the Uruguay Round: An Initial Assessment , 1994.  
14 GATT Document L/315, dated 28 January 1995. United States request, for waiver in connection with 
Section 22 of the Agriculture Adjustment Act.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 9 - 
 
  in nature, the United States benefitted from the exception from the generally GATT provisions for 
almost 40 years.  
5.6.  In violation of provisions of Article XI of GATT, through a series of arrangements commencing 
1 October 1961, including Short Term Arrangement (1961 -1962), Long Term Arra ngement (1962 -
1973), the Multi -Fibre Agreement (1973 -2004) and eventually Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
(1995 -2004), the United States and some other developed Members started imposing restrictions 
on imports of textile and clothing products. The quot as were initially confined to cotton textiles, then 
enlarged to cover textile products made of wool and man -made fibres from 1974, to include products 
made of vegetable fibres and silk blends from 1986, and eventually encompassed the whole area of 
textile products of all fibres. The United States used the exception from generally applicable GATT 
rules for a period of 43 years and 3 months. Some other developed Members also benefitted from 
the exception with slightly shorter duration.  
5.7.  Agriculture has remaine d one of the most contentious issues in the history of GATT/WTO. The 
1955 Waiver for the United States was followed by a spate of measures by the developed Members, 
which enabled them to protect their markets and distort trade. Further, the Agreement on Ag riculture 
negotiated during the Uruguay Round perpetuated many of the distortions. Developed Members 
currently enjoy the tremendous benefits of being able to provide as much as nearly $160 billion of 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) to their domestic  agricultural producers, representing 
more than 90% of global AMS entitlements, while most developing Members have the access to 
none of such measures. The policy space thus available to developed Members includes: 
(1) providing significantly high number  of subsidies compared to the value of production of the 
products concerned; (2) concentrating the subsidies in a few key products (e.g. cotton for the United 
States, dairy and poultry for the European Union, etc.); and (3) shifting the products in which the  
subsidies are concentrated. Detailed numbers can be found in the joint submission by China and 
India, titled "Elimination of AMS to Reduce Distortion in Global Agricultural Trade" (JOB/AG /102). 
Developed Members also retained trade -distorting tariff barri ers, such as tariff peaks and tariff 
escalation, that significantly affect the export interests of developing Members on some of their 
competitive products including major agricultural products, fruits, vegetables, and fishery products, 
etc. In addition, some M embers - again mainly the developed ones - secured the right to further 
insulate their agriculture markets through Special Safeguards (SSG). It is now recognized by many 
experts that despite some S&DT provisions in favour  of the developing Members, t he Agreement on 
Agriculture has a large number of asymmetries and imbalances. This has tilted the playing field 
against the interest of most developing Members. Any move to dilute the existing S&D provisions in 
agriculture would have severe adverse consequ ences for hundreds of millions of farmers in 
developing Members.  
5.8.  Developed Members played a dominant role in high -tech industries in the 1990s. To retain such 
advantages, they strongly pushed and successfully ensured that in the ASCM, the subsidies for 
research and development activities are classified as non -actionable subsidies in the transition 
period. In fact, these kinds of subsidies were mainly utilized by developed Members at that time. 
Developing Members were very often at an extreme disadvantage i n such areas and did not possess 
resources to provide such subsides, which further exacerbated the imbalance in the competition 
between developing and developed Members, as shown in Graph 26. When developing Members 
started to have the capability to do so,  such subsidies which are important for the industrialization 
and modernization have become actionable. As emphasized by a renowned expert, developed 
Members have created "a multilateral order which best suits their own development trajectory - one 
that di minishes space for promoting industries critical to climb up the development ladder, while 
increasing scope for sponsoring the technology -intensive sectors now critical to securing their 
national prosperity"15. 
5.9.  The TRIPS Agreement is considered "grossly deficient", providing for the protection of the 
interests of IPR -holders only, "without any significant balancing factors to protect the interests of 
the consumers of intellectual property". Bhagirath Lal Das note d that "the TRIPS Agreement is to 
seek maximum possible gain for the established patent -holders."16 This imbalance is especially 
manifested by the huge IPR royalties received by developed Members. As shown in Graph 27, the 
                                                
15 Linda Weiss, Global Governance, National Strategies: How Industrialized States Make Room to Move 
Under the WTO , School of Economics & Political Science of University of Sydney, 2005.  
16 Bhagirath Lal Das, The WTO Agreements: Deficiencies, Imbalances and Required Changes , Third World 
Network, 1998.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 10 - 
 
  United  States  is the largest benef iciary in the trade of cross -border IPR -based transactions with its 
royalties and license fees receipts in 2012 amounted to $85 billion, even much higher than many 
developed Members. In other words, the United States is the biggest IPR exporter while devel oping 
Members are basically on a downward trend.  
5.3  Self-declaration  
5.10.    The WTO Agreement (Article XVI:1) provides that "WTO shall be guided by decisions, 
guidance, procedures, customary practices followed by the contracting parties to GATT 1947." Self -
declarat ion of developing Member status had been a long -standing practice with recognized 
legitimacy under the GATT 1947, hence it becomes part of the customary practices to be followed 
by the WTO established in 1995.  
5.11.    This practice has served to allow developing  Members to gradually comply with GATT/WTO 
disciplines and to integrate themselves in the multilateral trading system with a negotiated degree 
of policy space. It is an instrument to render their economic  integration more sustainable.  
5.12.    As stated in the Mar rakesh Agreement, the WTO was created with the multiple objectives of 
raising standards of living, ensuring full employment, expanding the production and trade, promoting 
sustainable development, etc. rather than just maximizing trade per se. Moreover, the  WTO 
Members agreed in Marrakesh that WTO would adopt an approach to trade policy consistent with 
Members' respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development.  
5.13.    For developed Members, ample evidence has demonstrated that they have the  economic 
structure and related capabilities to reap the benefits from enhanced market access and lower trade 
barriers. However, for developing Members, structural constraints and weak capabilities continue to 
put them in a different position. It is widely  agreed that trade policy or opening up the economy 
cannot be the sole decisive factor to reach sustained economic growth. Successful integration into 
the global economy and achieving high and sustained economic growth require a combination of 
beneficial a ccess to the global market; the policy space to undertake domestic institutional reforms, 
structural transformation, technological upgrading and know -how sharing; and strengthened 
productive capacity. This is the common feature for all self -declared develo ping Members in the 
WTO, which also differs fundamentally from developed Members.  
5.14.    The economic history, including that of today's self -declared developed Members, has shown 
that such domestic transformation, either institutional reform or productive capac ity enhancement, 
requires the knowledge and understanding of local circumstances and continuous policy 
experimentation. Developing Members do need same policy space when opening up to the global 
market to push forward their domestic reform and transformati on agenda, which is exactly the 
reason why the WTO adopts the self -declaration approach. Depriving developing Members of policy 
space and flexibilities would be a gross violation of the basic tenets of justice and fairness in 
international governance, and would strike at the very legitimacy of the rules -based system. The 
WTO, in serving its multiple purposes, should build a development -friendly trade regime, which 
encourages and supports its developing Members to conduct domestic reform and transformation 
according to their local situation while being integrated into the global economy.  
5.15.    It should also be well noted that, though the self -declared developing Members have the 
right to utilize S&DT, they always make their contribution as much as they can. A num ber of 
developing Members ' utmost commitments on Trade Facilitation Agreement implementation is a 
good demonstration to show that the self -declaration approach does not paralyze the WTO 
negotiations, but rather, plays a key role for successful negotiation and feasible  implementation of 
the WTO agreements.  
6  CONCLUSION  
6.1.  The real threats to the relevance, legitimacy and efficacy of the WTO are the proliferation of 
WTO-inconsistent protectionism and unilateralism, the blockage of Appellate Body member selection 
process and the impasse of the Doha Development Round, not the self -declared development status 
of developing Members.  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.2.  S&DT is an integral part of the multilateral trading system, and self -declaration of developing 
Member status, a fundamental rule in the WTO, has proven to be the most appropriate classification 
approach to the WTO. Despite the impressive economic progress made by many developing Members 
over the past decades, development divide persists and has actually widened. Further, developing 
Members  continue to confront many formidable challenges, which underscores the continued 
relevance of S&DT provisions in their favour . As a fundamental right granted to all developing 
Members, each developing Member shall, based upon its own particular situation,  make the decision 
by itself on whether, when, where and how to use S&DT, and to what extent as well. No other 
members are entitled to interfere with such a self -declared decision. If this had not been the case, 
the WTO would not have been able to expand t o today's scale and formulate such a comprehensive 
rules-based system through rounds of multilateral negotiations. Any attempt to dilute S&DT would 
be in conflict with the fundamental premise of equity and fairness that underpins an international 
treaty fr amework in a context of a Membership as diverse as that of the WTO.  
6.3.  To date, the common mission of development for developing Members is far from being 
accomplished, and capacity constraint remains the distinct feature of developing Members. In our 
joint endeavour  toward a more relevant, ef fective and authoritative WTO, M embers shall fully take 
into account the capacity constraint factor in formulating any negotiation structure including its 
scope, ambition and steps. Unless we are willing to properly addre ss the practical demands and 
specific difficulties of the developing Members as well as the reversed S&DT for developed Members, 
we will never be able to encourage them to fully participate in and make due contributions to the 
future negotiations.  
6.4.  If the p romise of taking everyone along is a desirable objective to be fulfilled and if 
inclusiveness has to be ensured then S&DT for all developing Members is the obvious solution.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 12 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
Graph  1: GDP Per Capita ( Current US$, Thousand), S elect ed WTO Members and Groups, 
1995 -2017  
Source:  World Bank WDI.  
  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70LDCsIndiaSouth AfricaLatin America & Caribbean (excluding high income)ChinaBrazilEuropean UnionOECD MembersNew ZealandCanadaAustraliaUnited States
2017 1995WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 13 - 
 
   
Graph 2:  Absolute Increment of GDP Per Capita ( Current US$, Thousand), Select ed WTO 
Members and Groups, 1995 -2017  
Source : World Bank WDI . 
 
 
  0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40LDCsIndiaSouth AfricaBrazilChinaEUOECD MembersCanadaNew ZealandUSAustraliaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 14 - 
 
   
Table 1: Top 10 countries  with the Largest Proportion of the World's (MPI) Poor, 2017 -
2018  
 
No. Countries  Number of MPI poor people  
(thousands ) Share of population 
that is MPI poor  
1 India 515,044  35.6%  
2 Nigeria  91,497  6.3%  
3 Ethiopia  85,213  5.9%  
4 Pakistan  78,592  5.4%  
5 Bangladesh  65,783  4.5%  
6 China  56,101  3.9%  
7 Congo, DR  53,551  3.7%  
8 Indonesia  38,493  2.7%  
9 Tanzania  30,507  2.1%  
10 Uganda  24,537  1.7%  
Source:  Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (2017 -
2018), University of Oxford, see: http://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional -poverty -index/global -mpi-
2017/ , accessed on 25 January 2019.  
  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 15 - 
 
   
Graph  3: Distribution of Under -nourished Population, Average 2015 -17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  UN Food and Agriculture Organization . 
 
  
62%
38%
Top 10
RemainingWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 16 - 
 
   
Graph 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Value -Added Per Worker ( Constant 2010 
US$), Select ed WTO Members and Groups,  1995 -1997 vs 2015 -2017  
 
 
Source:  World Bank WDI . 
 
   - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Average 1995-1997 Average 2015-2017WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 17 - 
 
   
 
Graph 5: Subsidies Per Capita to Farmers (US$), Select ed WTO Members and Groups  
 
Source:  Notifi ed data from WTO Members and groups.  
Note:  Data from US 2016, from EU 2015/2016, from Japan 2014, from China 2016, from India 2015, from 
Brazil 2015/2016 . 
 
  0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000GreenDe minimisTotal subsidies
US Japan EU China Brazil IndiaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 18 - 
 
   
 
Graph 6: Rural Population, Selected WTO Members, Average 1994 -1996 vs 2014 -2016  
 
 
Source:  Calculations based on World Bank WDI . 
 
 
  01000000002000000003000000004000000005000000006000000007000000008000000009000000001000000000
1994-1996 2014-2016WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 19 - 
 
   
Graph  7: Farmers Per Hectare, Selected WTO Members, 2000 -2016  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  Calculation based on World Bank WDI and ILOSTAT . 
 
  0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.000
2000 2016WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 20 - 
 
   
Graph 8: Average Land Holdings, Selected WTO Members  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  Estimation based on UN Food and Agriculture Organization  and competent authorities.  
 
  0.0050.00100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00
Canada New
ZealandUS India Indoneisa Kenya Vietnam ChinaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 21 - 
 
   
Graph  9：Share of Agriculture in Total Employment, Selected WTO Members, 2000 -2002 
vs 2014 -2016  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  World Bank . 
 
 
 
  010203040506070
2000-02 2014-16
ANGOLA INDIA PAKISTAN INDONESIA BOLIVIA TURKEY
BRAZIL JAPAN US GERMANY UKWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 22 - 
 
   
Graph 10: Share of Services Export, Developing and Developed Members (%), 2016  
 
 
Source:  United Nations, World Economic Situation and Prospects Report 2018, p.26 . 
 
 
 
  Total
Developing DevelopedTelecommunication
Developing DevelopedFinancial
Developing DevelopedWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 23 - 
 
   
 
Graph 11: Services Export Per Capita (US $), Selected WTO Members, 2017  
 
 
Source:  World Trade Organization.  
 
 
 
 
  020040060080010001200140016001800
USA EU Japan China India LDCWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 24 - 
 
   
Graph  12: Intellectual Property Rights Receipts, (US$ Billion)  
 
 
Source:  World Bank WDI . 
  0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Least developed countriesSub-Saharan AfricaBrazilIndiaLatin America & CaribbeanMiddle East & North AfricaChinaJapanUnited StatesEuropean UnionOECD members
2017 1995WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 25 - 
 
   
 
Graph 13: Conceptual Framework of the Smile Curve  
 
 
 
 
Source:  M. YE et al. Measuring Smile Curves in Global Value Chains , IDE Discussion Paper No. 530, 
Aug. 2015, p.3 . 
 
 
 
  
WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 26 - 
 
   
 
Graph 14: Energy Use Per Capita, Selected WTO Members, Average 2012 -2014  
 
 
Source:  Calculations based on World Bank WDI . 
 
  010002000300040005000600070008000
India Indonesia Brazil Mexico Argentina China Japan Germany USWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 27 - 
 
   
 
Graph  15: Commercial Bank Branches Per 100,000 Persons, Selected WTO Members, 
Average 2014 -2016  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  World Bank . 
 
 
 
 
  0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00
Japan US Brazil Indonesia India Argentina South Africa ChinaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 28 - 
 
   
Grap h 16: Number of Adults  Without A Bank Account  (million), 2017  
 
 
Source:  Forbes.  
See:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/06/08/1 -7-billion -adults -worldwide -do-not-have-
access -to-a-bank-account -infographic/#c1056f64b011 , accessed on 25 Jan. 2019. 
 
 
 
  0 50 100 150 200 250PhilippinesBrazilViet NamBangladeshMexicoNigeriaIndonesiaPakistanIndiaChinaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 29 - 
 
   
Graph 17: Best Global Universities , 2018  
 
 
Source:  US News – Best Global Universities Rankings, among which, (1) EU Member States are automatically 
taken as developed countries; (2) there are 202 universities out of top 200 as some are scored at the 
same level. https://www.usnews.com/education/best -global -universities/articles/slideshows/us -
news-best-global -universities . accessed on 25 January 2019 . 
 
  
96%
4%
发达
发展中
01020304050
48
107 74 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2Top 100
96%
4%
developed
developing
01020304050607080
US
UK
Germany
Netherlands
Australia
Switzerland
Canada
France
Sweden
Belgium
Italy
Japan
Denmark
Spain
Norway
Czech, Rep.
Finland
Austria
New Zealand
China
Hong Kong, China
Korea
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Brazil
South Africa
Turkey
Chinese TaipeiTop 200
88%
12%
developed
developingWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 30 - 
 
   
Graph 1 8: Full -time Researchers Equivalent Per Million People , 2005 -2016  
 
 
Source: World Bank.  
 
 
 
  0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000JapanGermanyUnited KingdomUnited StatesFranceWorldArgentinaChinaSouth AfricaIndiaIndonesiaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 31 - 
 
   
Grap h 19: Standard Essential Patents (S EPs) Numbers,  Select ed WTO Member s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission  and 
International Telecommunication Union.  
 
  05001000150020002500300035004000
United States EU Japan Other China
87%
13%
US+EU+Japan
OtherWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Graph 20: Worldwide Internet users  
 
Source:  International Telecommunication Union . 
 
  0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
2005 2010 2017
Worldwide Developing DevelopedWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Graph 21: Worldwide Broadband Subscriptions  
 
 
Source:  International Telecommunication Union . 
  0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Worldwide Developing Developed Worldwide Developing Developed
2007 2010 2016 Fixed broadband  Mobile  broadband  WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 34 - 
 
   
 
Graph 22: Digital  Skills in Developed and Developing Members , (%, Average Proportion 
of Individuals ), 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes:  (1) Basic skills; (2) Standard skills; (3) Copying or moving a file or folder; (4) Sending e -mails with 
attached files; (5) Using copy and paste tools; (6) Transferring files between a computer and other 
devices; (7) Finding, downloading, installing and configuring software; (8) Connecting and installing 
new devices; (9) Using basic arit hmetic formulas  in a spreadsheet ; (10) Creating electronic 
presentations; (11) Writing a computer program.  
Source:  International Telecommunication Union . Measuring the Information Society Report 2018.  Volume 1, 
p.32. 
 
 
 
 
 
  010203040506070
（1）（2） （3）（4）（5）（6）（7）（8）（9）（10）（11）
Developed DevelopingWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 35 - 
 
   
Graph 23: Average Profit of Manufacturing Companies of Fortune Global 500, Select ed 
WTO Members  (100 million$ ), 2017  
 
 
 
Source:  Fortune Global 500, http://fortune.com/global500/ . accessed on 25 January 2019 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80UKUnited StatesGermanyJapanBrazilChinaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 36 - 
 
   
Graph 24: Globalizat ion Index for 2016  
 
 
Source:  Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2018 Globalization Report - Who Benefits Most from Globalization? p.9.  
 
 
 
  83.1174.8771.6970.1860.7350.7244.0540.9238.7334.6730.93
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90SwitzerlandUnited KingdomCanadaFranceUnited StatesSouth AfricaMexicoChinaBrazilArgentinaIndiaWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 37 - 
 
   
Graph 25: Average Bound Tariff on Agricultural Goods (%)  
 
 
Source:  World Trade Organization . 
 
  051015202530354045
Developed Members Cairns Group Group of Article XIIWT/GC/W/765  
 
- 38 - 
 
   
 
Graph 26: The Dominant Position of the OECD  Countries in High-tech Industry , 1990s  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note:  1. Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Poland and Slovak Republic excluded.   
 2. Average value of exports and imports.  
Source:  OECD and Linda Weiss. Global governance, National Strategies: How Industrialized States Make 
Room to Move Under the WTO , 2005.  
 
 
 
 
  
WT/GC/W/765  
 
- 39 - 
 
   
 
Graph 27: The Trend of Annual Net Incomes from Licensing Fees and Royalties of All 
Technologies , Select ed WTO Members and Groups  (in current billion US dollars ), 1986 -
2012  
 
Source:  Calculations based on  World Bank WDI . 
 
__________