WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/W/614 
20 March 2009 
 
 (09-1395) 
Council for Trade in Goods Original:   English 
  
ISSUES RELATED TO TRADE IN TEXTILES  
 
A Compilation of Recent Research on Main Trends after the Phase-out of 
 
Quantitative Restrictions and Development Concerns  
 
Communication from Turkey  
 
  The following communication, dated 13 March 2009, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Turkey.  
_______________ 
 
 
A Compilation of Recent Research on Main Trends after the Phase-out of  
Quantitative Restrictions and Development Concerns 
 
 
1. Textiles and clothing sector is quite essential fo r setting the ground for development of many 
countries. The initial economic deve lopment of all leading economies like China, Japan, Germany, the 
UK and the USA was based on this sector.
1  According to the statistics, today textiles and clothing 
takes an important slice of the world me rchandize trade, covering US$583.4 billion,2 while 
developing economies handle more than  two-thirds of world clothing a nd more than one-half of world 
textiles exports.3  The sector’s role in merchandize trade reaches at 85% for some national economies. 
Taken together, these statistics unveil the importance of the sector. (See Tables 1 and 2). 
2. To that end, Turkey called attention to the de velopments in and trade related issues of the 
sector at the WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG ) meeting on 1 October 2004, on the eve of the 
termination of the Agreement on Textiles and Clot hing (ATC).  The issue became an agenda item 
under the title of “Issues Related to Trade in Te xtiles” at the CTG meeting on 11 March 2005 and 
from then on, the issue of textiles and clothing h as been lively debated among the members.  Turning 
point for the debates was the proposal to “establish a work program for a full and periodic review of 
global textile and apparel productio n, export and market circumstances so as to develop appropriate 
remedies within the multilateral trade system.”4  The proposal asked the WTO Secretariat to “examine 
the adjustment-related issues and make recommenda tions on measures in order to assist developing 
and least developed countries experiencing challenges in  the short and medium term as a result of the 
expiration of the ATC.”5  After having engaged in discussions on that  proposal, the communiqué 
G/C/W/599 of 21 May 2008 emphasized the need to work on a compilation of recent international 
                                                      
1 Paul Brenton and Mombert Hoppe, “Clothing and Ex port Diversification: Still a Route to Growth for 
Low-Income Countries?”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,  4343 (2007), p. 3; United Nations 
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paci fic, “Unveiling Protectionism: Regional Responses to 
Remaining Barriers in the Textiles and Cl othing Trade,” UNESCAP (2008), p. 4. 
2 Data compiled from World Trade Organization, International Trade Statistics , Geneva (2008). 
3 World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2008: Trends in a Globalizing World , Geneva 
(2008), p. 18. 
4 Communication to the CTG, G/C/W/522 (30 June 2005). 
5 Ibid. G/C/W/614 
Page 2  
 
  studies, which was widely supported in the CTG.
6  Finally, at the recent meeting on 18 November 
2008, Turkey7 proposed to table a new document in orde r to discuss the main findings of these 
studies. 
3. The aim of this whole effort is to better unders tand the impact of the phase-out and to be able 
to look through different aspects in order to get the right perspective on the complete picture, in 
particular for developing countries and LDCs.  As a prolongation of it, this communiqué is a 
compilation of the studies concluded by the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Econo mic Co-operation and Development.  
4. The ATC provided a timeframe composed of four st ages to be completed in ten years in total. 
The wording of the ATC reflected the spirit of integr ation and liberalization of the sector in line with 
the WTO principles.  Among the four quota-imposers, namely the EU, Canada, the US and Norway, 
only the latter implemented the ATC in three stages while the others waited for 1 January 2005 for 
full liberalization.  According to the WTO, 20% of the total trade was integrated in the first three 
stages while the remaining 80% covering the quota im posers’ sensitive articles was integrated in the 
final stage.
8 
5. While some countries were pushing for ending the quota system in order to boost their 
production and export, others simply owed the initiati on of the domestic textiles and clothing sector to 
the system.  As a matter of fact, for many countr ies the quota system has not only served as a market-
access guarantee9 but also has helped the spread of the industry.10  In other words, quotas shaped the 
pattern of investment flows and opened up the avenu es for foreign investment to come and initiate an 
apparel industry.11 
6. Needless to say, these advantages were peculiar to the quota era and were endangered to be 
lost with the phase-out since in the post-ATC era inv estors in quest for profit will shift the investment 
towards low-cost exporters, the rami fication of which can be consolidation of the textiles and clothing 
exports in few countries.12  
7. One of the research papers on the post-ATC era has come out from the World Bank. 
According to this study, the post-ATC era is pa inting a gloomy picture in terms of facilitating low-
income countries’ boosting their exports and trigge ring industrialization.  The paper argues that 
despite the fact that the sector was a driving for ce “[to] enable a number of countries to exit the group 
of lowest-income countries,” the future is not promising, owing to the rise of the key exporters and 
                                                      
6 For the work program, see G/C/W/549 (28 April 2006), G/C/W/573 (9 March 2007). 
7 Turkey’s communications in the CTG were G/C/W/497 (25 October 2004), G/C/W/522 (30 June 
2005), G/C/W/549 (28 April 2006), G/C/W/573 (9 March 2007) and G/C/W/599 (21 May 2008).  
8 WTO Trade Policy Review Body, “Overview of Developments in the International Trading 
Environment: Annual Report,”  WT/TPR/OV/8  (November 15, 2002), para. 41. 
9 UNESCAP, “Unveiling Protectionism: Regional Res ponses to Remaining Barriers in the Textiles and 
Clothing Trade,” chap 1; Sanjay Kathuria and Anjali Bhardwaj, “Export Quotas and Policy Constraints in the Indian Textile and Garment Industries,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2012 (November 1998), 
p. 24. 
10 United States International Trade Commission, “Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the 
Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to th e U.S. Market,” declassi fied in 2004, p. 2-7. 
11 According to an UNCTAD study, “[t]o overcome quota limitations, moving from one country to 
another in a search for suppliers who could assemble garments cheaply [was a] trend [which] led to the evolving 
structure of the exporting countries group, which is not necessarily or fully based on comparative advantage and 
is producing similar products.” Michiko Hayashi, “T rade in Textiles and Clothing: Assuring Development 
Gains in a Rapidly Changing Environment,” UNCTAD (2007), p. 7.   
12 United States International Trade Commission, “Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the 
Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to the U.S. Market,” p. 2-7.   G/C/W/614 
 Page 3 
 
 
  global production chains, and to the slow growth of demand in developing countries; all of which 
restrict the opportunities for export di versification and economic growth.13  
8. Another study, concluded by the UNESCAP, argues that low cost-high productivity  producers 
like China, India, Pakistan and Viet Nam, have  enjoyed a major opportunity of access to enlarged 
markets induced by the phase-out of the ATC. In the meantime, however, a major challenge faced by 
the OECD and small country producers was finding ways of coping with decreasing labor demand in 
the textile and clothing industries.14   
9. Still, the immediate impact of the phase out was not felt dramatically due mainly to the 
cushioning effect of the quantitative restrictions of  the EU and the US, the former of which was in 
force till 31 December 2007 and the latter till 31 D ecember 2008. Despite that, “market clearance” 
planted the seeds of  unemployment of masses fo llowing the quota phase out. In the meantime, many 
countries have already been losing their market shares by 2005.15  
10. Market clearance is also underlined by the OE CD paper on the impacts of the phase-out.  The 
study argues that those who are not able to fit th e changing circumstances are destined to exit from the 
market and pay for the “adjustment costs;”16 despite the fact that the sector is an important contributor 
to employment.  It is a Herculean task to abso rb unemployed masses into other sectors; and indeed 
countries, especially the LDCs “seriously affected by the lifting of quotas need substantial technical 
[…] assistance […] to enhance supply capacity and develop forward and backward linkages in their 
textiles and clothing industries.”17  To quote from another OECD paper, “[a]t a period of global 
adjustment in textiles and clothing industry, w ith pressure on companies to  remain competitive in 
terms of price, quality and just-in-time deliver y, a cascading effect on employment and labour 
conditions at the end of the supply chain is a critical concern.”18 
11. Nonetheless, it is not only the adjustment costs but also the uneven results of the phase-out 
that gives birth to certain difficulties. To put it preci sely, Turkey’s clothing exports registered a glacial 
4% growth in the EU markets in 2005 while some countries achieved tenfold. Same goes for the textiles exports where Turkey faced roughly 2% d ecline while others tilted more than 20% increase.
19 
The OECD study argues that this is the case due main ly to the efficiency; however it is claimed that 
certain government supports in cont radiction with international trade agreements has played quite a 
substantial part in this success.20 
12. By looking at the data provided in Tables 9 an d 10, one may observe a certain trend for some 
countries whose shares from the EU and US markets keep shrinking.  To list some, Mexico, Pakistan, 
                                                      
 13 Brenton and Hoppe, “Clothing and Export Diversif ication: Still a Route to Growth for Low-Income 
Countries?”. For an opposite opinion, see Alessandro Nicita, “Export Led Growth, pro poor or not? Evidence from Madagascar’s Textile and Apparel Industry”, World Bank Research Working Paper,  WPS3841 (February 
2006). 
14 UNESCAP, “Unveiling Protectionism: Regional Responses to Remaining Barriers in the Textiles 
and Clothing Trade,” p. 49. 
15 The trend continued also in 2007. See OECD, “E conomic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of 
Quantitative Restrictions under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,” forthcoming. 
16 OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions under the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,” 12 Junwe 2007. 
17 United Nations Conference on Trade and Developm ent, “Training Module on Trade in Textiles and 
Clothing the Post-ATC Context,” UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2005/19 (January 2008), p. 73. 
18 See Barbara Fliess, Hyung-Jong Lee, Olivia L. Dubreuil and Osvaldo Agatiello, “CSR and Trade: 
Informing Consumers about Social and Environmental Conditions of Globalised Production, Part II- Case 
Studies,” TD/TC/WP(2006)17/ANN/FINAL (10 January 2007) p. 38. 
19 OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions under the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,” forthcoming.. 
20 See WTO Communication WT/DS387/1 G/L/879 G/SCM/D81/1 G/AG/GEN/79 (7 January 2009), 
also refer to National Council of Textile Or ganizations webpage for further information. G/C/W/614 
Page 4  
 
  Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Turkey, Nepal, Colombia, Jamaica, Mauritius experienced visible 
decline in their textiles and clothing trade between  2004-2007 with the US.  For the EU, the list goes 
as Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Korea, Ma ldives, Philippines and South Africa . 
13. Moreover, despite the EU and US’s quantitativ e restrictions, some members achieved to 
increase their market share in a relatively leveled pl ayground for all players.  This increase, too, had 
been achieved at the expense of other developing c ountries, proving further that some countries were 
indeed getting the lion’s share.
21 
Conclusion 
14. The studies on the post-ATC era have collectively pointed out the fact that many developing 
countries have the risk of losing unbearable numbe r of jobs as well as export revenues in the short 
run. 
15. The initial estimates have started to become a reality while the coinciding global economic 
crisis has exponentially deteriorated the impact of  the quota phase out.  The current situation, in fact, 
calls for a state of emergency for the majority of  textile and clothing pr oducer/exporter developing 
and least developed countries as the protectionist movements are also gaining ground. 
16.  Although it may be argued that it is prim arily a national government’s responsibility to 
formulate necessary policies, globalization of the world economy has led to an increased interaction 
between policies pursued by individual government s.  The international coherence of national 
economic policies (covering but not limited to st ructural, macroeconomic, trade, financial and 
development aspects) “is an important and valuable  element in increasing the effectiveness of these 
policies at the national level.”  
17. In this respect, in addition to its current efforts, the World Trade Organization should 
cooperate with other international organizations, carry a leading role and serve as the right platform to 
develop policies commensurate with the post-phase out era. 
18. In other words, the WTO is the main body to address the trade related concerns and 
developmental issues arising from the restructuring of  the textiles and clothing markets at the global 
scale following the expiry of the ATC. In these hard  times, monitoring of the developments in the 
markets and reporting them at the CTG would be an ex cellent upturn to keep a platform open on this 
strategic sector. 
19. Considering the facts that: 
- textiles and clothing makes up US$583 billion of total merchandize trade;  
- developing economies handle more than 50% of textiles and clothing trade;  and  
- for some countries the sector encloses more th an three quarters of merchandize trade;  
 it is worth emphasizing that the sector is quite cr ucial for many developing countries and that the 
WTO’s coordinating and pioneering role is very important to overcome the post-ATC era difficulties 
related to descending market shares and ascending unemployment. 
 
________________ 
 
                                                     
 
 21 Besides changes in market shares, textiles and clothing sector also plays an important role in trade 
balances of national economies. According to a study , th e OECD countries’ trade defi cits with these countries  
is heavily dominated by textiles and clothing imports, ranging from 5 to 65%. OECD, “China’s Trade and 
Growth: Impact on Selected OECD Countrie s,” TD/TC/WP(2006)10/FINAL (24 April 2006).   
   G/C/W/614
 Page 5Table 1: Textile Exports’ Share in Total Merchandize Exports22 
0102030405060Bangladesh 
 b,  c 
 Belarus  
Ch
ina 
 d  Colo
mbia  Egypt  c  European Union 
(27)  Hong Kong, China  
Ind
ia  Iran, Isla
mic R
ep. o
f  c 
 Kor
ea, Repu
blic of  Maca
o, Ch
ina  Malaysia
  d  Mauritius
  c,  d  
Mexico  d  
Ne
pal  c  Pakista
n  South
 Africa  c 
 Sri Lan
ka  c  Taipei,
 Chinese  
Thailan
d  Tunisia  Tu
rkey  c  Percent2000
2007 a
 
 
                                                      
22 For Tables 1 and 2; a: Nearest year; b: Includes Secretariat estimates,  c: Figures refer to fiscal  year, d: Includes significa nt exports from processing zones.  Data 
compiled from WTO, International Trade Statistics .  
  G/C/W/614 
Page 6 Table 2: Clothing Exports’ Share in Total Merchandize Exports23 
0102030405060708090
Bangladesh  b,  c  
Belarus  
China  d  
Colombia  
Egypt  b  Hong Kong, China  
India  
Indonesia  Korea, Republic of  
Macao, China  
Malaysia  d  
Mauritius  b,  d  
Mexico  d  
Morocco  d  
Pakistan  
Peru  
Sri Lanka  b  
Taipei, Chinese  
Thailand  
Tunisia  
Turkey  b  Percent2000
2007a
 
 
                                                      
23 Data compiled from WTO, International Trade Statistics .  
   G/C/W/614
 Page 7Table 3: Textile Exports of Selected Regions24 
 
0102030405060
Asia China Other economies in
AsiaEurope North AmericaShare in world
exports (2000)
Share in world
exports (2007)
 
                                                      
24 Data compiled from WTO, International Trade Statistics . 
  
  G/C/W/614 
Page 8 Table 4: Clothing Exports of Selected Regions25 
0102030405060
Asia China Other economies in
AsiaEurope South and Central
AmericaShare in world
exports (2000)
Share in worldexports (2007)
 
 
                                                      
25 Data compiled from WTO, International Trade Statistics .  G/C/W/614 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Table 5: EU25 imports of textiles by c ountry and region in 2005-2008 (billions EUR)26 
13 . 4
2. 4
1.7
1.3
0.8
0.8
0. 6
0. 6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0. 4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 114 . 4
2. 8
1. 9
1. 4
0. 9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0. 4
0.3
0. 4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 114 . 9
3
2. 1
1. 6
0. 9
0. 9
0.8
0. 6
0.5
0. 4
0. 4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0. 113 . 9
3
1. 9
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.3
0. 4
0. 4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 10 2 4 6 8 1 01 21 41 6
World excl. EU25 intra-trade
China
Tu rkey
India
United States
Switzerland
Pakistan
So ut h  Ko r ea
Japan
Indonesia
Romania
Chinese Taipei
Australia
Thailand
Egypt
Bulgaria
Israel
S outh Africa
Iran
New Zealand
Tu nis i a
2005 2006 2007 2008 P
                                                      
26 Reproduced from OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions 
under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,”  (data from Eurostat and OTEXA) forthcoming. G/C/W/614 
Page 10 
 
 
  Table 6: EU25 imports of clothing by country and region 2 005-2008 (billions EUR)27 
59.8
18 .7
9.3
4
3. 7
3. 8
2. 6
2.3
1. 7
1.4
1.1
1.2
0. 8
0. 8
0. 8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.366. 7
21 . 1
9. 4
4. 6
4. 8
3. 7
2. 6
2.4
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.1
1
0. 9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.469.3
24.3
10 .2
4. 7
4. 6
3
2. 7
2. 6
1. 7
1. 7
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
0. 8
0. 7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.534. 1
12 .9
4. 6
2.3
2.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
0. 7
0. 8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 20 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0
World excl. EU25 intra-trade
China
Tu rkey
India
Bangladesh
Romania
Tu nis ia
Morocco
Hong Kong, China
Pakistan
Bulgaria
Indonesia
Viet-Nam
S ri Lanka
Thail and
Switzerland
Egypt
Cambodia
United States
Mauritius
Fyrom
2005 2006 2007 2008 P
 
                                                      
27 Reproduced from OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions 
under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,”  (data from Eurostat and OTEXA) forthcoming.  G/C/W/614 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Table 7: US imports of textiles by count ry and region in 2005-2008 (billions USD)28 
59.8
18 . 7
9.3
4
3.7
3.8
2.6
2. 3
1.7
1. 4
1. 1
1. 2
0. 8
0. 8
0. 8
0. 6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.366. 7
21 . 1
9.4
4. 6
4.8
3.7
2.6
2. 4
2.5
1.6
1. 3
1.5
1. 1
1
0. 9
0. 6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.469. 3
24. 3
10 . 2
4. 7
4. 6
3
2.7
2.6
1.7
1.7
1. 3
1. 2
1. 2
1. 1
0. 8
0. 7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.534. 1
12 .9
4. 6
2. 3
2. 4
1. 2
1. 3
1. 3
0. 7
0. 8
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.20 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0
World
China
India
Pakistan
Canada
Mexico
Italy
Korea
Tu rkey
Chinese T aipei
Japan
Thai land
Germany
Brazil
France
United Kingdom
Indonesia
Israel
Belgium
Portu g al
Viet n am
2005 2006 2007 2008 P
 
                                                      
28 Reproduced from OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions 
under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,”  (data from Eurostat and OTEXA) forthcoming. G/C/W/614 
Page 12 
 
 
  Table 8: US imports of clothing by country and region 2005-2008   (billions USD)29 
 
68.7
15.1
6.1
2.7
2.9
3
2.4
2.6
1.7
3.5
1.8
1.8
0
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.8
1.2
0.771.6
18.5
5.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.4
2.1
2.8
1.8
2
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.2
0.973.9
22.7
4.5
4.4
4.4
3.2
3.1
2.5
2.4
2
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
1
0.970.9
21.8
4
5.4
5.4
3
3.3
2.6
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.4
0.15
1.6
1.4
1.4
1
0.8
1
0.90 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0
World excl. EU25 intra-trade
China
Mexico
Vietnam
Indonesia
India
Bangladesh
Honduras
Cambodia
Hong Kong, China
Thailand
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
El Salvador
Guatemala
Italy
Jordan
Dominican Republic
Macau
Nicaragua
2005 2006 2007 2008 P
 
                                                      
29 Reproduced from OECD, “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions 
under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,”  (data from Eurostat and OTEXA) forthcoming.  
   G/C/W/614
 Page 13Table  9: Annual Changes of EU Textiles and Clothing Imports30 
-80.00%-60.00%-40.00%-20.00%0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%
China
Turkey
India
Bangladesh
Tunisia
Morocco
Pakistan
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Switzerland
United States
Vietnam
Thailand
Sri Lanka
Korea Rep.
Egypt
Japan
Chinese Taipei
Maldives
Philippines
Myanmar
Nepal
South Africa2004/1995
2007/2004
Market Share in 2007
 
                                                      
30 Data compiled  from ITCB, “ Evolution of Textile and Clothing Imports into the United States  (1990 – 2007).”  (data from US Department of Commerce)    
  G/C/W/614 
Page 14 Table 10: Annual Changes of US Textile and Clothing Imports31 
-40.00%-30.00%-20.00%-10.00%0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%
China
Mexico
India
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Honduras
Cambodia
Hong kong, China
Thailand
Philippines
Sri Lanka
El Salvador
Guatemala
Chinese Taipei
Korea Rep.
Turkey
Mongolia
Nepal
Colombia
Jamaica
Mauritius
South Africa
Swaziland
Sub-sahara2004/1995
2007/2004
Market Share in
2007
 
                                                      
31 Data compiled from ITCB,  “ Evolution of Textile and Clothing Imports into EU-25  (1995 – 2007).” (data from Eurostat)  G/C/W/614 
 Page 15 
 
 
  List of Selected Studies on post-ATC Era Developments in the Textiles and Clothing Sector 
 
Adhikari, Ratnakar and Chatrini Weeratunge. “Tex tiles&Clothing Sector in South Asia: Coping with 
Post-quota Challenges,” chapter 4 in B. S. Chimni, B. L. Das, Saman Kelegama, Mustafizur Rahman 
(ed.s), South Asian Yearbook of Tr ade and Development, Centre for Trade & Development  (India, 
2007). 
 Amiti, Mary, John Romalis. “Will the Doha Round Lead to Preference Erosion?,” IMF Staff Papers (1 
July 2007). 
 
Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS) and Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) (of World 
Bank), “Competitiveness and Corporate Social Respons ibility in the Jordanian Apparel Industry,”  
January 2008.  Gelb, Bernard A. “Textile and Apparel Quota Ph aseout: Some Economic Implications,” CRS Report 
for Congress, June 10, 2005. 
 International Labour Organization. “Promoting Fair Globalization in Textiles and Clothing in a post-
MFA Environment,” (TMTC-PMFA/2005, Geneva, 2005).   Love, Patrick, and Ralph Lattimore. “Inter national Trade: Free, Fair and Open?,” OECD Insights , 
forthcoming. 
 Ministry of Industry and Trade. “Tekstil, Haz ır Giyim, Deri ve Deri Ürünleri Sektörlerine Yönelik 
Strateji Belgesi”, [Document on Strategy for Sectors of Textiles, Clothing and Leather Products] (September 2008). 
 
OECD. “Facilitating Trade and Structural Adjust ment: Experiences in Non-Member Economies, 
Country Case Study on Thailand,” TAD/TC/WP( 2007)6/PART2/E/FINAL (7 January 2008). 
 OECD. “Logistics and Time as a Trade Barrier,”  TD/TC/WP(2006)3/REV1 (15 March 2006).  
 
OECD. Trade and Structural Adjustment: Embracing Globalisation ,  
OECD, 2005. 
 
Onodera, Osamu. “Trade and I nnovation Project Case Study 3: The Ending of the Multi-fiber 
Agreement and Innovation in Sri Lankan Textile and Clothing In dustry,” OECD Working Paper No. 
75, TAD/TC/WP(2008)6/PART2/C/FINAL (29 July 2008). 
 World Bank, “Vertical and Regional Integration to  Promote African Textiles and Clothing Exports: A 
Close Knit Family?,” Report No. 39994-AFR (July 2007).  World Bank. “Bangladesh: End of MFA Quotas; Key Issues and Strategic Options for Bangladesh 
Readymade Garment Industry,” Report No. 34964-BD (January 2006). 
 World Bank. “Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan  after the End of the Multi-Fiber Agreement”, 
Report No. 35376 MNA (December 2006).   
World Trade Organization. The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade 
Negotiations,  WTO Publications: Geneva (2002). 
 Yang, Yongzheng and Monthfort Mlach ila. “The End of Textiles Quotas: A Case Study of the Impact 
on Bangladesh,” Journal of Development Studies , 43:4 (May 2007). G/C/W/614 
Page 16  
 
  References : 
 
Brenton, Paul and Mombert Hoppe. “Clothing and E xport Diversification: Still a Route to Growth for 
Low-Income Countries?”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,  No. 4343, (2007). 
 
Fliess, Barbara, Hyung-Jong Lee, Olivia L. D ubreuil and Osvaldo Agatiello, “CSR and Trade: 
Informing Consumers about Social and Environmen tal Conditions of Globalised Production,” Part I 
and II,  TD/TC/WP(2006)17/FINAL (10 January 2007).  Hayashi, Michiko. “Trade in Textiles and Clot hing: Assuring Development Gains in a Rapidly 
Changing Environment,”  UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2006/9 (2007). 
 Kathuria, Sanjay and Anjali Bhardwaj. “Export Quotas and Policy Constraints in the Indian Textile 
and Garment Industries,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,  No. 2012 (November 1998). 
  
Nicita, Alessandro. “Export Led Growth, pro poor  or not? Evidence from Madagascar’s Textile and 
Apparel Industry”, World Bank Research Working Paper,  WPS3841 (February 2006). 
 OECD. “China’s Trade and Growth: Impact on Selected OECD Countries-Annexes and Tables,” 
TD/TC/WP(2006)10/ANN (24 April 2006).   
OECD. “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in  2005 of Quantitative Restrictions under the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing ,” TAD/TC/WP(2007)14 (12 June 2007). 
 OECD Working Party of Trade Committee. “Economic Impacts of the Phase-out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,” forthcoming. 
 
OECD. Trading Up: Economic Perspectives on Devel opment Issues in the Multilateral Trading 
System , OECD (2006). 
 United Nations Conference on Trade and Developm ent. “Training Module on Trade in Textiles and 
Clothing the Post-ATC Context,” UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/2005/19 (January 2008).  
 
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. “Unveiling Protectionism: 
Regional Responses to Remaining Barriers in the Textiles and Clothing Trade,” UNESCAP, 2008.  United States International Trade Commission. “Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the 
Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to the U.S. Market,” declassified in 2004. 
 World Trade Organization Trade Policy Review Body. “Overview of Developments in the 
International Trading Environment: Annual Report,”  WT/TPR/OV/8 (15 November 2002). 
 World Trade Organization. International Trade Statistics , Geneva (2008). 
 
World Trade Organization. World Trade Report 2008: Trends in a Globalizing World , Geneva 
(2008). 
 
__________