Global Economic Prospects 2004 provides essential information for
those concerned with developments shaping today’s global economy.

THE WORLD BANKISBN 0-8213-5582-1

Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized• explores the short-, medium-, and long-term outlook for the
global economy, including driving forces, commodity prices,and capital flows, and their implications for major regions• reviews recent trends in exports from developing countries,
trade barriers that work to the disadvantage of poor people,
and policies to reduce protection and other inequities in theworld trading system• examines trade in agriculture—the most important and politicallycontentious sector for global poverty reduction—including key
lessons from development experience, possible changes to thecurrent system of subsidies and protection, and the potential
for liberalization in both rich and poor countries• investigates the temporary movement of labor—so-called
Mode 4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services—evaluating its advantages and disadvantages to both the home
and the host countries• discusses trade facilitation in light of post-9/11 concerns forsecurity to suggest new policies that would promote greaterand more-secure trade• reviews the special treatment of developing countries in
the world trading system and the role of trade preferences,
exemptions from WTO rules, and technical assistance toimplement WTO trade regulations.

Public Disclosure Authorized

The fourteenth annual edition of Global Economic Prospects

GlobalEconomic
Prospects

Public Disclosure Authorized

T

2004

—Nicholas Stern
Senior Vice President andChief Economist

he Doha Development Agenda of the Fourth Ministerial
Conference of the WTO opened many contentious andimportant questions. Global Economic Prospects 2004:
Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda analyzes themost critical multilateral trade issues and suggests policy options
that would raise living standards in developing countries andreduce global poverty.

Global Economic Prospects

The World Trade Organization(WTO) round of trade negotiations
initiated in November 2001 in
Doha, Qatar, was intended to be a“development round.” Those goodintentions are now being tested.
Trade ministers from all over theworld are discussing ways to reduce
trade barriers—barriers that greatly
harm development and poverty
reduction. Global Economic Prospects
2004 explores the tough issues
under discussion—protection ofagriculture, trade in labor-intensive
manufactures, labor services, andspecial treatment for developing
countries, among others—to present
options that would indeed reducepoverty and advance development.
The global talks will not be easy andmay take time, but allowing poor
people greater access to world
markets will offer them newopportunities to improve their living
standards. If agreements are to begenuinely pro-development, these
discussions must be informed byclear analysis of measures that arelikely to benefit poor people themost.That is the purpose of thisGlobal Economic Prospects.

26759

Realizing the Development Promiseof the Doha Agenda

2004

GlobalEconomic
Prospects
Realizing the Development Promiseof the Doha Agenda

2004© 2003 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Telephone 202-473-1000
Internet www.worldbank.org
E-mail feedback@worldbank.org
All rights reserved.
1 2 3 4 04 03
This volume is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, andconclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive
Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The
boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work
do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any
territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of thiswork without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages
dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request
with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to
the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA,fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.

ISBN 0-8213-5582-1
ISSN 1014-8906
Cover photo credit: AFP/CORBIS.
Workers at the Los Ausoles coffee plantation in Ahuachapan, El Salvador, clean coffee beans,
August 14, 2002.

Contents

Forewordix

Acknowledgments
Overview

xi

xiii

Abbreviations and Data Notes

xxxi

Chapter 1 Global Outlook and the Developing Countries
1
The industrial countries: Deficits, confidence, capital spending, and the dollar
4
The external environment for developing countries: Gradual improvement, but abumpy road ahead
19
The developing countries: Back on track toward growth?
28
Trade, growth, and poverty in developing countries
38
Looking ahead to the Doha Round47
Annex 1 Historical trade dynamics for developing countries
55
Notes
59
References
60
Chapter 2 Trade Patterns and Policies: Doha Options to Promote Development
Changing patterns in developing-country exports
65
Behind the patterns: Economic and policy determinants
73
Market access for development: The agenda
78
From Doha to Cancún and beyond: How should protection be reduced?
Notes
98
References
98
Chapter 3 Agricultural Policies and Trade
103
Poverty, rural households, and trade in agriculture105
Trade and export growth in agriculture
109
Global agricultural protection: The bias against development
Proposals for reforms in the Doha Round
131
Notes
138
References
139

63

88

114

iii

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Chapter 4 Labor Mobility and the WTO: Liberalizing Temporary Movement
The bigger picture: Global migration and remittance trends
145
Temporary movement of workers
150
Bilateral and regional approaches to labor mobility
152
Understanding the impact of temporary foreign workers
155
Mode 4 and the WTO
166
Notes
172
References
174

143

Chapter 5 Reducing Trading Costs in a New Era of Security179
Why transport, trade facilitation, and logistics matter
181
The new international security dimension in trade
182
The anticompetitive effects of international transport regulations
188
Trade facilitation
191
Trade facilitation and the WTO agenda
195
Lowering transport costs, increasing security, and facilitating trade
198
Notes
200
References
202
Chapter 6 Development and the Doha Agenda
205
Special and differential treatment and the WTO
207
Market access for development
208
Toward a new regime for WTO rules
220
Putting development into the Doha agenda
227
Notes
228
References229
Appendix 1 Regional Economic Prospects

233

Appendix 2 Global Commodity Price Prospects
Appendix 3 Global Economic Indicators

257

279

Figures
1.1
Growth in the OECD countries falters
41.2OECD manufacturing shows a distinct “double dip”
5
1.3
Consumer confidence recovers from pre-war lows6
1.4
The drop in U.S. household net worth has been offset by real estate appreciation
1.5
Capital spending has been hesitant in all industrial countries9
1.6
Corporate profits have risen moderately in the United States and Japan9
1.7
Business confidence remains poor, but better in the United States than in Europe
1.8
The U.S. fiscal deficit is widening quickly
11
1.9a
The U.S. current account deficit is at record levels
11
1.9b
The U.S. current account deficit is at record levels
13
1.10
Market interest rates have dropped
14
1.11
Is deflation a danger for Europe and the United States?
15

iv

8

10

C O N T E N T S

1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21a
121b
1.21c
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Output gaps are widening, bringing deflationary pressures to bear
16
The dollar has fallen sharply since early 2002
16
OECD recovery begins in the United States
18OECD-area imports have declined sharply since April 2000
21
China’s share of East Asian exports keeps rising
21
The price of oil fell sharply before the war in Iraq
23
Agricultural prices have begun to decline as crop prospects improve
25
Emerging-market spreads rallied sharply after late 2002
26
Bond issuance dominates capital market flows in 2003
27
Regional trends in industrial production are mixed
29
Inflation is moderating in the developing world
29
Major currencies in Latin America and East Asia are firming up
30
Developing countries are on track toward long-term growth31
Growth rates in developing countries will rise through 200531
Before the SARS outbreak, East Asian GDP was growing robustly
32
Argentina, Brazil, and Chile see strong upturn in production
33
Growth will cool in CIS while picking up in Central and Eastern Europe
34
Middle East oil production has increased to prevent shortages
35
Indian production of food and automobiles recovered sharply in early 2003
37
Growth in Africa is expected to improve modestly
38
Income elasticity has risen globally, but particularly in the developing world
40
Export-to-GDP ratios have risen sharply in developing countries
41
Productivity will contribute more to GDP growth through 2015 than will capital orlabor
44
The pro-poor reform scenario promises substantial income gains
50
Exports should rise sharply
52
Millions of people would be moved out of poverty
52
Gains for most, but adjustment costs for some
53
Significant shifts in global output patterns
54
Developing countries have become important exporters of manufactured
products
65
Manufactures account for a growing share of exports in all regions
67
Technology-laden manufactures have increased as a share of exports from each groupof countries, while the share of resource-based exports has diminished
70
Global production sharing is increasingly important for China and India
71
Soaring exports from China and India had only a moderate effect on China’s andIndia’s terms of trade72
Many developing countries face an adjustment when quotas are lifted
80
Antidumping barriers by sector and by country group88
Countries that produce more cash crops also produce more food
109
Import growth rates of nontraditional export commodities decreased in industrial
countries but increased in developing countries
112
Developing countries’ exports of nontraditional products have surged, but industrial
countries’ exports have changed little
114
Developing countries lowered tariffs on manufactured products more than on
agricultural products
119v

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8

Tables
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.A1

vi

P R O S P E C T SRich countries use non–ad valorem tariffs more often than do developing
countries
122
Throughout the world, tariff rates escalate with degree of processing
123
The proportion of tariff lines containing non–ad valorem duties increases with degreeof processing
125
Tariff rate quotas protect a substantial portion of output in many industrial
countries
126
High protection of sugar and wheat has increased domestic production and reduced
net imports
128
Workers’ remittances are an important source of income for many developing
countries
149
Customs clearance takes longer in the developing world than in the OECD,
lowering the competitiveness of developing-country trade
185
Higher trade costs reduce global welfare
186
Facilitating trade in less-efficient countries would bring significant gains
194
The impact of individual trade-facilitation measures differs significantly from region
to region
195
Domestic reforms alone would produce many of the same gains as global
reform196
The benefits of U.S. trade preferences are distributed unequally
211
Countries “graduating” from U.S. generalized system of preferences have better export
performance than those still in program
212
Preferences have not increased the share of the least developed countries in imports
into the European Union and the United States
215
Market shares of countries eligible for three U.S. “deep preference” programs have notincreased
215
Preferred countries’ apparel exports to the United States have risen
216
Agricultural exports from Mexico and Spain rose dramatically after the two countries
joined regional trade blocs
217
The trade policies of countries in the U.S. generalized system of preferences are more
protectionist than those of countries not in the program
218
Countries enjoying preferences have increased their exports of apparel to theUnited States
219

Global growth should accelerate, but risks persist
3
Weak fundamentals underlie sluggish growth in the rich countries
5
The difficult environment for developing-country growth should improve
20
Developing countries’ exports will grow faster than those of the high-income
countries
22
GDP per capita will grow faster in the developing world than in the OECD area
43
Global poverty will decrease significantly, but not uniformly across regions
46
Tariffs could be cut clearly and simply
48
The pro-poor tariff scenario would significantly lower protection
49
A large share of real income gains comes from lowering of barriers in agriculture andfood
51
Sectoral export decomposition for developing countries
55

C O N T E N T S

1.A2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2A.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8

Regional export decomposition for developing countries
57
Developing countries are becoming exporters of high-value products
68
Developing countries’ exports became more competitive in the 1990s
74
Investment in people and in capital grew rapidly
75
Tariffs hurt exports—but less so in the 1990s than in the 1980s
77
Quota abolition in China will move resources from other activities to textiles
and clothing
81
Industrial countries levy higher tariffs on imports from developing countries than fromother industrial countries—and some regions have high tariff walls
82
Developing countries pay large amounts in tariffs to their neighbors
83
Most antidumping actions are filed by developing countries against other developing
countries
86
Antidumping rates are much higher than tariff rates
86
Antidumping duties are high87Competing formulas make a big difference for tariffs
95
The various liberalization proposals have very different features
97
Most of the world’s poor live in rural areas outside the least developed countries
106
Rural poverty is higher in poorer countries
107
Even in subsistence economies, cash is important
107
U.S. farmers earn less from farming than from other sources
107
Manufacturing exports grew much faster than agricultural exports
110
South-South exports in agriculture are rising as South-North export shares fall
110
Developing countries have shared unequally in export market gains
117
Agricultural tariffs are higher than manufacturing tariffs in both rich and poor
countries
118
Agricultural tariffs: High peaks and deep valleys
119
Most subsidies go to producers—and come from border protection
120
Subsidies account for a large share of farmers’ revenues
121
Specific tariffs are higher than ad valorem rates
123
Tariffs rise with level of processing
124
The Harbinson proposals could greatly reduce applied tariffs in the European Unionand the United States
133
The Harbinson proposals would not significantly reduce protection in the developingworld—if reductions were taken from bound rates
133
U.S. trade preferences—a plethora of programs
136
Migration is rising in many OECD countries
147
Workers’ remittances are the second-largest source of external funding for developing
countries
148
Remittances are a significant source of income in all regions of the developing
world
149
Temporary movement is rising in rich countries
150
Foreign-born workers meet skill shortages in rich countries
152
The distribution of costs and benefits associated with Mode 4 trade
157
TMNP is the smallest of the four modes of international service supply
168
Most Mode 4 commitments by WTO members are in management categories
169

vii

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

5.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
Boxes
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
6.3

viii

P R O S P E C T S

Elimination of anticompetitive private practices can cut costs drastically190
Developing countries rarely receive significant preferences in sectors in which theywould have a comparative advantage
209
Utilization rates for preference-eligible products with high MFN tariffs are low
210
Actual use of preference programs is declining
211

Consumer confidence and U.S. private consumption
7
Financing the U.S. current account deficit: From equity to debt
12
OPEC struggles to achieve higher prices amid growing supply competition
24
Economic effects of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)33
AIDS is taking a rising toll in Sub-Saharan Africa
39
Poor export performance in 43 countries
69
Swimming upstream: The case of Vietnamese catfish
85
The scourge of the specific89“Average cuts,” the cut you have when you’re not having a cut
92
The implications of five tariff-cutting proposals
93
The impact of national trade integration and reform on poverty
106
Did agricultural exports slow down solely because of falling prices?
111
Decomposing export growth in manufacturing
113
Food safety standards: From barriers to opportunities
115
Decoupling agricultural support from production decisions
127
Fewer subsidies, stronger agricultural sector
132
The potential impact of real preferences
134
Rules of origin in preferential schemes are complicated—and often
contradictory
136
Food aid principles
137
Population aging and migration
146
Temporary labor movement and the East Asian crisis of 1997–98
151
Recent initiatives to facilitate temporary movement of highly skilled workers
153
A trade facilitation approach to labor mobility: NAFTA and APEC
154
Initiatives to encourage return migration
160
Wages and conditions
163
E-commerce and temporary movement
164
Boosting intra-EU labor mobility
165
Measuring Mode 4 is still imprecise
167
Key impediments to Mode 4 trade
169
Elements of a possible GATS visa/permit regime
171
The evolving definition of trade facilitation
181
The logistics needs of a German car part manufacturer in Tunisia
192
Tackling corruption in customs: Peru
197
Customs reform in Lebanon
198
EU and U.S. preference programs
213
Major WTO provisions allowing developing countries greater freedom to use
restrictive trade policies
221
A “development box” for the Agreement on Agriculture?
223

ForewordT

he international community finds itself at a crossroads as it goes into the last quarter of 2003. Will the Doha Agenda regenerate the multilateral consensus that has been thehallmark of successive rounds of trade liberalization since 1947 and in doing so provide
new impetus for global integration? Or will the Doha Agenda collapse in stalemate and perhaps
be viewed as the moment when the international community retreated from multilateralism andopened the floodgates for less desirable bilateral and regional arrangements?
The answers to these questions matter a great deal to the world’s poor. The round of tradetalks launched in November 2001 in Doha, Qatar, is the first negotiation focused primarily on issues of concern to developing countries, and the first trade round since the birth of the World
Trade Organization (WTO). Moreover, the Doha round is the first trade round for many new
WTO members, including the world largest developing economy, China. Consequently, the roundhas the opportunity to remove many of the inequities in the global trading system that put developing countries—and poor people in particular—at a disadvantage in their trade.
Three trade barriers are of particular concern. Poor people work in agriculture, and agricultural products are subject to the highest barriers to trade. In addition, poor people produce laborintensive manufactures, which are subject to peak tariffs in a world that has already reduced
average tariffs in manufactures to historic lows. Poor people could benefit from greater temporary migration.
Governments everywhere have worked hard to create the opportunity to reduce these andother barriers. And they will have to work hard to capitalize on that opportunity. To fulfill thedevelopment promise of the Doha Agenda, rich countries will have to reduce protection of their(relatively wealthy) farmers. Their tariff walls and huge subsidies depress global prices of the
products that poor farmers produce throughout the developing world. These subsidies cost the
average working family in the European Union, Japan, and the United States more than $1,000
a year. Middle-income countries, though their protection is generally lower and less distorting in
agriculture, have high average tariffs in all sectors, and are more restrictive in services. As southsouth trade increases in importance, protection of sectors in middle-income countries undermines
their poorer trading partners and often undercuts the countries’ own productivity growth. Finally, low-income countries should look to the international system to meet their very reasonable
demands—not for special preferences to some markets and exemptions from rules, but for
nondiscriminatory market access to every market in products in which they have a comparativeadvantage, for appropriately phased introduction of international regulations, and for development assistance in implementing administratively costly WTO rules. Like other countries, low-ix

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

income countries will find it in their interest to reduce their own external levels of protection aspart of an integrated development strategy aimed at reducing poverty.
Reducing barriers to trade is not enough to fulfill the development promise of Doha. Trademust be part of a larger development strategy for each country, a strategy that includes attention
to macroeconomic policy, infrastructure, education, and health as well as to accountable andresponsible governance. These elements of investment climate take time to develop but are essential for growth and poverty reduction and are crucial to make a sound trade strategy pay its
growth and poverty reduction dividends.
The World Bank, working in partnership with the other international institutions and bilateral
donors, is committed to supporting a pro-poor Doha outcome. Our objectives in trade are twofold: promoting a world trading system in which global, regional, and bilateral rules are conducive to development and poverty reduction, and helping individual developing countries leverage trade to promote their own growth. The latter objective hinges on integrating appropriately
sequenced trade reforms into national development and poverty reduction strategies.
The Bank is increasing its investment in research, technical assistance, and lending for trade.
A casual perusal of the bibliography in each chapter of this report will give the interested reader
an idea of the scope of the Bank’s research program. Moreover, in the last two years, the Bank
has undertaken at the request of governments more than 20 diagnostic studies of obstacles totrade integration. In conjunction with six partner institutions, the Bank has led the Integrated
Framework program—studies of trade obstacles in a dozen least-developed countries to date. It
has completed several regional studies of trade.
In addition to studies and policy advice, the Bank has provided technical assistance in the formof lending to improve trade-related institutions and transport logistics. The Bank has programs
that finance activities in 49 countries (approximately one-third of its active client countries).
These projects span all regions and range from export competitiveness projects in Ghana and
Bangladesh, to transport and trade facilitation projects in Eastern Europe, to support for improving customs–border control agencies and training the trading community in Pakistan. The
Bank is also implementing projects to improve quality standards and is leading the “Standards
and Trade Development Facility,” an interagency partnership with the WTO, the FAO, and theWorld Health Organization, to deliver technical assistance for food safety and related standards.
Should trade ministers reach an agreement on the Doha Agenda, the Bank will expand its lending and technical assistance to help countries take advantage of new market access, to use trade
to promote their domestic competitiveness, and to manage any transitional costs—such as thosearising from erosion of trade preferences, changes in prices of imports, or reallocation of domestic resources from inefficient sectors to more efficient ones.
A pro-poor outcome in the Doha Agenda is only one step toward a world more supportive ofdevelopment. But this step is an important one. And it can be achieved only if everyone understands what is at stake in this historical moment—and moves purposefully and together to seize
the opportunity.
Nicholas Stern
Chief Economist and Senior Vice President
World Bankx

AcknowledgmentsT

HIS REPORT WAS prepared by the World Bank Development Prospects Group, drawing on resources throughout the Development Economics Vice Presidency and the World Bank’s operational units. Richard Newfarmer was the lead author and manager of the report, under
the direction of Uri Dadush. The principal chapter authors were Richard Newfarmer (Overview);
Elliot Riordan and Dominique Van der Mensbrugghe (Chapter 1); William Martin and Vlad
Manole (Chapter 2); Ataman Aksoy (Chapter 3); Pierre Sauvé, drawing on work by the OECD
(Chapter 4); John Wilson, Shweta Bagai, and Carsten Fink (Chapter 5); and Bernard Hoekman
and Caglar Ozden (Chapter 6). We are grateful for the ideas and insights of several peer reviewers
who provided comments at various stages: Bijit Bora (World Trade Organization); J. Michael Finger (American Enterprise Institute); Gary Hufbauer (Institute for International Economics); Mari
Pangestu (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Gary Horlick (Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering), and Julia Nielson (OECD); Julio Nogues (United Nations Development Programme); andOlivier Cattaneo (Agence Française de Développement). The report was prepared under the general guidance of World Bank Chief Economist and Senior Vice President Nicholas Stern.
Many staff from inside and outside the World Bank contributed to the report. In the Overview,
Aart Kraay contributed a note on trade and poverty, and Carsten Fink, Bernard Hoekman,
William Martin, and Aaditya Mattoo provided helpful suggestions. In Chapter 1, Hans Timmer,
Caroline Farah, Himmat Kalsi, Robert Keyfitz, Annette I. De Kleine, Robert Lynn, Fernando
Martel Garcia, Mick Riordan, and Bert Wolfe contributed to the global trends analysis; Dominique Van der Mensbrugghe provided the long-term analysis; Shaohua Chen and Martin
Ravallion contributed to the poverty analysis; and Katherine Rollins was the staff assistant.
Chapter 2 benefited from background papers and other inputs from J. Michael Finger and Andri
Zlate. For Chapter 3, John Beghin, Donald Mitchell, John Baffes, Harry De Gorter, Ndiame
Diop, Paul Brenton, Steve Jaffee, and Mirvat Sewadeh provided background papers, and Baris
Sivri, Tarek Soueid, Konstantin Senyut, and Gaston Gohou undertook data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 drew on research papers prepared by the OECD Trade Directorate and on the annual OECD report Trends in International Migration; the chapter reflects insights from Jeffrey
Lewis, Julia Nielson (OECD), and Olivier Cattaneo (AFD). Tsunehiro Otsuki and Katherine
Mann (IIE) worked closely with the team on Chapter 5, and Ranga Rajan Krishnamani provided
research assistance. Chapter 6 draws on research by Bernard Hoekman, Constantine
Michalopoulos, and L. Alan Winters. The regional annexes benefited from the written input ofregional chief economists around the Bank and their staff, particularly Milan Brahmbhatt. John
Baffes, Betty Dow, Donald Mitchell, and Shane Streifel prepared the commodity annex. The staff
assistant for the report was Awatif Abuzeid. Steven Kennedy provided editorial assistance. Denis

xi

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Medvedev provided research assistance. Dorota Nowak coordinated the report’s publication anddissemination activities, working closely with the World Bank’s Office of the Publisher.
Several experts provided written comments that have immeasurably improved the quality of
the report at various stages: Paul Brenton, Robin Carruthers, Jean-Jacques Dethier, Shahrokh
Fardoust, Coralie Gevers, Ian Goldin, Gary Horlick, Elena Ianchovichina, Mark Juhel, Hans
Peter Lankes, Jeffrey Lewis, Patrick Low (WTO), Kunio Mikuriya (World Customs Organization), John Nash, David Rosenblatt, John Panzer, Luiz Perreira da Silva, Byungdoo Sohn, Mark
Sundberg, Helena Tang, Yvonne Tsikata, and L. Alan Winters.

xiiOverviewO

N THE EVE of the World Trade Organi-zation’s (WTO) Fifth Ministerial Meeting in Cancún in September 2003, theworld’s trade ministers—and the governments
they represent—face enormous challenges. The
global trade talks are stalled in several policy
domains vital to developing countries—agriculture, nonfarm trade, access to patented drugs
for countries without domestic drug industries,
special and differential treatment, and disputesettlement. Nor is there much progress in othercontentious areas, such as the “Singapore issues” of investment, competition, trade facilitation, and government procurement.
At the same time, the global recovery continues to sputter. Although some signs of aturnaround have been evident in the UnitedStates, Europe seems to be losing momentum,
and Japan appears positioned for another disappointing year. The Chinese economy, reinforced by a positive performance in East Asia
in 2002, continues to bustle along, but concerns over Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome(SARS) and lost export momentum in the faceof the world slowdown haunted the regional
outlook. South Asia continues to grow more
rapidly than the world average. Latin America
is showing signs of an upturn, driven in part by
renewed confidence in Brazil, a tentative rebound in Argentina, and an increase in Mexico’s growth; however, the recession in the
República Bolivariana de Venezuela, whencoupled with political difficulties in the An-

dean countries, continues to weigh down regional performance. Africa, suffering from low
commodity prices, is growing slowly; althoughfaster than in the 1980s and 1990s, today’s
growth is far short of the pace necessary to
make significant dents in the poverty headcount or to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in health and education. War has
adversely affected regional performance in the
Middle East and North Africa; sluggish performance in Europe, especially Germany, hasadversely affected many countries in Central
and Eastern Europe. Even though progress on
trade would undoubtedly boost investor confidence, politicians coping with slow growthand high unemployment at home have beenfinding it more difficult to risk alienating influential constituencies by accepting bold proposals in the world trade talks.
The outlook for the remainder of this year
and for 2004, though somewhat improved, isunlikely to produce growth strong enough to
cut sharply into unemployment rates (figure 1).
Uncertainty in the global environment remains
unusually high. Structural problems persist—overcapacity in high-tech industries globally,rising twin deficits in the U.S. fiscal and current accounts, and lingering bad loans inJapanese and (to a lesser extent) European
banks. Other problems may prove more transitory. The cessation of conflict in Iraq has not
yet produced complete calm, and the inability
to reach consensus at the UN Security Councilxiii

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure 1 The recovery is building . . .
but slowly
GDP growth, percent per annum
Forecast

5
Developing
economies
4

Realizing the development
promise of the Doha agenda

3

THigh-income
economies
2



1

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Source: World Bank data and projections.

has created a lingering distrust among multilateral partners that clouds the global businessenvironment. Nonetheless, policy responses
are promising. Governments in the UnitedStates and Europe reacted to weak economic
conditions with fiscal and monetary policy tostimulate their economies. And at the global
political level, the June meeting of the G-8, together with several subsequent bilateral meetings, began to mend frayed multilateral relations. It remains to be seen whether this new
positive momentum will extend into multilateral collaboration in trade.
The precarious international environment isonly one reason why the global trade talks
have progressed slowly. Deeper explanations
can also be found in the history of multilateral
trade talks themselves. With the incorporationof ever more countries—mainly from the developing world—the sheer number of actors
has expanded, making coalitions more difficult
to build and consensus more elusive. Moreover, previous multilateral rounds produced
agreements in areas of primary interest to therich countries that dominated these discussions, particularly in manufactured goods. It
was only with the Uruguay Round, concluded

xiv

in 1994, that tentative steps toward freeing up
trade in products of particular interest to developing countries—notably agriculture andtextiles—were included. Consequently, manyof the hardest issues for rich countries havebeen left to this negotiation.

he challenge is daunting. But so is the reward to success. With room for additional fiscal and monetary stimulus rapidly
vanishing, progress on structural reforms suchas trade is important. In addition to bolstering
investor confidence in the short term, a Doha
Round agreement that slashed trade barriers,
particularly in agriculture, would stimulate
trade and raise incomes around the world,
leading to a substantial reduction in global
poverty.
The open question is whether a new multilateral agreement will live up to the development promise of the Doha Agenda. Several
issues under discussion are pivotal to development outcomes. They are the focus of thisreport:• Because most poor people live in rural areas,
trade barriers in agriculture are among themost important to poverty reduction.
• Labor-intensive manufactures have been themost dynamic market segment for every
major region, including Africa, yet many
developing countries find that their exports
meet obstacles in foreign markets—hightariffs, quotas, specific duties, and “antidevelopment” tariff structures that discourage adding value in poor countries.
• In services, the potential for developmentpromoting reciprocal gains is especially high.
Regulations in some developing countries
still protect some inefficient state monopolies from competition—a drag on growth.
(To be sure, proper regulation in some sectors must precede liberalization to avoid potential disruptions in socially important markets, such as finance or basic services.) Also,

O V E R V I E W

access for developing countries’ services exports to industrial countries has yet to be
fully bound in the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS) (World Bank
2001). Finally, national laws prevent greaterlabor mobility that would otherwise contribute to higher standards of living in both
receiving and sending countries.
• Reducing the costs of trading by improving
international transportation services, customs and ports, and logistics management—
trade facilitation—requires substantial new
investment, additional technical assistance,and coordinated multilateral efforts. Tradefacilitation is fundamental to realizing the
expanded trade promise of Doha, but the
WTO agenda constitutes a small part ofthe challenge.
• Finally, the issue of special treatment for developing countries cuts across all of thesepolicy domains and affects trade preferencesand exemptions from WTO regulations.
The pursuit of trade preferences and exemptions from multilateral rules have not always served developing countries particularly well, both because preferences
have not proven reliable and because selective coverage has often left productivitydetracting trade barriers in place. The residual barriers sap growth in the protectedeconomies and in developing-country trading partners that are denied access. Perhaps
most important, the majority of the world’s
poor do not live in the least developed countries (LDCs). Trade preferences targeted atthese countries do not benefit the threequarters of the world’s poor that live on
US$1 per day in other countries. In implementing new WTO rules, new accords will
be most effective if they recognize differences among individual countries’ capacity
to undertake new, resource-intensive rules.
These differences require a new approach to
special and differential treatment.
These areas pose difficult political challenges for all segments of the international
community—rich countries, middle-income de-veloping countries, and low-income countries
alike. Rich countries account for two-thirds ofworld trade and comprise nearly three-quartersof world GDP, so their domestic policies—mostevident in agriculture—have the greatest effecton the global marketplace. Despite the fact that
agricultural protection, tariff peaks, and antidumping measures shield powerful lobbies,rich-country leadership in reducing this protection is a prerequisite for a pro-poor development outcome.
Today’s middle-income developing countries have increased their global market sharein the last two decades. Because they include
many of the most dynamic global economies,
their domestic policies no longer have only
minor consequences for trade. With protection
rates in manufactures three times the level of
those in rich countries and with ubiquitous restrictions on services, the middle-income countries have ample scope for undertaking reductions in protection that will accelerate their
growth and provide access and a growth impulse to neighboring countries. High protection in these countries taxes their growth andtheir poor in much the same way as protectionin the North.
Low-income countries have a special interest in greater market access, but they cannot
succumb to the siren calls of preferential market access nor opt out of reducing border protections at home, which tax exports and cut
into productivity growth. Preferences for
LDCs can help, but would be more effective ifthey were made less restrictive and more reliable than at present—and if benefiting countries take the necessary policy steps, including
reductions in border protection, to promote a
supply response. Moreover, because other developing countries are unlikely to be granted
new trade preferences, global reciprocal reduction in trade barriers holds the mostpromise for the world’s poor.
Market access is not the whole development story. Even if developing countries succeed in obtaining access to new markets, they
will have to adopt complementary policies—
removing obstacles to private investment, im-xv

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

proving public investment in infrastructure,and providing education—to ensure that domestic firms respond to new opportunities associated with greater integration, and that thebenefits of integration are transmitted to thepoor. Put differently, trade policies must be
embedded in a coherent national development
strategy—they are not a substitute for it. For
all of these reasons, realizing the development
promise of the Doha Agenda requires the participation of all groups of the international
community.

This report: toward a pro-poor
Doha outcome
This report analyzes central elements of the
Doha Agenda that are important to developing
countries. Chapter 1 describes the prospects
for the global economy that form the backdrop to the Doha trade negotiations. Chapters
2–6 focus on agriculture, nonagricultural trade,
services, transport and trade facilitation, andspecial development provisions. In each area,
we expand on themes that have received lessanalysis in previous World Bank reports—
among them specific duties in agriculture, antidumping in manufactures trade, temporary
movement of labor in services, security issues
in trade facilitation, and trade preferences andexemptions from rules as part of special anddifferential treatment (SDT). The remainder ofthis overview weaves these findings together
with those of previous Bank studies1 to lay out
the principal elements of a pro-poor outcome
for the Doha Agenda.

Uruguay Round trade agreements to reduce
protection, agriculture is among the most distorted sectors in international trade. Even
though levels of average tariff protection arecomparable in rich and poor countries, the extensive use of producer subsidies in the OECD
countries and the fact that the OECD constitutes two-thirds of world agricultural trade underscore the centrality of their policies to development outcomes. Reducing protection inagriculture alone would produce roughly twothirds of the gains from full global liberalization of all merchandise trade.
A few facts are enough to establish the context: protection facing developing country exporters in agriculture is four to seven times
higher than in manufactures in the North andtwo to three times higher in developing countries (IMF-World Bank 2002). Tariff peaks are
particularly high in rich countries against
products from poor countries. Tariff escalationthat discourages development of further processing is more pronounced in agriculture inboth rich and poor countries (figure 2). Hefty
specific duties are particularly common in richcountries; they automatically increase protec-

Figure 2 Escalating tariff rates discourage
development
Tariff rates
25

20

Final


A Doha deal for development

15

Agriculture is at the heartof a development round

10

Agriculture is central to the development
promise of this trade round for two reasons:most of the world’s poor work in agriculture
and most of the world’s protection is directed
at agriculture. Some 70 percent of the world’s
poor live in rural areas and earn their income
from agriculture. Largely exempt from pre–5Intermediate




xvi

Raw

0
QUAD

CanadaSources: World Bank staff.

Japan

UnitedStatesEuropeanUnionO V E R V I E Wtion when commodity prices fall, throwing theburden of adjustment onto global prices andpoor countries. Subsidies in OECD countries
amount to US$330 billion—of which some
US$250 billion goes directly to producers. The
effect is to stimulate overproduction in highcost rich countries and shut out potentiallymore competitive products from poor countries. It is no wonder that agricultural exports
from developing countries to rich countries
grew in the 1990s at just half the rate they did
to other developing countries.
Consider how agricultural protection plays
through individual commodity markets. Sugarin the European Union (EU), Japan, and theUnited States is commonly protected througha combination of quotas, tariffs, and subsidies
allowing domestic sugar producers in thosecountries to receive more than double theworld market price. OECD governments support sugar producers at the rate of US$6.4 billion annually—an amount nearly equal to all
developing country exports. Prices are so highthat it has become economic to grow sugar
beets in cold climates and to convert corn tohigh-fructose corn syrup. Sugar imports in theOECD have shrunk to next to nothing. U.S.
subsidies to cotton growers totaled US$3.7 billion last year, three times U.S. foreign aid to
Africa. These subsidies depress world cotton
prices by an estimated 10–20 percent, reducing
the income of thousands of poor farmers inWest Africa, Central and South Asia, and poor
countries around the world. In West Africa
alone, where cotton is a critical cash crop formany small-scale and near-subsistence farmers,
annual income losses for cotton growers areabout US$250 million a year. Rice support inJapan amounts to 700 percent of production atworld prices, stimulating inefficient domestic
production, reducing demand, and denying export opportunities to India, Thailand, Vietnam,
and other countries.
More than 70 percent of subsidies in richcountries are directed to large (often corporate)
farmers. These farmers have incomes that are
higher—often substantially so—than average
incomes in Europe, Japan, and, to a lesser ex-

tent, the United States. The net effect of subsidizing the relatively rich in wealthy countries atthe expense of adverse price penalties for the
products of the relatively poor in developing
countries is to aggravate global income inequalities. Said differently, subsidies make the relatively rich even richer and the poor even poorer.
Realizing the development potential of
Doha requires phased reductions of borderprotection and subsidies. Of these, border protection is the most important. These reductions
ought to be done in a way that cuts off antidevelopment tariff peaks, reduces tariff escalation, and phases out specific duties. A propoor reform also means reforming policies that
distort particular commodities of importanceto developing countries—sugar, cotton, rice,wheat, and dairy products.
Because global prices may rise in some commodities, the international community may
want to design—and help finance—a programof adjustment in vulnerable countries that suffer deterioration in their terms of trade. These
effects are likely to be confined to a few countries for several reasons: many food importers
also export other agricultural products thatwill experience positive terms-of-trade changes
from liberalization; others now have tariffs on
those same food imports, tariffs that can be reduced to offset any increase in global prices;
some food importers will gain access to newmarkets in nonagricultural products and beable to export; and, because prices will change
relatively slowly, some food importers will increase domestic production in response tohigher prices and become self-sufficient or evennet exporters. Nonetheless, even though thechanges are likely to be manageable at the
global level, the issue requires study and insome countries may require action.
Because rich and poor countries alike will
benefit from liberalization, all must make thepolicy changes necessary to realize its development promise. The rich countries, whose policies arguably distort international trade themost, cannot escape leadership on agriculture.
Moreover, leadership among donors to finance a program to cushion adjustment isxvii

E C O N O M I C

Trade and poverty: what are the links?

Countries that trade more grow faster, according toevidence emerging from case studies of trade liberalization and from large cross-country and time-series
econometric studies. Although the links from specifictrade policy instruments to trade outcomes and growthis less clear, the basic association between increased tradeand growth is clear (box figure 1).a
Even when trade raises average incomes, its
effects on poverty will depend on whether poverty
in a given country is sensitive to growth in average incomes, and on how the increase in trade affects the distribution of income in the country. The first of these issues is empirically well understood. The sensitivity ofpoverty to growth in average incomes depends in an important way on initial inequalities in a country (Ravallion 1997). When incomes and opportunities are distributed relatively equally, the effect of growth on poverty
is larger than when initial inequality is high. Thus,
growth associated with increased trade (or from anyother source) is likely to have larger proportional effects
on poverty in countries where initial inequality is low.
More interesting and potentially more important
are the effects of increased trade on the distribution ofincome. Almost by definition, if increased trade disproportionately benefits the poor, poverty will fall fasterthan if trade disproportionately benefits the nonpoor.
Understanding the likely distributional consequences oftrade liberalization is therefore crucial to understanding
the overall effects of trade on poverty. In many cases,
there are very direct channels through which trade liberalization is likely to disproportionately benefit the poor.
For example, agricultural trade liberalization that allows previously suppressed prices of agricultural goods
to rise to world levels will benefit farmers, who are net
producers, but will hurt consumers. If farmers are more
likely to be poor, the liberalization will be, on average,
pro-poor. Similarly, reductions in tariffs on manufacturers will hurt previously protected urban workers, who

Box Figure 1 Integration with global
markets is associated with faster growth
Average annual per capita growth, 1980–99

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Decreasing export
share in GDP
Source: World Bank (2001).

xviii

Increasing export
share in GDP

Box Figure 2 Changes in trade have little
relation to inequality
Average annual change in Gini coefficient
Trade and the Gini coefficient
4

Series 1
3
2

Linear(Series 1)

1



Box 1

P R O S P E C T S

G L O B A L

0–0.08 –0.06 –0.04 –0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

–1
–2

y = 2.5227x + 0.0139
R2 = 0.0013–3–4

Average annual change in trade/GDP
Note: This figure shows changes in trade as a fraction of GDP andchanges in the Gini measure of income inequality, for a large
sample of growth episodes of at least five years in duration.
Source: Dollar and Kraay (2001).

in many developing countries are likely to be relatively
well off, but will benefit poorer consumers of theirproducts by lowering prices.
At the same time, however, the distributional consequences of trade liberalization can also work against
poor people. For example, reductions in tariffs imply reductions in trade tax revenues that can be important indeveloping countries that rely disproportionately on thissource of revenue. To the extent that public spending disproportionately benefits poor people (and this is by nomeans universal), reductions in tax revenues that accompany trade liberalization can have adverse distributional
consequences.
The likely distributional consequences of trade liberalization, therefore, are complex and country-specific.
Determining whether a given action would be pro- or
anti-poor requires careful analysis. Looking back acrosscountries, there is little evidence that increased trade issystematically associated with either increases or decreases in inequality (box figure 2).
On average, trade can be a powerful force forpoverty reduction, especially over longer horizons where
the cumulative effects of growth on incomes of the poor
are large. But this will not be true for all countries at all
times—underscoring the importance of complementary
pro-poor policies at the country level to ensure maximum
positive effects in every situation.
a For contrasting views on the state of the evidence on trade,

trade policies, and growth, see Srinivasan and Bhagwati (2000),
Rodriguez and Rodrik (1997), Bernanke and Rogoff (2001).
Source: World Bank staff.

O V E R V I E Wessential; their technical assistance to help
implement standards and facilitate trade isneeded to help developing countries take advantage of new trade opportunities. Middleincome countries, whose own policy reforms
would produce a large share of the benefit todeveloping countries from global liberalization in agriculture, have to move more assertively than in the past. Their high tariffs
have an adverse impact on growing SouthSouth trade, especially with neighboring
countries. In a pattern common to all regions,agricultural exporters in East Asia, for example, paid one-third of all their tariff duties toother East Asian governments (second only
to tariffs paid to get into rich countries). Agricultural exporters in the Middle East paid
44 percent of their tariff duties to regional
neighbors.

Nonfarm trade is increasingly essential
to growth in poor countries
Over the past two decades, developing countries have increased their share of global tradefrom just under one-quarter to about onethird. As a group, they have moved beyond
their traditional specialization in agriculturaland resource exports into manufactures trade.
Exports of manufactures have grown at nearly
twice the rate of agriculture, and now constitute nearly 80 percent of exports from all developing countries. Countries that were low income in 1980 managed to raise their exports ofmanufactures from roughly 20 percent of their
total exports to more than 80 percent (figure3). As a result, many grew quickly and entered
the ranks of today’s middle-income countries.
The middle-income group of 1980 also increased its manufactures share, but somewhat
less rapidly, to reach nearly 70 percent. This
dramatic change in trade magnitudes and composition has given developing countries a newinterest—and a powerful voice—in the ongoing Doha Round.
One reason for this change was the dramatic reduction in border barriers in developing countries since the mid-1980s, in combination with increased access to rich-country

markets. Because import tariffs indirectly tax
exports, reducing trade barriers in developing
countries stimulated trade. The burden of import protection on all export activities in developing countries declined, but more so for
manufactures than for agriculture and natural
resources. At the same time, the fact that successive multilateral trade rounds liberalized
global manufactures, while rich countries continued to protect their agriculture (and developing countries eventually began to followsuit) meant that developing countries’ exportsof manufactures were free to grow more
rapidly than those in agriculture.
Today, trade in manufactures is still impeded. Although tariffs on manufacturing inrich countries are on average lower than in developing countries, the tariffs rich countries
charge developing countries are substantiallyhigher than those they charge other industrial
countries. For example, exporters of manufactures from industrial countries face, on average, a tariff of 1 percent on their sales to otherindustrial countries; exporters in developing
countries pay anywhere from 2 percent if they
are from Latin America (where NAFTA weighsheavily) to 8 percent if they are from South
Asia. Overall, rich countries collect from developing countries about twice the tariff revenues per dollar of imports that they collectfrom other rich countries. However, the problem is not solely a North-South issue. Latin
American exporters of manufactures, for example, face tariffs in neighboring Latin American markets that are seven times higher than inindustrial countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa, thesame multiple is six; in South Asia, two.
Protection takes forms other than tariffs—
among them quotas, specific duties, and contingent protection measures such as antidumping duties. As with tariffs, these measures tend
to be used more frequently against laborintensive products from developing countries.
The quota arrangements in the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) stillshackle the exports of many poor countries.
Although these arrangements are scheduled tobe removed in only 15 months, rich countries

xix

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure 3 Developing countries have become important exporters of manufactures
In middle-income countries, manufactures make up 70 percent of exports

Middle-income countries’ share of world exports, 1981–2001 (percent)80
70

Manufacturing exports (%)


60
50
40

Resources exports (%)


30



20
10

Agricultural exports (%)

01981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

In low-income countries, manufactures make up 80 percent of exports

Low-income countries’ share of world exports, 1981–2001 (percent)90
Manufacturing exports (%)

80



70
Resources exports (%)
60


50
40

Agricultural exports (%)

30


20
10
0

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Source: UN COMTRADE.

to date have freed up only 15 percent of thequotas, obliging them to implement majorchanges at the end of the phase-in period. Average antidumping duties are seven to tentimes higher than tariffs in industrial countries, and about five times higher in developing
countries. Today’s protection remains heavily
concentrated in the most politically sensitive
areas—textiles, clothing, and other labor-intensive manufactures, as well as agriculture—in both rich and poor countries.

xx

Realizing the development promise of
Doha depends particularly on three efforts.
• First, rich countries desirous of promoting
development can do so by ensuring that the
now lagging phase-out of the ATC is completed according to the agreement—and notreversed through antidumping actions. The
ATC phase-out will also require reforms bysome exporters facing increased competition, many of which are LDCs, to ensure a

O V E R V I E W

smooth adjustment; trade-related development assistance could play a role in easing
the transition.
• Second, in both rich and poor countries, efforts to cut back on antidumping measuresthat create a patchwork of ad hoc protection
are essential if market access granted by theright hand of quota elimination and tariff reductions is not to be withdrawn by the left
hand of antidumping suits. Developing countries themselves have become accomplishedpractitioners of contingent protection.
• Third, moving forward in nonfarm trade requires a Swiss-type formula approach thatwill require disproportionately greater reductions in high tariffs so as to mitigate theantidevelopment bias embedded in mosttariff structures around the world. The
choice of the formula, and of its coefficientsof reduction, is important. Applying thesecuts to bound rates will effectively credit developing countries that have unilaterally reduced their applied tariffs since the end of
the Uruguay Round.

Services liberalization could raise
productivity
Services are the fastest-growing component of
the global economy. Even in developing countries, services exports grew more rapidly thanmanufactures in the 1990s (World Bank 2001,
chapter 3). More efficient backbone services—in finance, telecommunications, domestic transportation, retail and wholesale distribution,and professional business services—improve
the performance of the whole economy because
they have broad linkage effects. Yet most developing regions trail the industrialized world in
exposing service sectors to competition. Figure
4 shows that only Latin American countries
are beginning to approximate the high-income
countries in their degree of competition. Estimates suggest that, after controlling for other
determinants of growth, countries that fully liberalized trade and investment in finance andtelecommunications grew on average 1.5 percentage points faster than other countries overthe past decade (Mattoo, et al. 2001).

No less important, developing countries
have an interest in locking in market access fortheir services exports to rich-country markets—
exports that are growing more rapidly thanmerchandise exports. Examples include China’s
incipient software industry as well as softwareand back-office services from India.
The Doha Round has the potential of locking in access to foreign markets for services
exports. Just as many rich countries have notyet bound access for developing countries’ services exports, many developing countries have
yet to schedule with the WTO liberalizing reforms that have already been undertaken. Offering to bind unilateral reforms can be used
to lock in existing access to overseas services
markets. Active participation in the services
negotiations could help accelerate these twin
processes (Mattoo 2003).
The GATS process allows governments toliberalize services at their own pace. It does not
require that a government forgo its regulatory
responsibilities. Nor does the GATS framework require a cessation of subsidies or preempt pro-poor regulation on universal service
access. The main requirement is that, once a
sector is scheduled, governments are required
to have transparent regulations, treat domestic
and foreign companies alike, and permit all
foreign companies access to the domestic market on the same terms as domestic companies.
In fact, many governments have chosen toliberalize—but not to make commitmentswith the GATS that would bind this opening.
Some two-thirds of the WTO members havescheduled fewer than 60 sectors of the approximately 160 sectors covered by the GATS. For
example, only 12 developing countries havemade commitments in education. None havemade commitments in the provision of water.
Why the reluctance? Liberalization in services is more complicated than in goods markets. Privatization without competition andproper regulation may achieve nothing morethan transforming a public monopoly into a
private monopoly—with no improvement inservices. And too many developing countries
have been content to change ownershipxxi

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure 4 Developing countries lag behind rich countries in services liberalization
Financial services
South Asia
East Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
High income

Middle East and North Africa

Telecommunications
Europe and Central Asia
South Asia
East Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
High income
0

2

4

6

8

10


Greater competitivenessSource: World Bank Global Economic Prospects 2002, based on data from Mattoo, et al. (2001).

through privatization while retaining limits onentry that buttress monopolies.
Effective regulation is critical to ensure thatthe poor have access to basic services (WorldBank 2002a, 2002b). Some sectors, such asretail and wholesale services, can be opened
expeditiously because competition can be relied on to discipline firms’ pricing and investment decisions. Others, however, require wellformulated regulations before liberalization toensure proper market functioning and adequate access for low-income groups to services. In China’s financial sector, for example,
the World Bank recommended that financial
markets be opened gradually to allow regulations and institutional developments to precede liberalization. The goal was to avoid
destabilizing financial losses by state banks
saddled with poor portfolios as efficientbanks, domestic and foreign, entered the market (World Bank 1996). China’s WTO accession agreement generally reflected this phased
approach. In network sectors, such as
telecommunications and water, ensuring adequate pricing and universal access are similarly important if the poor are to benefit fromthe expansion of the system (World Bank

xxii

2001, chapter 3). Trade ministers wishing toharness the reciprocal negotiating frameworkof the GATS to spur domestic reforms whileleveraging market access abroad must ensurethat sectoral ministries have properly sequenced regulations to support liberalization.

Liberalized trade in labor services could
contribute much more
To date, virtually all GATS commitments havefocused on the first three “modes” of international service delivery. Most trade in services
has occurred through those same modes.
Twenty-eight percent of the value of services
trade, for example, has been in Mode 1, “crossborder supply of services.” Another 14 percent
has been in Mode 2, “consumption abroad,”such as tourism. Fifty-six percent has beenin Mode 3, “commercial presence,” such as
through foreign direct investment in services.
Mode 4, which involves the temporary
movement of labor to provide services, accounts for only 1.4 percent of services trade(figure 5). Temporary movement has some advantages over permanent migration for bothdeveloped and developing countries. Rich
countries can obtain workers whose skills are

O V E R V I E W

Figure 5 Temporary labor mobility is anunderused mode of trade in service
Value of world trade in services by mode, (percent)Mode 4(movement of natural persons)1%Mode 1(cross-border
supply)28%Mode 3(commercial
presence)
57%

Mode 2(consumption
abroad)14%

Source: IMF, Balance of Payments Yearbook.

in short supply, with minimal disruption oflabor markets and without taxing social services. Temporary migration allows developing countries to obtain access to new, higherpaying jobs without necessarily suffering the“brain drain” that would occur with permanent migration. Poor countries also gain fromremittances sent home by temporary migrants,
and returning workers bring new skills back tothe sending country. In 2001, remittances frompermanent as well as temporary migrants provided some US$71 billion to developing countries, nearly 40 percent more than all official
development assistance and significantly morethan net debt flows to developing countries. If
temporary movement of labor up to 3 percentof the total labor force in rich countries werepermitted, developing countries would standto gain as much as US$160 billion in additional income (Walmsley and Winters 2003).
To date, however, even after the significant
liberalization of trade in services during the
Uruguay Round, little has been done to loosenconditions governing the temporary movementof natural persons (TMNP) supplying services.
Present commitments refer almost exclusively

to higher-level personnel. More than 40 percent of workers covered by existing Mode 4
commitments are intracorporate transferees
whose mobility is intimately related to foreign
direct investment (often in services); another50 percent are executives, specialists, and sales
personnel who are business visitors. To date,therefore, Mode 4 has been of limited significance for developing countries, whose comparative advantage lies in the export of medium
and low-skilled, labor-intensive services.
In addition to other concerns associatedwith broader migration issues, two fundamental tensions hamper progress on Mode 4 temporary labor mobility. The first is that governments are reluctant to undertake permanentcommitments when employment demand varies
with cyclical conditions. Wanting to maintain
policy flexibility, immigration and labor market
officials have made GATS commitments far
below the degree of TMNP access already afforded under domestic laws and regulations.
TMNP liberalization has been greatest in sectors (and for categories of workers) where labordemand routinely exceeds supply—tourism, information technology, health services. The second tension stems from the fact that regional
patterns of migration create domestic politicalsupport for programs that favor neighboring
countries, whereas Mode 4 programs necessarily are open to all countries on a most-favorednation (MFN) basis. Preferential migration
schemes are commonly negotiated at the bilateral and regional levels—and MFN-based liberalization would undermine these. Because
many bilateral labor agreements are usually nottied to trade policy or other agreements, theyafford governments a greater degree of flexibility to adjust programs to evolving migration
trends and labor-market needs.
Tensions notwithstanding, present levels ofMode 4 use fall far short even of Mode 4’s relatively modest potential. To rectify this, developing countries should expand their requests
and offers in the Doha Round. Only six requests had been tabled by June 2003, and only
two from developing countries (India and Colómbia). Also, WTO members should adopt

xxiii

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

rules that would provide greater clarity andpredictability. To help regularize entry andexit while improving security, countries could
adopt a GATS visa system that would facilitate national visas for up to one year, subject
to appropriate security checks and oversight(see Hatcher 2003 and Self and Zutshi 2003).

Reducing transport costs and facilitating
trade can have a powerful effect
The cost of moving goods across international
borders is often as important as formal tradebarriers in determining the cost of landed
goods—and ultimately of market share. One
study estimated that every day spent in customs adds nearly 1 percent to the cost of goods(Hummels 2001). In developing countries,
transit costs are routinely two to four times
higher than in rich countries. Transparent customs regimes, modern port facilities, densetransportation networks, and access to information and telecommunications systems—all
can help lower transit costs.
Since September 11, 2001, security has become a dominant issue in international trade.
Border inspections, cargo review, and othermeasures have increased transport times anddriven up costs. Each 1 percent increase incosts to trade from programs to tighten bordersecurity reduces world income by US$75 billion per year. Developing countries, too, arevulnerable to security threats and terrorism,
but limited budgets, dependence on foreign
trade and investment, and outdated infrastructure and technology present serious challenges
for these countries. New security protocols
being deployed at ports, customs offices, andborder posts around the world have the potential to add costs and diminish market accessfor developing countries—at least in the shortterm. But managed correctly, the same measures can streamline trade transactions while
promoting safety and security. To achieve thistrade-expanding result, a global framework
must be established to ensure that the needsof developing countries are addressed as enhanced security regimes take shape.

xxiv

To counter any trade-reducing effects of
security measures, every effort to cut traderelated costs in other areas is imperative. Regulatory restrictions on international air andmaritime transport services inflate transport
costs—on some routes by amounts that dwarf
the value of tariffs. International air transport,
which carries about 30 percent of developing
countries’ exports by value, is heavily protected from international competition. Bilateral air service agreements commonly bar entry
to efficient outside carriers, thereby raising export costs for developing countries. City-pairroutes on which more than two passenger airlines or dedicated freight airlines operate cancut costs by an average of 10.7 percent. Maritime transport, too, is often subject to practices, such as cargo-reservation schemes andlimitations on port services, which protect inefficient service providers. Such competitionrestricting practices among shipping lines
and port-terminal operators can increase
freight rates up to 25 percent on some routes.
Rising concentration in the market for portterminal services has increased the risk thatprivate firms may capture the benefits of government reforms. Abusive practices by private
operators are of special concern in developing countries, where traffic volumes are lower
and competitive forces inherently more limited.
Regulations governing such practices are now
outside the WTO mandate, but logically theyshould be reviewed for reformulation.
Facilitating trade by eliminating delays indeveloping countries would lower trading
costs significantly, particularly if accompanied
by liberalization of transport and telecommunications, and streamlined regulations to promote domestic competition. Trade facilitation
requires modernizing customs, improving port
facilities, and making investments in traderelated information technology—a huge institutional and infrastructural agenda. Countries
display wide variation in customs efficiency
and clearance times, for example (figure 6). If
those whose trade-facilitation capacity was
below average could be brought halfway up toO V E R V I E W

Figure 6 Clearing customs takes longer
in developing countries
Average number of days to clear customs for sea cargo

Developed

East Asia andPacific
Latin America
and the Caribbean

AfricaSouth Asia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Note: This is based on a sample of countries in each area;
see figure 5.1 in chapter 5.
Source: International Exhibition Logistics Associates.
Available at http://www.iela.org.

the global average, international trade would
increase by US$380 billion annually.
Multilateral efforts are under way outside
the WTO to promote—and in some cases finance—institutional changes in trade facilitation. Key players include the World Customs
Organization, the regional development banks,
and the World Bank. Their efforts focus onpolicy reform, technical assistance, and infrastructure modernization.

Should trade facilitation, investment, andcompetition be the subject of new
multilateral disciplines in the WTO?
As one of the four Singapore issues, tradefacilitation is under discussion in Geneva forpossible inclusion in the Doha Agenda. Already the WTO, through the GATS, has a potentially important role to play in international transport and trade logistics—many of
the transport service sectors could be immediately scheduled with the GATS if countries
saw fit to do so. However, few countries havetaken advantage of its provisions.

Aspects of trade facilitation are part of the
WTO’s trade-related disciplines, particularly
the provisions that encourage uniform treatment of transit trade and transparency of fees.
Strengthening provisions related to transit,
fees, and transparency, issues originally in the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT), would be helpful. However, bestpractice cannot be established in a vacuum; it
has to be gradually created in sound domestic
laws, regulations, and practices. A sustained
program of institutional reform must be tailored to each country, and it often requires
technical assistance. The bilateral donors andmultilateral development banks and agencies are best positioned to provide the thorough diagnostics and technical assistancerequired to promote needed institutionalchange.
If the dynamics of the Doha negotiations
propel the WTO into a role in the broader
trade-facilitation agenda, any agreement, if it is
to be effective, should recognize limitations indomestic capacity for implementation. An
agreement would be most effective if it included a serious commitment by developed nations to finance new trade-facilitation systems.
Development assistance delivered under thecommitment could be provided by the World
Customs Organization, the multilateral development banks, and bilateral donors. The obligations of developing countries should be tailored to their implementation capacity. And
because the WTO’s dispute settlement provisions are largely inappropriate to promoting
institutional changes, conventional enforcement of dispute settlement through trade sanctions ought to be set aside.
Other Singapore issues would stretch the
WTO mandate into yet new areas, probably
with only marginal development benefits if
taken up in isolation. As discussed in Global
Economic Prospects 2003, there is no evidence
that an investment agreement would, by itself,
promote new foreign investment. Similarly,
adopting an agreement in competition policy—
as currently framed in the negotiations—wouldxxv

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

have minimal effects on the terms of trade of
developing countries, unless the agreement
were to establish new disciplines on national
export cartels and illegal international cartels(World Bank 2002a, chapter 4). Finally, a new
agreement on government procurement that
focuses on transparency is unlikely to improve
market access substantially (Evenett 2002).
Virtually all of the disciplines proposed in thesearrangements would require new policy actions
only in developing countries. Although some ofthese may promote development, the main benefits of WTO agreements in these areas would
be in the market access that new agreements
leverage (Newfarmer 2003).

Figure 7 Fewer exporters to the Quadcountries are taking advantage ofpreferences
Share of potential imports under GSP that entered withpreferential access, 1994–2001 (percent)
60.0

55.0

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

Securing the benefits of trade for thepoorest countries
More favorable and differential treatment ofdeveloping countries is a prominent featureof multilateral trade rules. Selected subsets ofcountries have been granted trade preferences.
Some countries were granted exemptions or allowed to defer implementing some multilateralagreements; many have benefited from technical assistance to help implement mandates.
The present patchwork system has notworked especially well. Countries benefitingfrom trade preferences have generally underperformed in exports. One reason is that richcountries grant preferences voluntarily rather
than as part of a binding multilateral negotiation. Those preferences often come laden withrestrictions, product exclusions, and administrative rules that prevent beneficiaries from taking full advantage of them. For example, only
39 percent of potentially preferred imports
under the Generalized System of Preferences(GSP) into the Quad countries—Canada, theEU, Japan, and the United States—actually
took advantage of preferential access—andusage rates are declining (figure 7). At times,
protectionist lobbies have weighed in to pressure for reductions in the preference, either before a country was deemed eligible or evenlater, when the first signs of export success fordeveloping countries become evident. Beyond
GSP, the Quad countries sponsor their own

xxvi

30.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Source: Inama (2003).

“deep preference” programs, such as the EU’s
Everything But Arms program and the U.S.
African Growth and Opportunity Act, but eachhas different rules and exceptions. For thesereasons, preferences cover only a portion of exports from even poor developing countries—
and among eligible countries and products,
only a fraction of preferences are actually used.
Even when effective, preferences tend to divert
trade away from other poor countries, effectively “robbing Peru to pay Panama.”
Existing preferences do relatively little formost of the world’s poor people (those livingon less than US$1 per day), most of whom livein China, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Northeast
Brazil, and the ASEAN countries, which may
enjoy only partial preferences at best. Although some of these countries enjoy limited
preferential access to some markets, all would
be better off with across-the-board, nondiscriminatory binding access.
Finally, the extensive use of voluntary preference schemes has created perverse incentives
in both rich and poor countries to avoid liberalization that would otherwise benefit thepoor. Too often, rich countries have offeredO V E R V I E W

differential treatment to a subset of poor
countries instead of arriving at MFN reductions in trade barriers that would benefit all
developing countries. And, too often, developing countries have sought preferential accessand exemptions from agreed MFN reductions
in trade barriers that would benefit themselves
and other developing countries. In otherwords, the present system of preferences reduces the incentives to negotiate effectively for
reductions in trade barriers abroad and withdomestic protectionist constituencies at home.
Making trade regime more supportive ofdevelopment therefore involves four important
policy directions.
• Central to any new regime is improvement
in market access for all developing countries
on an MFN basis, especially in products thathave hitherto escaped WTO disciplines,
such as agriculture and labor-intensive products. Broad market access would allow tradereform to reach the 70 percent of the world’s
poor not living in the 49 least developed
countries.
• Trade preferences would be more effective
if they were consistent and uniform, shornof restrictions that raise the cost of taking advantage of preferences. WTO rulesthat require institutional improvements—
especially “behind the border” policies, asdistinct from trade policy changes that canbe implemented at the “stroke of the pen”—
would be more effective if they were calibrated to developing countries’ capacity
to implement them. As countries move up
the ladder of development, they should be
expected to assume the full obligations of
WTO members.
• Integrating technical assistance into the national priorities for development while increasing “aid for trade”—a part of theMonterrey consensus—could help poor developing countries identify and address
trade-capacity priorities. Increased development assistance—for ports, customs, andlogistics management—would augment thecapacity of developing-country firms tobenefit from market-access opportunities.

• Finally, the WTO membership must learn
which of its policies promote, and which defeat, the interests of developing countries.
Getting the rules right is arguably the major
challenge confronting WTO members froma development perspective. Among otherthings, getting the rules right means limiting
new rule-making to cases in which the payoff
for developing countries is clearly positive.

TRIPS and Public Health
Negotiations at the WTO on patents and public health have stalemated over the question of
improving access to generic drugs for poor
countries. The WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS), which took effect in 1995, obliges
countries to extend patent protection to pharmaceutical products and processes after aphase-in period linked to level of development(World Bank 2001, chapter 5). Under theserules, countries that are able to manufacture thedrugs themselves would continue to have legal
access to generics if they chose to issue compulsory licenses. These tend to be the larger andbetter-off developing countries such as Brazil,
China, India, and Thailand. Countries that lacksufficient manufacturing capability—typicallythe world’s poorest and often most diseaseravaged states—may be barred from importing
generic versions of patent-protected drugs, once
rules take effect. Hence, the Doha mandate on
TRIPS and Public Health included finding amechanism by which such countries can import
generic drugs protected by patents abroad.
These rules are important for poor people.
For example, one day’s supply of patented antiretrovirals to treat a single HIV/AIDS patient
can cost as much as US$30 in rich countries.
Such prices are prohibitive for the nearly 3 billion people who live on less than US$2 perday. Generics are not always cheaper, but thethreat of competition has helped to reduce
prices of patented antiretrovirals supplied todeveloping-country governments (Fink 2003).
Patents create incentives for research by offering temporary monopolies on new drugs,
and developing countries need that research asxxvii

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

much as the rest of the world. Indeed, increased R&D for medicines to treat diseases
that are more prevalent in developing countries is desperately needed. Yet poor countries
that lack pharmaceutical manufacturing capability form only a tiny portion—perhaps lessthan 1 to 2 percent—of the global pharmaceuticals market. In the 12 months to October
2002, developed countries accounted for morethan 95 percent of the US$270 billion of sales
in the world’s leading 20 country markets
worldwide. The group of developing countries
that may benefit from a WTO agreement on
importing generic drugs under compulsory
licensing probably accounts for less than 1 or
2 percent of global pharmaceutical sales. Permitting the export to these markets of genericversions of patented medicines developed forrich-country markets is unlikely to erode incentives for research and development (Fink
2003). Despite this unlikelihood, the negotiations going into the summer of 2003 werestalemated on possible restrictions of the listof diseases that would be covered by any new
agreement.
Governments everywhere have potentiallycompeting interests. They have an interest in
maintaining R&D and in preventing illegal
generics entering rich-country markets fromundercutting patent rights that finance it.
Strengthening mechanisms that prevent such
illegal trade is important, such as by prohibiting generic manufacturers from mimicking
the packaging of patented drugs. At the sametime, governments everywhere have an interest in ensuring that limited budgets for drugs
to improve health in poor countries go as far
as possible, and this means that all developing
countries have access to drugs at the cheapest
most competitive prices. In balancing theseobjectives, any eventual agreement should put
the developing countries with insufficientmanufacturing capacity on the same footing
as those countries that have manufacturing
capacity.
Resolving the Doha issue is only one small
piece of the larger problem of delivering drugs
and health care to sick people in developing

xxviiicountries. Of equal importance to the health ofthe poor is undertaking the large investments
in complementary health infrastructure, including hospitals, roads, warehouses, and doctors and nurses. For example, even in somecountries that manufacture anti-AIDS generics
or that get AIDS drugs free, governments havenot succeeded in providing medicines to significant shares of the needy population. Second,
funding for fighting the developing world’s
health crisis needs to be scaled up—and massively. For example, the latest projections by
UNAIDS put the cost of the global struggle
against AIDS at US$10.5 billion a year by2005 and US$15 billion a year by 2007; even
if governments in affected countries cover partof this amount, estimated aid flows of about
US$3 billion in 2002 are still insufficient. The
Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, andMalaria remains cash-strapped. The recent
U.S. commitment of US$15 billion to fight
HIV/AIDS will, when disbursed, partially relieve resource constraints, but a substantial
funding gap remains. The TRIPS issue is small
when compared with the real obstacles preventing access to better health in developing
countries, and it concerns a small corner of the
global pharmaceutical market—two reasons
why the international community should moveswiftly to resolve it.

Delivering the Doha deal
for development

The potential for reciprocal reductions in
trade protection holds the promise of better lives for everyone. To illustrate, we consider
the effects of a pro-poor agreement in which
rich countries cut tariff peaks to 10 percent inagriculture and to 5 percent in manufacturing,and in which these reductions are reciprocatedwith cuts to 15 and 10 percent in developing
countries (table 1). This program, combinedwith reductions in prevailing tariff averages, adecoupling of agricultural subsidies, and an end
to agricultural subsidies could realize nearly
three-quarters of the gains that might be anticipated from full merchandise liberalization.

O V E R V I E W

Table 1 A pro-poor tariff reduction
program(percent)Rich

Developing

Agriculture
Average
Maximum

5
10

10
15

Manufacturing
Average
Maximum

1
5

510This illustrative pro-poor program, discussed in detail in chapter 1, if implemented
progressively over the five years to 2010 andaccompanied by a realistic productivity response, would produce gains for developing
countries of nearly US$350 billion in additional income by 2015. Rich countries would
benefit, too, with gains on the order of US$170
billion. All of this would mean that 8 percent
fewer people would be living in poverty in2015—140 million fewer people living below
US$2 per day. If greater opening of services, including Mode 4, were to occur, the benefits
would be substantially greater.2
Delivering a Doha deal that spurs development will not be easy. Negotiators may wellhave to transcend the mercantilist mind-set
that tends to dominate trade negotiations. Allsegments of the international community must
keep their focus on potential gains, not only
from “winning concessions” from foreign
partners, but also on the gains from domestic
reforms that “pay for” foreign concessions.
Rich-country negotiators will do better, forthemselves and for the developing world, if
they keep in mind that their own countries canbenefit by directing agricultural subsidies
away from production subsidies for large
farmers toward income subsidies to relatively
small family farms, delivered in a form that isdecoupled from output. Middle-income country negotiators likewise have to keep in mind
that their telecommunications and financial
services could be much more efficient and lessexpensive if more competitors were allowed
to enter well-regulated markets. Low-income

countries that have high protection will findthey benefit from domestic reforms that lower
costs of imported inputs, increase domestic
competition that spurs productivity growth,and expand exports. Study after study has
shown that trade reforms redound first andfastest to the reformer.
Negotiations will determine the pace anddetails of a final package, but the broad outlines of a potentially good deal for development are already evident from this analysis.
Realizing that agricultural reform in a time of
rapidly rising budget deficits will contribute
positively to their own economic growth, richcountries would benefit from reforms in agriculture. Lopping off tariff peaks and phasingout the ATC at the end of 2004 will benefit
developed-country poor who are forced to
pay more for food and clothing because of
external protection (Gresser 2002). Further
progress on the part of all countries in reducing tariffs in manufactures would benefit developing countries and stimulate healthy
South-South trade. For the rich countries, theprospect of greater access to markets in developing countries—home to 80 percent of theworld’s population with markets growing two
to three times faster than their own—is also aworthy prize.
Developing countries, too, have much to
gain. Middle-income countries—continuing aprocess begun over the last two decades—may
do well to open selected services markets, often
plagued by inefficiency that dampens productivity of the whole economy, in exchange forgreater access in agriculture and labor-intensive goods. Because many countries have already lowered tariffs, the issue is now to bindthose new lower levels. Finally, low-income
countries would benefit if, in relinquishing demands for exemption from disciplines on theirown tariffs, they succeed in obtaining commitments to greater market access in products andservices of importance to them, a new commitment to consistency in the administration ofpreferences, and development assistance to facilitate trade and implement new WTO rules inaccord with domestic capacities and develop-xxix

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

ment priorities. Delivering this type of deal
would go far toward fulfilling the development
promise of the Doha Agenda.

Notes
1. Global Economic Prospects 2002: Making Trade
Work for the World’s Poor (World Bank 2001), in addition to analyzing agriculture, labor-intensive manufactures, and services, dealt with regulatory impediments in transportation (chapter 4) and intellectual
property rights and TRIPS (chapter 5). Global Economic Prospects 2003: Investing to Unlock Global Opportunities (World Bank 2002a) analyzed two of theSingapore issues—investment and competition policy—
from a development perspective (chapter 4).
2. Global Economic Prospects 2002 presents illustrations of the gains from services liberalization. While
we do not have firm estimates of relative parameters,
several studies have shown that gains are likely to be amultiple of merchandise liberalization. See World Bank
(2001), chapter 6.

References
Bernanke, Ben, and Kenneth Rogoff, eds. 2001.
Macroeconomics Annual 2001. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. 2001. “Trade, Growth,and Poverty.” World Bank Policy Research Department Working Paper 1615.
Evenett, S. 2002. “The WTO Government Procurement Agreement: An Assessment of Current Research and Options for Reform.” Paper presented
at the roundtable “Informing the Doha Process:
New Trade Research for Developing Countries.”
Egypt. May 20–21.
Fink, C. 2003. “Implementing the Doha Mandate on
TRIPS and Public Health.” Trade Note 5. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. May (www.worldbank.
org/trade).
Gresser, E. 2002. “America’s Hidden Tax on the Poor:
The Case for Reforming U.S. Tariff Policy.” Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report. Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute. March.
Hatcher, Mark. 2003. Draft Model Schedule for Mode
4: A Proposal. In Aaditya Mattoo and Antonia
Carzaniga, eds., Moving People to Deliver Services. Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press
and World Bank, 2003.
Hummels, D. 2001. “Time as a Trade Barrier.” Mimeo.
Department of Economics, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Ind.

xxx

Inama, Stefano. 2003. “Trade Preferences and the
WTO Negotiations on Market Access.” Mimeo.
UNCTAD.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: IMF.
IMF-World Bank. 2002. “Market Access for Developing Country Exports—Selected Issues.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank, September 26.
Mattoo, Aaditya. 2003. “Services in a Development
Round.” Paper presented to the OECD Global
Forum on Trade, OECD, Paris, June 5–6, 2003.
Mattoo, A., R. Rathindran, and A. Subramanian.
2001. “Measuring Services Trade Liberalization
and Its Impact on Economic Growth: An Illustration.” World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 2655. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Newfarmer, R. 2003. “From Singapore to Cancún:
Investment.” Trade Note 2. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank. May (www.worldbank.org/trade).
Ravallion, Martin. 1997. “Can High-Inequality Countries Escape Absolute Poverty?” Economics Letters
56(1): 51–57.
Rodriguez, Francisco, and Dani Rodrik. 1999. “Trade
Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic’s Guide
to the Cross-National Evidence.” NBER Working
Paper W7081. NBER, Cambridge, Mass.
Self, R. J., and B. K. Zutshi. 2003. “Mode 4: Negotiating Challenges and Opportunities.” In AadityaMattoo and Antonia Carzaniga, eds., Moving
People to Deliver Services. Washington, D.C.:
Oxford University Press and World Bank, 2003.
Srinivasan, T.N., and Jadgish Bhagwati. 2000. “Outward-Orientation and Development: Are Revisionists Right?” Macroeconomics Annual 2000.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Walmsley, T. L., and A. Winters. 2003. “Relaxing the
Restrictions on the Temporary Movements of
Natural Persons: A Simulation Analysis.” CEPR
Discussion Paper 3719. London: Center for Economic Policy Research.
World Bank. 1996. The Chinese Economy: Fighting
Inflation, Deepening Reforms. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank. April.
———.2001. Global Economic Prospects 2002: Making Trade Work for the World’s Poor. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
———.2002a. Global Economic Prospects 2003: Investing to Unlock Global Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
———.2002b. World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Abbreviations
and Data Notes

ACE

Automated commercial environment

ACP

African Caribbean and Pacific states

ACPC

Association of Coffee Producing Countries

AGOA

African Growth and Opportunity Act

APEC

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASAs

Air service agreements

ASCM

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASECNA

Agency for Air Transport Security in Africa

ATC

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

ATPA

Andean Trade Preferences Act

ATPDEA

Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act

CACM

Central American Common Market

CAP

Common Agricultural Program

CARICOM

Caribbean Community

CBERA

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Acts

CBI

Caribbean Basin Initiative

CBTPA

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act

CEE

Central and Eastern Europe

CEPR

Center for Economic and Policy Research

CIS

Commonwealth of Independent States

COMTRADE

U.S. Commodity Trade Statistics

CSI

Container Security Initiative

C-TPAT

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

DFID

Department for International Development

DRIFE

Danish Research Institute of Food Economics

DTIS

Diagnostic Trade Integration Study

ECB

European Central Bank

xxxi

G L O B A L

xxxii

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

EEAEuropean Economic Area

EMBI

Emerging Markets Bond Index

EU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agricultural Organization

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

FDI

Foreign direct investment

FTAFree Trade Area

GATS

General Agreement on Trade in Services

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GCC

Gulf Cooperation Council

GDP

Gross domestic product

GSP

Generalized System of Preference

GTAP

Global Trade Analysis Project

HITS

Harmonized Tariff Schedule

HIV/AIDS

Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome

HKSC

Hong Kong Shippers Council

IADB

Inter-American Development BankICAOInternational Civil Aviation Organization

ICO

International Coffee Organization

ICTSD

International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development

IISD

International Institute for Sustainable Development

ILO

International Labour Organization

IMF

International Monetary Fund

IMO

International Maritime Organization

INS

Immigration and Naturalization Service

ISM

Institute for Supply Management

LDCs

Least developed countries

LME

London Metals Exchange

LNG

Liquid natural gas

MFN

Most favored nation

NAFTA

North America Free Trade Agreement

NASDAQ

National Association of Security Dealers

NAV

Non-ad-valorem

NIEs

Newly industrialized economies

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OPEC

Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries

PECC

Pacific Economic Cooperation Council

PPI

Purchasing Parity Index

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

A N D

PROCAMPO

Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo (National Program for Agricultural
Direct Support)

PSRE

Program de soutien à la relance economique

QUAD

Canada, European Union, Japan, and United States

RDS

Research, development, and statistics

SAARC

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SARS

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SDT

Special and differential treatment

SMEs

Small and medium-sized enterprises

SOLAS

Safety of Life at Sea Convention

SOPEMI

Continuous Reporting System on Migration

STAR

Secure Trade in the APEC Region

TMNP

Temporary movement of natural persons

TN

Trade NAFTA

TRIPS

Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights

TRQs

Tariff rate quotas

UN/ECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference for Trade and Development

UNDCP

United Nations International Drug Control Program

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USCS

U.S. Customs Service

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USTR

U.S. Trade Representative

WCO

World Customs Organization

WFP

World Food Program

WITS

World Integrated Trade Solutions

WTO

World Trade Organization

D A T AN O T E S

Data notes
The “classification of economies” tables atthe end of this volume classify economies byincome, region, export category, and indebtedness. Unless otherwise indicated, the term
“developing countries” as used in this volume

covers all lower- and middle-income countries, including countries with economies intransition.
All dollar figures are U.S. dollars.

xxxiii1
Global Outlook and theDeveloping Countries

The global economy continues to be weak
For the third year in a row the global economy
in 2003 is growing well below potential, at an
expected rate of 2 percent. The global slowdown that began in 2001 with the bursting of
the equity-market bubble evolved into a subdued recovery during 2002. Initially, the sharp
downturn in business investment was a criticalfactor behind sluggish growth, as corporations
worldwide redressed the substantial financial
imbalances that had emerged during the boomof the late 1990s. The pace of activity falteredagain at end-2002 and early 2003 in responseto events that undermined confidence: thebuildup to war in Iraq, transatlantic tensions,persistent concerns about terrorism, and theoutbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Consumer and business confidence waned again—and so did spending.
Manufacturing production as well as GDP
growth in the rich countries slowed considerably at the turn of the year. The momentum ofgoods production retrenched to negative territory, and G-7 GDP growth braked from anannualized pace of 2.8 percent during thethird quarter of 2002 to 0.8 percent by the
first quarter of 2003.
Developing countries faced a difficult environment in 2002 to mid 2003. Latin America’s
GDP contracted in 2002 because of politicalproblems in Venezuela, investor concerns
about Brazil in the run-up to elections, andfallout from Argentina’s default. Per capita incomes will barely rise this year, despite an en-

couraging rebound in most countries of theregion. Activity in South Asia is holding up
well. Countries in East Asia lost some growth
momentum due to SARS, but its apparent containment has opened the way to a resumptionof rapid growth. Africa continues to underperform: although the region’s commodity prices
have firmed, they are still well below long-term
trends. War has affected regional performancein the Middle East and North Africa; while
many countries in Central and Eastern Europe
are undergoing sluggish growth tied to lackluster conditions in Western Europe, especially inGermany.

Macro policy response has been strongly
supportive, but it is approaching limits
Policymakers, particularly in the United States,
reacted to the slowdown in 2001 with significant monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. The
stimulus and the effects of automatic stabilizers
prevented a sharper downturn in the global
economy and helped improve the external environment for developing-country growth.
But the scope for substantial further macroeconomic stimulus is rapidly dissipating.
Fiscal deficits threaten to become part of the
problem instead of part of the solution, especially since a quick reversal of the deficit is
not anticipated. The U.S. general government
budget position (including Social Security), forexample, shifted dramatically from a surplusof 2.3 percent of GDP in 2000 to a deficit of
3.2 percent as of the first quarter of 2003. The

1

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Congressional Budget Office projects that thebudget position is unlikely to return to surplus
until 2012. In Europe, several large countries
have breached the 3-percent-of-GDP fiscal
deficit limits embedded in the Maastricht criteria for the common currency. And Japan has
limited fiscal scope, given persistent deficits in
the 6–7 percent range. Interest rates have beenbrought down sharply in the United States aswell as in Japan, where they stand at an effective rate of zero. Following the recent 50-basis
point cut in rates, Europe still has modest
headroom for monetary easing should the European Central Bank choose to relax its inflation target. In fact, downward price trends in
the United States and Europe have triggered
concerns of possible deflation.

Activity should build gradually through
2004–05, but risks remain
Barring additional shocks, global growth
should pick up to 3 percent in 2004, as firms
in the rich countries make progress in adjusting balance sheets and begin to upgrade capital stock and replenish inventories (table 1.1).
The financial headwinds that have constrained investment are apparently diminishing across the OECD centers. Early signs of renewed economic activity are appearing in the
United States—including an upturn in orders,
production, and exports, as well as firming
equity markets. Yet conditions in Europe andJapan remain extremely slack. Improvement
in confidence will prove the key to a revival incapital spending and growth. Following an
advance of 4 percent in 2003, developing
countries are likely to grow at 4.9 percent in
2004, grounded in a revival of world trade,the fading of global tensions, and the rekindling of domestic demand.
But risks to the outlook remain. First, thepace of stabilization in the Middle East remains uncertain. Second, SARS, though now
apparently under control, could reemerge next
flu season and would present challenges topolicymakers worldwide, especially in China.
Third, and more broadly, a reversal of the incipient investment rebound in the industrial

2

countries cannot be ruled out, as investment
growth dropped sharply during the first quarter of 2003. Finally, the U.S. current accountdeficit is surpassing historic levels. During
2002, U.S. external financing needs claimed
10.3 percent of the savings of the rest of theworld—more than double the levels of 1998.
Moreover, the composition of finance also
shifted toward short-term flows: net FDI
flows were negative by almost $100 billion;
U.S. banks’ overseas lending had ceased; andforeign official inflows (most from East Asia)
increased to nearly $100 billion, from $5 billion in 2001. A sudden reversal in these shortterm flows could undercut U.S. and world
growth. The 25 percent fall of the U.S. dollar
against the euro in the last 18 months represents at least a partial adjustment.

Structural reforms could boost confidenceWith scope for additional macroeconomic
stimulus fading, the focus of policy in the richcountries should arguably shift toward structural reforms that help restore business andconsumer confidence. These could include efforts to resolve the nonperforming loan problem in the Japanese banking system and toachieve positive inflation rates there; addressing
corporate governance and related issues in the
United States, and needed labor market reforms
in Europe. A rekindling of multilateral consensus on economic policy would also contributeto renewed confidence, which had been shaken
by geopolitical tensions and security concerns.

Intensified trade underpins strong
developing country growth in the long run
One important and ongoing program is the
Doha Development Agenda, where progress
could do much for near-term sentiment andeventually for global growth. Intensified traderelations during the 1990s and the increasingly global nature of production and distribution have sharply increased productivity in
tradable sectors and drastically changed tradepatterns, laying the foundation for future
growth. Productivity growth in manufacturingsectors that compete in international markets

G L O B A L

Table 1.1

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Global growth should accelerate, but risks persist

Global conditions affecting growth in developing countries and world GDP
Current
estimate

GDF2003
forecasts

Current forecasts

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2003

2004

–0.7

3.0

4.6

7.9

7.9

6.2

8.1

1.5
2.8

1.0
1.6

1.4
1.9

0.9
1.2

1.4
2.3

1.4
2.5

1.3
2.3

–9.1
24.4
–13.7
–4.5

5.1
24.9
2.4
–0.1

6.9
26.5
6.3
4.0

1.1
22.0
–17.0
–0.4

1.5
20.0
–9.1
1.5

8.2
26.0
4.3
5.6

2.3
21.0
–19.2
–0.1

3.5
4.2

1.8
3.4

1.0
2.1

2.0
2.1

3.8
3.1

1.7
2.4

3.2
2.3

GDP (growth) d
World
Memo item: World GDP (PPP) e

1.3
2.3

1.9
3.0

2.0
3.1

3.0
3.9

2.9
3.8

2.3
3.2

3.2
4.1

High-income countries
OECD countries
United States
Japan
Euro Area
Non-OECD countries

0.9
1.0
0.3
0.4
1.5
–1.1

1.6
1.6
2.4
0.1
0.8
2.4

1.5
1.5
2.2
0.8
0.7
2.1

2.5
2.5
3.4
1.3
1.7
4.1

2.4
2.3
2.8
1.3
2.1
4.4

1.9
1.8
2.5
0.6
1.4
3.0

2.9
2.8
3.5
1.6
2.6
4.3

Developing countries
East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
Oil exporters
Diversified economies
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

2.9
5.5
2.2
0.3
3.2
2.9
3.8
4.9
3.2

3.3
6.7
4.6
–0.8
3.1
3.2
2.8
4.2
2.8

4.0
6.1
4.3
1.8
3.3
3.9
2.4
5.4
2.8

4.9
6.7
4.5
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.7
5.4
3.5

4.8
6.6
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.8
5.4
3.8

4.0
6.4
3.7
1.7
3.7
4.0
3.1
5.3
3.0

4.7
6.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.7
4.2
5.2
3.6

Memorandum item
Developing countries: excluding China and India

1.7

2.0

3.1

4.1

4.1

2.9

3.9

Global conditions
World trade (volume)
Inflation (consumer prices)
G-7 OECD countries a, b
United States
Commodity prices (nominal $)Commodity prices, except oil ($)
Oil price ($, weighted average), $/bbl
Oil price (percent change)
Manufactures export unit value ($) cInterest rates
LIBOR, 6 months ($, percent)
EURIBOR, 6 months (Euro, percent)a. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
b. In local currency, aggregated using 1995 GDP weights.
c. Unit value index of manufactures exports from G-5 to developing countries, expressed in U.S. dollars.
d. GDP in 1995 constant dollars: 1995 prices and market exchange rates.
e. GDP measured at 1995 PPP (international dollar) weights.
Sources: Development Prospects Group, baseline, July 2003 and GDF 2003 forecasts of March 2003.

is traditionally 1.5 percentage points higher
than economy-wide productivity growth. Thisdifferential has increased to 2.5 percentage
points during the last decade. Sharp technological progress in manufacturing was partly
an autonomous process—driven by advancesin computer technology—but was also trig-

gered by increased competition on a global
scale. Developing countries as a group havebenefited from the intensification of trade in
manufactures and associated productivity
gains, as the share of manufactured goods intheir exports increased from 20 percent in1980 to more than 70 percent in 2001.

3

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Under a set of favorable but plausible assumptions, developing countries are expected
to experience an acceleration of per capita income growth through 2015. The East Asia
region is an exception because its already highgrowth of 6 percent annually over the last
decades will be difficult to maintain, as economies mature and the gap with high-income
countries narrows, even though it is likely toremain the fastest-growing region in the developing world.

Poverty remains a challenge, especiallyfor Africa
Broad acceleration of per capita growthwould translate into a sharp reduction in theincidence of poverty, from 28.3 percent in1990 to a projected 12.5 percent by 2015,
meeting, on average, the millennium development goal (MDG) of 14.8 percent. However,
the gap between strong and weak performers
will remain large. Even if Sub-Saharan Africa
could turn falling per capita incomes into annual increases of 1.6 percent—as assumed in
the baseline scenario—its rate of growth would
be less than one-third the rate of growth that is
expected in East Asia. The relatively poor performance of Sub-Saharan Africa makes the
MDGs for that region especially challenging.
For example, under the baseline scenario thepercentage of people living on $1 per day orless will be only 42.3 percent in 2015 insteadof 24 percent as targeted by the MDGs.

penditure could not continue to grow at thehigh rates achieved in the early phase of recovery, though deficits continued to widen.
Late in 2002 and through early 2003, U.S.
consumption, a major driver of global demand, slowed from an earlier pace of 4 percent to near 2 percent—partly as a reflectionof the dramatic drop in consumer confidence
on the eve of the Iraqi conflict and partly inreaction to high oil prices and weakening of
the dollar. By the first quarter of 2003, GDP
growth had slowed from generally stronger
first-half 2002 rates to 1.4 percent (saar) in
the United States, to 0.6 percent in Japan, to
0.2 in the Euro Area (figure 1.1).
Manufacturing output advances slowed
discernibly at the turn of the year, and intensified during the spring. Growth momentum ingoods production suffered a “double dip,” tostand at –1.2 percent for the Euro Area, –2.0
percent for Japan, and –2.3 percent for theUnited States as of April–June 2003 (figure1.2). The end to combat in the Iraqi campaign
helped to boost U.S. consumer confidence
from nine-year troughs reached in March; but
response of consumers in Japan and especiallyin Europe was muted, despite an incipient up-

Figure 1.1 Growth in the OECD countries
falters
Quarter/quarter, percent change, saar
3.5
3.0

The industrial countries: Deficits,
confidence, capital spending,and the dollar

2.52002 Q4

2.0
2002 H1

2003 Q1


4

1.5
1.0



The high-income OECD countries have faced
substantial difficulties in overcoming the legacies of the second half of the 1990s, including
the equity market downturn. The recovery thatbegan in early 2002 faltered after the summerof that year as the rebound in investment
showed signs of weakness. Government ex-Confidence is the key to the long-awaited
breakthrough to growth

0.5
0.0
–0.5
United StatesJapan

Sources: National agencies and Eurostat.

Euro Area

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

July
2002

Oct.
2002

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.2 OECD manufacturing shows a distinct “double dip”
Manufacturing IP, 3-month/3-month, percent change, saar

Japan

15


Euro Area


10
5
0


–5
United States
–10
–15
–20
Jan.
2000

April
2000

July
2000

Oct.
2000

Jan.
2001

April
2001

July
2001

Oct.
2001

Jan.
2002

April
2002

Jan.
2003

April
2003

Sources: National agencies and Eurostat.

turn in equity markets. Rather, focus returnedto the set of weak fundamentals underlying
sluggish growth in the rich countries—notably
substantial debt overhangs in the U.S. corporate, household, and, increasingly, government
sectors.
The sharp depreciation of the dollar began
to yield shifts in the contribution of net exports to GDP growth (table 1.2). In the United

Table 1.2

States, a contribution of –1.0 percentage
points during the first half of 2002 changed
into one of +0.9 percentage points in the firstquarter of 2003. The opposite occurred in Europe and Japan. There, during the first half of2002, net exports added respectively 0.9 and1.4 percentage points to GDP growth, butthese rates turned around in the first quarterof 2003, to –1.8 and –0.2 percentage points.

Weak fundamentals underlie sluggish growth in the rich countries

Recent developments in GDP and components, United States, Euro Area, and Japan (percent)
United States

Euro AreaJapan

Growth

H1-02

H2-02

Q4-02

Q1-03

H1-02

H2-02

Q4-02

Q1-03

H1-02

H2-02

Q4-02

Q1-03

GDP
Private consumption
Fixed investment
Government

3.5
3.5
–2.8
5.7

2.7
3.0
0.7
3.0

1.4
1.7
4.4
4.6

1.4
2.0
–0.2
0.4

1.0
0.0
–3.2
3.3

1.1
1.6
–0.9
2.0

0.3
1.4
0.9
1.2

0.2
1.7
–4.8
1.4

0.9
2.0
–5.3
2.4

3.0
1.5
1.0
1.7

1.5
–0.2
3.2
0.4

0.6
0.8
–1.9
2.5

Growth contributions
Private consumption
Investment
Fixed capital
Change in stocks
Government
Net exports

2.4
1.0
–0.5
1.5
1.0
–1.0

2.1
0.9
0.1
0.7
0.5
–0.9

1.2
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.8
–1.9

1.4
–0.9
0.0
–0.9
0.1
0.9

0.0
–0.5
–0.7
0.2
0.7
0.9

0.9
–0.2
–0.2
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.8
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.2
–1.4

1.0
0.8
–1.0
1.8
0.3
–1.8

1.1
–2.0
–1.4
–0.6
0.4
1.4

0.9
1.5
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.4

–0.1
0.1
0.8
–0.7
0.1
1.6

0.4
0.0
–0.5
0.5
0.4
–0.2

Note: H=half year; Q=quarter year.
Sources: National agencies, OECD, and World Bank data.

5

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Although the depreciation of the dollar andturnaround in U.S. exports was a movement
toward more balanced conditions, weak demand in external markets now poses special
challenges for Europe and Japan. For the latter, the near-term effects of SARS in East Asia
will likely exact an additional toll on exports.
Recently, the issue of deflation has emergedin the United States, and more so in Europe in
the wake of 25 percent currency appreciationand flat output growth there. Labor market
conditions continued to deteriorate across theOECD centers, with expectations widely held
for a more prolonged period of sub-par growthin the global economy.
From this set of initial conditions, a breakthrough to stronger growth will hinge on a
restoration of confidence among consumers
and businesses. Under these circumstances, andin an environment of low interest rates (coupled with moderate gains in financial markets),the standard factors that boost investment after a recession—increasing obsolescence of thecapital stock, improved expectations for demand—are likely to yield a gradual upturn inthe pace of investment growth, and with it a resumption of economic recovery. Indeed, somesigns of revival in the U.S. economy are now
emerging, but the worst may not be over for
Europe and Japan.

Consumer spending has slowed
From late 2002 to early 2003, anticipationof war in Iraq provided a “non-economic”
overlay to the fundamental factors dampening
consumer sentiment. Consumer confidence
plunged to near-record lows on both sides of
the Atlantic in the months leading up to war(figure 1.3). Though the estimated sensitivity of
personal spending to changes in sentiment issurprisingly small, the relationship suggests thatfor the United States, the decline in confidence
since late 2000, tied to economic conditions
and war jitters, yielded a fall-off in consumption of a cumulative 1.2 percent, or $75 billion(box 1.1). Recovery of U.S. sentiment since thattime, boosted by incipient gains in equity markets, has been moderately encouraging. However, the Conference Board index flattened-out
in May and fell in June (to 83.5) to bring themeasure to its level of late Fall 2002. European
confidence has recovered little, as economic
growth slows and developments in Germany inparticular have deteriorated markedly.

Figure 1.3 Consumer confidence recovers from pre-war lows
Conference Board (U.S.) and EU Commission surveys of consumer confidence
2

150

0

140

–2

European Union (right scale)


130

–4
–6

120

–8

110

–10
100

–12
–14



90

–16

United States (left scale)

80

–18
70

–20
–22

60
January
2000

July
2000

January
2001

Source: Conference Board, European Commission.

6

July
2001

January
2002

July
2002

January
2003

July
2003

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Box 1.1 Consumer confidence and U.S. private
consumption
Actual and predicted confidence effectsof the build-up to war
120

Predicted


110
100
90



80

Actual

70

03
ly

Ju

Ap

ril

20

20

03

03

2
Ja

n.

20

00

02

.2
ct
O

02
20

ly
Ju

ril

20

02
20
n.

Ja

Ap

0
.2 1
00
1

O

ct

20

Ju

ly

20
ril

n.

20

01

01

60

Ap

he U.S. consumer accounts for more than twothirds of U.S. and 20 percent of world expenditure, and has contributed nearly one-third to total
world GDP growth since the onset of slower growthin 2001. Consumers seemed able to shake off thedepressing effects of lower confidence during thisperiod. The bursting of the stock market bubble,
with its contractionary effects on household wealth,slowed consumption and growth and revealed substantial overinvestment in telecommunications andother high-technology industries. These developments left confidence levels vulnerable to short-term
events, which came in the form of the Iraq war.
The Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence was down 20 percent on average in the firsteight months of 2001 and dropped another 25 percent after September 11. Yet in the fourth quarter of2001 consumers flocked back to the malls in response to generous incentives and spending surgedby 6 percent (saar). By mid-2002, confidence had
recouped most of the losses suffered after September,but as war in Iraq seemed more likely, confidence
tumbled again, dropping a further 45 percent by
March 2003, when military action began.
Economic and noneconomic determinants ofconfidence. The impact of noneconomic factors suchas ‘terrorist threats’ and ‘war jitters’ on consumer
confidence and spending can be significant. Moreover, their dynamics are different from traditional
economic factors insofar as they can appear and reverse suddenly. For instance, the Conference Board’s
index soared 32 percent in April 2003 after a quick
resolution in Iraq.
The decomposition of consumer confidence into
economic and non-economic components is notstraightforward. By definition, the economic component should track coincident and leading indicatorssuch as unemployment, household debt, and stock
prices. However, objective proxies for war jittersor perceptions of terrorist threats are problematic.
Thus, instead of measuring the role of non-economic
factors directly, we take the indirect route of regressing confidence on a set of economic variables andinterpreting the residual as representing the noneconomic component.1 The results are illustrated in
the figure. Note the large negative residual that appeared after September 11, 2001, although thisJa

T

Source: World Bank, Development Prospects Group.

turned out to be short lived. But, starting in the
fourth quarter of 2002 and first quarter of 2003,
economic factors began yielding a sustained and substantial over-prediction. The mean squared prediction error is more than five times larger after September 2002 than before—compelling evidence of the
war jitters story. By March 2003, when the war
began, confidence was only two-thirds of what economic conditions alone would have indicated—thebiggest discrepancy since the first Gulf War in 1991.
In April, however, confidence rebounded sharply,
narrowing the discrepancy to only 9 percent.
The impact on consumer spending. Many studies have found that variations in consumer confidence help to explain aggregate consumer spending,above and beyond what household disposable income and wealth can predict alone, though the effects are relatively small. A simple regression carriedout for the purposes of this study yields a typical result, which implies that a 1 percent increase in confidence would raise real consumption growth by .023
percent over the subsequent year. Using this estimate,a cumulative 1.2 percent reduction in consumption,or around $75 billion since late 2000, is attributable
to the fall in confidence.
(Box continues on next page)7

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 1.1

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

What happens next? The equation predicts thatthe 30 percent improvement in confidence after thewar, if sustained, could add as much as an additional
30*.023 = 0.7 percent, or around $45 billion to consumption levels over the next year. It is likely thatdurables such as housing and automobiles would be
the main beneficiaries. But the experience after the
1991 Gulf War sounds a note of caution. Then, too,
confidence dipped sharply as the war approached, andsurged by 36 percent in March 1991 following theceasefire. Less than a year later, however, it had morethan given up this gain. The reason? Soaring unemployment. It was not until 1993 that U.S. consumption
again recovered to near its long-run average growthrate. Moreover, our model attributes a cumulative 1.2
percent reduction in consumption since 2000 to confidence, but 9.2 percent to changes in income andwealth. In short, the future course of employment, income, and asset prices will be by far the most important determinants of consumption spending.
Source: World Bank staff.

Since 2000, spending in the rich countries
has been buffeted by divergent trends in net
worth; most households suffered sharp declines in the value of financial assets. In the
United States and the United Kingdom, however, rapid appreciation of housing values has
partially offset the deterioration in financial
worth (figure 1.4). For example, U.S. households suffered loss of $7.7 trillion in net financial worth since peak levels of the first quarter

Figure 1.4 The drop in U.S. household net
worth has been offset by real estate
appreciation
Trillions of dollars

And the investment rebound relapsed

40
35
30
25

Households’ net financial worth

20
15
10
Value of real estate holdings

5First quarter
Source: Federal Reserve Board.

02

03
20

01

20

20

00
20

99
19

98
19

97
19

96
19

19

95

0

8

of 2000—mitigated to $4.4 trillion by real estate appreciation. Moreover, low interest rates
have encouraged widespread refinancing andequity cash-outs to supplement flows of personal income and spending. On the other hand,
rapid buildup of mortgage and other consumer
debt has placed U.S. households in an exposed
position should interest rates begin to rise with
eventual recovery. At record levels of $8.9 trillion, representing 80 percent of GDP or 111
percent of disposable income as of the firstquarter of 2003, burgeoning household debt
could hamper vigorous spending responses inlater stages of the anticipated recovery.

The sluggish pace of economic recovery is also
linked to hesitant patterns of business capitalspending, common across the industrial countries. After picking up to a 2.5 percent pace inthe final quarter of 2002, G-7 fixed investment
relapsed to growth of just 0.3 percent during
the first quarter of 2003. U.S. business outlays
dropped by a disappointing 3.4 percent, capitalspending in Japan fell by 2 percent, and EuroArea investment plummeted by 4.8 percent, asthat in Germany fell 6.8 percent (figure 1.5).
At midpoints of the business cycle, theprime mover for growth would normally transition from consumer spending and inventorybuilding to more robust advances in fixed capital formation. Unlike in previous business cy-G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.5 Capital spending has been hesitant in all industrial countries
Real fixed investment, quarter/quarter, percent change, Q/Q, saar
4Euro Area

2


0
–2
–4
–6
–8
–10



–12



–14

Japan
UnitedStates–16
2001 Q1

2001 Q2

2001 Q3

2001 Q4

2002 Q1

2002 Q2

2002 Q3

2002 Q4

2003 Q1

Sources: National agencies and Eurostat.

to growth in capital spending, at least for theUnited States—and possibly for Japan—may
be approaching.
Business sentiment is now displaying distinct divergence between the United States andFigure 1.6 Corporate profits have risen
moderately in the United States and Japan
Adjusted profits in billions of dollars (2Q-ma) and trillionsof yen (3Q-MA)
750

11,000
United States[left scale]

700

10,000

cles, however, several factors have combined
to inhibit a vigorous rebound in investment.
Corporate debt legacies of the 1990s’ boom
continue to curtail investment plans across theOECD. For example, U.S. non-financial corporate debt as a proportion of GDP rose from38 percent in 1995 to 47 percent in 2002. Recent data, however, show U.S. debt rates stabilizing over the last quarters of 2002 and thefirst of 2003—a positive sign that adjustment
efforts are beginning to yield fruit. Corporate
profits fell 10 percent in the United States in
2001, while those of Japanese manufacturers
plummeted 48 percent, reflecting onset of recession. The tortuous road toward restorationof profit growth has involved substantial cuts
to capital spending and to employment overthe last years. However, there is evidence thatprofits are staging recoveries in the UnitedStates and Japan, as well as in several sectorsof industry in Europe. U.S. profits enjoyed a 15
percent rebound in 2002, but growth eased
to a 5 percent pace in the first quarter of 2003.
In Japan, profits of major manufacturers experienced a substantial comeback, rising 38
percent in recent quarters (y/y)—despite numerous challenges (figure 1.6). These developments offer additional evidence that the corner

650
600

9,000

550
8,000
500
450

7,000



Japan
[right scale]

400

6,000

350
5,000

300
94
19

1
Q

95
19

3
Q

97
19

1
Q

98
19

3
Q

00
20

1
Q

01
20

3
Q

03
20

1
Q

Sources: Department of Commerce, Bank of Japan, ESRI.

9G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.7 Business confidence remains poor, but better in the United States than in Europe
European and U.S. business confidence, January 2000–June 2003
62.5

62.5
Euro area manufacturing PMI [right scale]

60.0



60.0
57.5

57.5

55.0

55.0

52.5

52.5

50.0

50.0

47.5

47.5

45.0

45.0


42.5

42.5

ISM manufacturing index [left scale]

40.0
Jan.
2000

40.0
June
2000

Nov.
2000

April
2001

Sept.
2001

Feb.
2002

July
2002

Dec.
2002

May
2003

Sources: ISM and Reuters (Euro Area PMI).

Europe and Japan, where assessments of conditions have worsened. The ISM survey covering U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturingsectors fell below the 50 percent line that divides expansion from contraction during Marchand April—before manufacturing rebounded
to 49.8 in June—and services sharply to 54.5
in May. In contrast, the composite PMI for theEuro Area entered the “contraction zone” inMarch, and fell further to 48.1 in June, reflecting declines in both services and manufacturing indicators (figure 1.7). It appears that
financial conditions weighing against capitalspending are easing across the OECD, andbusiness sentiment is now reviving in the
United States. Yet a key uncertainty persists: therobustness of future demand, which is strongly
tied to the effects of policy.

After providing substantial stimulus,
economic policy is reaching limits
On both fiscal and monetary fronts, policymakers in the rich countries injected significant stimulus, first to limit the global economic downturn of 2001, and over the last
18 months to foster conditions conducive forstronger recovery. On the fiscal front, the U.S.

10

government’s general budget position shifted
dramatically from a surplus of 2.3 percent of
GDP in 2000 to a deficit of 3.2 percent during
the first quarter of 2003. In part this reflects
reduced revenues associated with sluggish activity and the operation of automatic stabilizers. But the shift to deficit has been more pronounced due to tax reduction and funding of
the Iraqi campaign at the federal level, and byincreasing shortfalls at the state and local levels (figure 1.8). Before the recent additional$350 billion tax reduction was enacted, theCongressional Budget Office projected thatthe federal on-budget fiscal position was unlikely to return to surplus until 2012. Persistent deficits of such magnitude carry the potential to constrain growth in the medium
term and beyond, largely as long-term interest
rates rise in response to much-increased supply of Treasury securities.
Fiscal deterioration and the current accountThe deterioration of the fiscal position has
played a role in the doubling of the U.S. current
account deficit from 2.3 percent of GDP in1998 to 4.6 percent in 2002. The public-sector
financial balance (saving less investment)

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

U.S. federal, state, and local current fiscal balances,
1999–2003 (billions of dollars)
250
200
150
100
Federal balance

0
–50
–100
–150
–200


–250

State/local balance

–300

1

3

Q

20

02
20

03

Q

1

3
20

02

Q

Q

1
20

01

Q

3
20

01

Q

1
Q

00
20

Q

00
20

99
19

99

Q

3

1

–350

19

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

investment), although substantial, was far from
sufficient to make up the gap (figure 1.9a).
Aside from the underlying savings-investment
imbalance that drives the need for foreign capital, the widening of the U.S. external deficit
is attributable to several factors. Booming domestic conditions during the second half of the
1990s attracted imports at a growth rate of 10
percent annually, while the strong dollar andonly moderate growth in U.S. trade partners
served to constrain export growth to 6 percent.
In turn the trade balance deteriorated from a
deficit of $175 billion in 1995 to $485 billion
in 2002. Foreign capital flows funding the current account deficit have become increasingly
volatile over the last years, shifting rapidly incomposition and in region of origin. The effects of sustaining such capital inflows over an
extended period remain a question of someconcern (box 1.2).
The present level of the current accountdeficit, at 5.1 percent of GDP in the first quarter of 2003, is an historic record. Of particular concern is the unprecedented level of deficit
occurring at an early phase of economic recovery, when external positions are normally closer
to balance given only moderate changes in

Figure 1.8 The U.S. fiscal deficit iswidening quickly

50

A N D

Source: Department of Commerce.

shifted from balance in 1999 to deficit of 3.6
percent of GDP in 2002, and further to a shortfall of 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2003.
At the same time, improvement in the privatesector balance (largely through compression of

Figure 1.9 The U.S. current account deficit is at record levels
a. The public sector balance is driving the deficit

Percent of GDP
2

Public-sector
financial balance

1



0
–1
–2
–3
–4


Private sector
financial balance–5

Current account balance–62000 Q1

2000 Q3

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

2001 Q1

2001 Q3

2002 Q1

2002 Q3

2003 Q1(Figure continues on page 13)

11

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 1.2 Financing the U.S. current account deficit:
From equity to debt
Billions of dollars
700

FDI

600

400
300

Treasury bills andother official debt

600
500
400

Bonds



500

700

U.S. financing
requirements

300

200

200



12

U.S. external financing requirements andnet financial flows



100

0

0


100

–100



s the U.S. current account deficit more than doubled in dollar terms between 1998 and 2002 toreach $480 billion, U.S. calls on international financial markets increased in tandem. The country’s external financing requirement climbed to 4.6 percent
of GDP in 2002, representing some 10.3 percent of
the savings of the rest of the world. U.S. financing
requirements largely have been smoothly met by net
inflows from abroad. But the form of financing (thatis, the composition of the net foreign-asset flow) has
changed dramatically over just the last three years,
while the region of origin of the inflow has shifted aswell. The underlying nature of the capital inflow can,as demonstrated aptly in recent years, lead to questions of medium-term sustainability of the external
deficit; while shifts in origin of flows can influencemarket expectations for adjustment in the value ofthe dollar against its major partner currencies.
During 2000, the final year of the boom, theUnited States required net inflows of some $457 billion to cover its current account deficit. Financing
was readily available, through increased mergers-andacquisitions activity that yielded net purchases of corporate bonds of $281 billion; complemented bystrong $160 billion in FDI flows and some $85 billion attracted to 45 percent gains in NASDAQ (seefirst figure). Together the equity component of flows(FDI and stocks) accounted for more than 50 percent
of requirements—a strong fundamental position. The
onset of recession in the United States during 2001
was clearly a transition year for investor perceptions.
The fall of equity markets (NASDAQ down 50 percent) forced a compression of the highly diversified
flows of 2000, as equity and FDI dropped to negligible amounts and investors flocked into debt instruments. Long-term debt-related securities almost covered the U.S. requirement of some $420 billion in theyear. The transition in composition of inflows
evolved more fully in the difficult environment of
2002. FDI recorded net outflow of almost $100 billion; purchases of Treasuries by risk-averse investors
increased by $100 billion; a virtual cessation in overseas lending by U.S. banks yielded a net buildup inbank liabilities of $70 billion; and foreign official assets (largely East Asian) increased by $90 billion froman inflow of $5 billion during the previous year.



A

1996

–100

Banking

–200

1998

Equities
2000

–200
2001

2002

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

The source of inflows to U.S. equity and “corporate” bond markets shifted over recent years (second
figure). Although the United Kingdom’s status as amajor financial hub for the European region dominates flows, a discernible shift is clear: from “other
Western Europe” (Euro Area) and Japan as centersof demand for U.S. securities to “other countries”(East Asia and Latin America). During 2000, theEuro Area accounted for 25 percent of total net
Net flows into U.S. private securities byregion of origin
Billions of dollars
450
400
350

Japan

Other countries
Shares %300
OtherWestern Europe

250

35%

200
17
5

150
100

United Kingdom
43

50
0
1996

1998

2000

2001

2002

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

(Box continues on next page)G L O B A L

Box 1.2

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S(continued)

foreign purchases, falling to 5 percent in 2002—alarge decline in relative demand for dollar-based assets, tending to boost the value of the euro; in contrast Japan’s share increased from 9 to 17 percent,while East Asia and Latin America almost doubled
their shares in purchases from 19 to 35 percent by
2002. Such a shift in the origin of funds may set thestage for future currency movements.
In looking ahead, the downshift in equity, persistence of large debt flows and dependence onvolatile official reserve assets for some 20 percent ofcoverage, and the fall of the U.S. dollar against theeuro, augur poorly for the inherent stability of financing in the short to medium terms. A “less thandemand (figure 1.9b). In looking forward, with
continued requirements for massive net inflows
of foreign capital, the U.S. income-accountdeficit is likely to widen, while terrorism-related
issues may continue for an extended period,pressuring U.S. services and net transfer positions. Yet assuming a gradual buildup of global

virtuous” circle may result, as sources of finance become less stable. Greater volatility may be imparted
to the dollar, leading in turn to higher and morevolatile interest rates. When combined with perceptions of a persistently growing current accountdeficit, the confidence of foreign investors in dollardenominated assets may be adversely affected.
Implications for the availability of finance fordeveloping countries also arise from the increasing
U.S. share of international capital flows. Although“crowding out” has yet to be in clear evidence, thepotential for it exists should deficits continue to rise.
The U.S. current account appears to have increased
as a source of financial risk for the global outlook.

economic activity, an expected improvement in
the goods balance should build, bringing about
medium-term stabilization of the deficit in dollar terms, declining as a proportion to GDP.
Member states of the Euro Area have struggled to cope with the requirements of theStability and Growth Pact of the Maastricht

Figure 1.9 (continued)b. The magnitude of the current account deficit is unprecedented for an early recovery phase of the cycle

Billions of dollars
Services/Income/Transfers

100



0

—100




—200

Merchandise

Current account balance

—300

—400

—500
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

13

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.10 Market interest rates have dropped
Benchmark U.S. and European interest rates, 2001–2003 (percent)7
6

U.S. 10-year


5

4


3
EURIBOR2

U.S. LIBOR

1
00

.
an

J

00

20

M

a

h
rc

20

M

ay

00

20

J

y
ul

00

20

0

S

00

.2

t
ep

N

.
ov

00

20

J

.
an

01

20

M

a

h
rc

01

20

M

ay

01

20

J

y
ul

01

20

1

00

.2

t
ep

S

N

.
ov

01

20

J

.
an

02

02

20

M

a

h
rc

20

M

ay

02

20

J

y
ul

2

02

20

S

00

.2

t
ep

N

.
ov

02

20

J

.
an

03

20

M

a

h
rc

03

03

20

M

ay

20

y
ul

03

20

J

Source: Datastream.

Treaty, which, to set a foundation for the single currency, limits fiscal deficits to 3 percent
of GDP and outstanding government debt levels to about two-thirds of GDP. During 2004
Italy is anticipated to join France, Germany,and Portugal in the group of countries thathave breached the 3 percent limit. The consolidated balance for the Euro Area has deteriorated by 1.5 points of GDP over the period
since early 2000, while that for Germany has
shifted markedly from a 1.1 percent surplus toa 3.8 percent deficit. For the latter, especially,
the tightening of policy to return to within thelimits by 2005–06 is inopportune because economic conditions have deteriorated sharply;
fiscal “austerity” only adds to these tendencies.
Japan’s fiscal stance continues to deteriorate, moving from a deficit of 6 percent of
GDP in 2000 to 7 percent during 2002. Although public-sector investment outlays associated with public works and other traditional
supplementary budget measures have been curtailed in recent years (falling by a cumulative
4.5 percent since 2000), more public monies
have been allocated to shoring up the banking
system and underpinning social safety nets

14

for those falling into unemployment. Japan’s
public-debt burden, however, at some 150
percent of GDP, against the background of a
rapidly aging demographic profile, suggeststhat a required movement toward balance incurrent budget terms will present considerable
challenges to policymakers.
In monetary policy, authorities in the industrial countries have been aggressive—more
so in the United States, less in Europe (figure1.10). While operating with effective policy
interest rates at zero, the Bank of Japan (BOJ)
has proposed a wide range of policy measures
aimed at easing the deflationary state of theeconomy. But evidence to date suggests thatlittle has been achieved in this area. Aggressive
easing of policy rates by the Federal Reserve,from 6.5 percent at end-2000 to 1 percent
at present, clearly supported consumer andhousing-related activity, though with little
apparent effect on business capital formation.
Consumption of durable goods, especially autos,
has found support from record low interest
rates. And mortgage refinancings have been
spurred to new highs, placing extra disposable
income into consumers’ pockets.

Deflation risk? After two decades of disinflation in high-income countries, set off in theearly 1980s by monetary tightening to curb
self-enforcing inflationary pressures, a spreadof deflation has become a real risk. While
Japan is experiencing its fourth consecutive
year of falling prices, core-CPI inflation fell to
1.7 percent in the Euro Area and eased to 1.5
percent in the United States in June (figure1.11). As these measures of inflation probably
overstate “true” inflation by 0.5–1 percentage
points, the world’s major economies could bebalanced on the edge of deflation.
Deflation need not be damaging if it reflects
gains from deregulation, technological advances and rapid productivity growth. Today,
the computer and telecoms revolution, alongwith globalization, is pushing down prices. Yet

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.11 Is deflation a danger for
Europe and the United States?
Core CPI measures, percent change, year-on-year
3.0

United States

2.5
2.0

Euro Area

The European Central Bank (ECB) has
adopted a more conservative approach to policy ease, given its central mandate of controlling inflation for the group of EMU countries.
The ECB repurchase rate has been lowered insteps from 4.75 percent in late 2000 to 2 percent at present. The rapid appreciation of theeuro has placed downward pressure on importprices, which eventually will compress prices
at the consumer level, thereby creating an opportunity for the ECB to lower interest rates
somewhat further. Policy in Japan has been
geared, first, to lifting the economy from its
deflationary state—which began in 1998 in theaftermath of the East Asian financial crisis andhas intensified since—and to redressing thetenuous conditions in the commercial banking
sector. Core consumer price inflation in Japan
has ranged between –0.5 and –1.5 percent over
2000–03, defying the BOJ’s attempts to support higher price levels through various measures. Broader money remains stagnant, as thedecline in commercial bank lending effectively
cancels intermediation through the economy.
By intervening in the non-performing loan
market (NPL), the BOJ now intends to expand
the number of channels available to inject liquidity into the system, while supporting workouts of bad loans. The challenges are daunting.

O U T L O O K

1.5
1.0


0.5
Germany
0.0
–0.5

Japan


G L O B A L

–1.0
–1.5
Jan.
2000

July Jan. July
2000 2001 2001

Jan. July
2001 2002

Jan. July
2003 2003

Source: Datastream.

deflation can be dangerous when it reflects demand shocks, such as the bursting of an asset
price bubble. These have the potential to set inmotion a downward spiral of falling prices, delayed consumption, and declining profits andproduction.
Monetary authorities should shift their focus more decisively, if they have not done soalready, from avoiding inflation to maintaining low inflation, fighting deflation as aggressively as they would high inflation. Asymmetric price targets and careful monitoring of
output gaps are important ingredients in sucha policy. Output gaps for the rich countries
turned negative as of 2001 and have widened
precipitously over the last two years (figure1.12). OECD estimates place the U.S. output
gap at 1.5 percent in 2002, rising to 2.1 percent during 2003. And the gap in Germany
is particularly severe, shifting by a full pointfrom 1.3 to 2.3.
However, as fiscal stimulus becomesquickly ineffective in the fight against stubborn underperformance, so, after time, canmonetary policy. Both fiscal and monetarystimulus may at some point become part of15

2 0 0 4

16

Figure 1.13 The dollar has fallen sharply
since early 2002
Euro and yen per USD and REER,
January 2002 = 100
105
REER

100

95

90


Yen per dollar

85



80

Euro cents per dollar

Source: JP Morgan Chase, Datastream.

03

3

20

00
.2

ay

ar
M

M

2

03

n.

20

00
Ja

N

ov

.2

.2

00

02

2

75

pt

the problem instead of the solution. High fiscal debt could curb a recovery, and low interest rates for too long could encourage theaccumulation of excessive debt that could increase debt service burdens once the economy
starts recovering again. To the extent that market participants position their balance sheetsaround the expectation of low rates for an extended period, then the risk of sudden, violent
movements in bond (and possibly currency)
markets increases, not unlike what happened
in 1993–94.
To avoid that underperformance, policies
that address the structural foundations of
economies become increasingly more important than macro stimulus. Such policies can
not only address specific inefficiencies, butalso provide a boost to confidence. A breakthrough in the Doha trade negotiations (seethe end of this chapter) is an example of such
structural improvements. Other examples are
the strengthening of corporative governance,
especially in the United States; labor and product market reforms in Europe; and decisive
elimination of bad loans in Japan.

Se

Source: OECD data and projections.

02

Japan

20

Germany

ly

Euro
Area

Ju

UnitedStates

2

–2.5

20

–2.0

ay

–1.5

M

–1.0

02



–0.5

00



0.0

.2

2002
2003

2001


0.5

Recent developments in foreign exchange
markets, reflecting an intensification of thedollar’s decline from early 2002 peaks, havecome to influence trends in OECD trade
growth and the pace of economic activity.
Over the period, the dollar has fallen by 12.5
percent on a real trade-weighted basis. But
the 25 percent fall of the dollar vis-à-vis the
euro—linked in part to diminishing European
demand for dollar-denominated financial assets—is especially of concern to the future
pace of growth in Europe (figure 1.13).
Euro-Area export prices expressed in dollar
terms rose by 2.5 percent during 2002, butwith the dollar’s rapid fall they are anticipatedto rise by nearly 12 percent in 2003. Growthof German and French exports fell sharply
to negative territory (10 percent decline) asof early 2003. While diminished impetus fromexports will detract from GDP advances, thestronger euro should imply a rise in real incomes, potentially supporting domestic demand. The 11 percent depreciation of the yen-

20

Deviation of actual from potential GDP as proportionof potential

The dollar’s fall means near-term pressure
on growth, medium-term benefitsarFigure 1.12 Output gaps are widening,
bringing deflationary pressures to bearn.

P R O S P E C T S

M

E C O N O M I CJa

G L O B A L

G L O B A L

dollar rate poses complications, in a manner
similar to Europe, for sustaining economic activity in Japan. Momentum underlying Japanese
exports plummeted from 35 percent growthduring spring 2002 to decline in early 2003,
tied to a sharp 35 percent fall-off in shipments
to the United States and slowing exports toAsia, from 45 to 3.5 percent rates. Authorities
have been active in market intervention to slow
the pace of dollar depreciation.
Ongoing realignment of currency values,
however, will carry medium-term benefits. Recent moves are in a balancing direction, as thestrength of the dollar over most of the 1990s
raised the question of overvaluation against alonger-term equilibrium rate for the currency
based on fundamental factors. The strong dollar contributed to the massive U.S. external
imbalance, but at the same time maintained
downward pressures on inflation, allowing
room for substantial interest rate reductions.
A medium term boost to U.S. competitivenessmay be expected, provided that the dollar stabilizes or moves only gradually. Still, prospects
for stabilization of the current account deficit
remain at some risk.

Expansion is likely by 2004
As additional impetus to growth from policy
action is anticipated to be small, recovery
among the rich countries will hinge on the effects of policy actions taken to date, and importantly, a restoration of confidence. The momentum of economic activity will likely build
over 2003, reaching more robust proportions
by 2004. Recovery should be paced by advances in the United States and by a return tostronger domestic demand in the emerging andhigh-income economies of East Asia. Revivalof growth in the Euro Area will be tortuous,
lagging that of the United States, and may findits focus in domestic rather than external demand. A lower dollar will help European consumers—as real incomes rise with lower inflation, and a virtuous cycle of stronger business
output and eventually more substantial increases in capital expenditure could emerge.

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

The risk of weaker growth is substantial, however, given deterioration of conditions in Germany. Short-to-medium-term growth in Japan
will be conditioned to a large degree by developments in export markets, especially inbroader East Asia; the competitiveness of theyen; and the success or failure of policy in mitigating the deep-seated problems in the banking system.
Some positive developments have become
apparent in the U.S. landscape. If sustained,
these developments may augur well for gradual
recovery. Since September 2002, consumer confidence has recovered moderately, while the
Dow Jones index has recouped some 20 percent of its value (figure 1.14a). Manufacturing
sentiment has improved and production risen,while sentiment for services has returned to its
early fall levels. A possible upturn in the hightech/semiconductor cycle has been underpinned
by near 30 percent gains in orders for computers and communications equipment. And theeffects of dollar depreciation may be coming
into evidence as export momentum breachedpositive territory with a 3 percent advance from
April to May. Yet the pace of consumer demandremains cloudy, and evidence for incipient recovery in capital spending is sketchy.
Against this background, the projections
posit a subdued 1.5 percent growth outturn in2003 for the high-income OECD countries,
marking a 0.1 point deterioration of growthfrom 2002, largely because of sluggish conditions in the United States and particularly
in Europe during the first half of the year. The
advance in aggregate GDP is anticipated to rise
to 2.5 percent by 2004—closer to long-term
averages—as momentum builds in U.S. investment and output growth achieves 3.4 percent
rates there. A revival in world trade toward 8
percent growth should help buoy performancein Europe and Japan. Interest rates will begin
to respond to improved economic prospects,
leading U.S. growth to taper off moderately
into 2005, while Europe and Japan continue toregister improvement, given the later start oftheir recoveries (figure 1.14b).

17

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.14 OECD recovery begins in the United Statesa. Signs of revival in the U.S. economy

Index: Sept. 2002 = 100
130

Latest

120
March 2003

110

Sept. 2002


100
90
80
70
60
Consumer confidence

Dow Jones

ISM
manufacturing

Computers andcommunications orders

Sources: Conference Board, Dow Jones, Institute for Supply Management, and U.S. Department of Commerce.

b. OECD recovery to build through 2004

Percent
3.5
3.0
2.5

2005


2004

2.0



1.5
2002

2003


1.0



0.5
0.0
OECD

United States

Japan

Euro Area

Source: World Bank, DECPG.

But downside risks have not disappeared
Some of the global uncertainties related tononeconomic events—the war in Iraq and
SARS—have eased, but have not completely
disappeared. Prospects for eventual stabilization and resolution of developments in the
Middle East remain uncertain, and the potential for adverse events remains, while SARS

18

will continue to present challenges to policymakers worldwide (box 1.4). However, these
uncertainties do not constitute the most serious risk to the global recovery. More important risks are to be found in the high-income
countries.
A noteworthy feature of current global
prospects is that many of the downside risks

G L O B A L

originate in high-income countries, and that astrong recovery is not predicted for any ofthese countries in the near term. The reboundin the investment cycle, which is crucial to theoverall recovery, remains uncertain. Althougheconomic and financial conditions—low interest rates, rising equity prices, improved corporate balance sheets, and increased profits—arefavorable for a recovery in investment, a lackof confidence could delay or even abort the rebound. Other risks are of a financial nature.
The weakening of the dollar has, until now,
been a movement toward equilibrium. But the
dollar’s fall is likely not enough to sustain
demand for dollar-denominated assets, as theburgeoning U.S. fiscal and current accountdeficits are likely to call for an additional $1.5
trillion in net foreign inflows over the period
through 2005. A further sharp fall in thedollar could destabilize the recovery in thehigh-income countries. Additional risk may
arise if vulnerabilities in the banking sectorof the main industrialized economies intensify
in response to deflationary pressures. Risks
in the high-income countries call for decisive
policy initiatives to improve the structure of
economies. Moreover, uncertainties surrounding the recovery in high-income countries
transmit to the international environment andto the medium-term outlook for developing
countries, implying that expected improvement
in developing-country growth should not betaken for granted.

The external environment fordeveloping countries: Gradualimprovement, but a bumpy
road aheadT

he external environment facing developing countries has been shaped by the setof recent developments in the rich countries aswell as expectations for OECD growth andimport demand. The evolution of trade prices,interest rates, and financial flows will play amajor role in determining external balances,while influencing reserves and liability man-O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

agement decisions in emerging markets. Overall, the environment of the last few years has
been a difficult one, but conditions should improve gradually through 2005 (table 1.3).
Although export market growth for developing countries chalked-up a meager 2.5 percent advance during 2002, export volumes forthe group accelerated from nil in 2001 to 7.7
percent in the year, implying substantial gains
in market share. As market growth rises toward
a 7–8 percent range by 2003–05, emergingmarket exports should continue to gain shareand expand at rates around 10 percent. Trade
prices bode well for improvement in export
revenues during 2003, with terms of trade anticipated to rise by 0.4 percent, but moderation in non-oil commodity prices and in oil
markets by 2004–05 should serve to dampen
initial gains.
Advanced market interest rates are expected to trough during 2003, to rise moderately in 2004, and return to long-term average
rates by 2005, a net increase of some 280 basis
points from current 1 percent levels of US$LIBOR, and 100 points for EURIBOR, as European growth fundamentals remain subdued
for a longer period. Meanwhile, there has been
sharp compression in average emerging-market spreads, and a continuation of that trend
would help keep the cost of capital for developing countries at moderate levels.
The near-term outlook for capital flows todeveloping countries is mixed, however, as continued restraint on the part of commercial
banks in extending new loans is offset by muchstronger trends in bond issuance. Gross capital
market flows are anticipated to rise by some 9
percent in 2003. But FDI flows in the current
economic and geopolitical environment, potentially exacerbated by the SARS epidemic in
China (the major recipient country), are anticipated to experience no growth during 2003—
an assessment that may prove somewhat optimistic. On balance, the outlook envisions anenvironment increasingly conducive for growth,
but a potentially bumpy road for policymakers
to navigate.

19

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 1.3

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The difficult environment for developing-country growth should improve

External factors affecting developing-country growth, 2001–05 (percent change, except as noted)
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

OECD import demand
Export market growth a
Developing export volume

–0.7
–0.2
1.1

1.7
2.5
7.7

4.1
6.8
10.0

6.3
8.0
10.9

6.7
7.7
9.7

Non-oil commodity prices
Oil price $/bbl
MUV b
Terms of trade

–9.1
24.4
–4.5
–0.7

5.1
24.9
–0.1
–1.1

6.9
26.5
4.0
0.4

1.1
22.0
–0.4
–1.5

1.5
20.0
1.5
–2.7

US LIBOREURIBOR
Emerging market spread (bp)

3.5
4.2
797

1.8
3.4
728

1.0
2.1
610

2.0
2.1
—

3.8
3.1
—

Financial flows ($ billion)
FDI inflow
Gross capital market flows
Equity placement
Bond financing
Bank lending

326
171
155
7
62
86

293
143
150
11
55
84

309
145
164
12
70
82

—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—

— Not available.
a. Import demand in partner markets.
b. Manufactures Unit Value index, expressed in U.S. dollars.
Source: World Bank data and projections.

World trade is growing more slowly than
expected in 2003, but fundamentals
suggest a buildup of momentum into 2004
A decidedly soft patch in trade momentum developed over the second half of 2002 andthrough early 2003. Demand was bogged
down by widespread weakness in the automotive, air travel, and technology sectors. And
slackening of domestic demand conditions in
the OECD countries compounded these trends.
European import demand went through sharp
compression: trade among EU member states
especially affected by recession-like conditions
on the Continent, and demand from outside theUnion falling rapidly as well. After a pick-up to
12 percent rates at year-end, U.S. import volumes retrenched to a decline of 5 percent byApril 2003—a pattern echoed by Japanese foreign demand—before rising again in May (figure 1.15). Against this background, following
an advance of 3 percent in 2002, estimates forworld trade growth in the current year havebeen marked down from 6.2 percent anticipated in spring 2003 projections to 4.6 percent.

20

A gradual advance in OECD industrial
production and investment, combined withsomewhat diminished strength in East Asian
intraregional trade, underpin the anticipated
recovery of trade volumes over the second halfof 2003 and into 2004. And the medium-term
outlook appears generally positive, as domestic demand in the rich countries, as well as
low-and-middle income countries, should eventually rise in response to substantial policy
stimulus. In contrast, the view for a revival of
trade related to the global semiconductor
cycle is uncertain at present. Sales may havereached a local peak, as unit shipments are
now close to 2000 levels, while prices arelikely to remain soft, reflecting the recent shiftof production toward developing East Asia.
East Asia has been generating strong trade
momentum on its own account, led by China.
Chinese nominal imports (excluding oil) havegrown at a compound rate of 12.2 percent
since 1995, with much of the demand being
met by regional producers. China’s share in themerchandise exports of East Asia (Indonesia,

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.15 OECD-area imports have declined sharply since April 2000
U.S. and EU growth of merchandise import values, 3 month moving average, saar
25

25



20



EU internal

20

Japan

United States


15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0


–5

–5

EU external

–10

–10

–15
Jan.
2000

–15
April
2000

July
2000

Oct.
2000

Jan.
2001

April
2001

July
2001

Oct.
2001

Jan.
2002

April
2002

July
2002

Oct.
2002

Jan.
2003

April
2003

Note: EU weighted intra- and outside-EU imports.
Sources: National agencies.

Republic of Korea, Taiwan (China), Malaysia,
Thailand) has doubled over the last two years
and quadrupled over the last ten (figure 1.16).

The dollar’s weakness may improvemerchandise trade balances fordeveloping countries
For exporters who sell at a markup to local
currency costs, dollar weakness implies higher
dollar revenues per unit sold. Over the last
two years developing countries’ export prices
have tended to grow at higher rates than thoseof high-income countries, yielding a cumulative improvement in the terms of trade. Yet,this development must be interpreted as a
double-edged sword, with much of the improvement explained by higher oil prices.
As a group, developing countries are net
energy exporters; but within the group there
are significant net importers, many of whichhave been experiencing deterioration in theirterms of trade. Indeed, two-thirds of developing countries, with GDP of $2.9 trillion (56percent of total developing-country GDP) andpopulation of 3.5 billion (75 percent of the developing world) are net energy importers. To a

Figure 1.16 China’s share of East Asian
exports keeps rising
Share in percent
20

15

10

5

0

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
Note: Chart shows Mainland China’s 3-month moving
average imports from Korea, Taiwan (China), Malaysia,
Thailand, and Indonesia as a percent of total exports ofgoods from these countries to all destinations. All data in
U.S. dollars for January of the respective year.
Source: Global Trends Team, national sources via
Datastream.

21

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Table 1.4 Developing countries’ exports will grow faster than those of the high-income
countries
Merchandise export volumes, 2001–05 (percent change)
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

World
High-income countries
OECD
United States
Japan
Euro Area
Other high income

–0.7
–1.2
–0.5
–5.9
–8.3
3.2
–6.8

3.2
2.1
1.5
–4.2
7.3
1.1
7.1

4.6
3.2
2.6
0.0
6.7
2.1
7.7

7.9
7.1
7.0
7.6
7.0
5.7
8.1

7.9
7.4
7.4
9.7
6.5
7.1
7.3

Developing countries
East Asia and Pacific
Latin America and Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
South Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa

1.1
–0.6
–1.2
4.9
2.1
5.0
2.5

7.7
15.5
2.6
6.3
–1.8
–0.2
1.2

10.0
14.5
7.9
8.5
5.4
4.2
2.7

10.9
13.7
11.4
8.7
7.7
5.5
5.4

9.7
11.4
10.4
8.5
8.2
5.2
5.7

Source: World Bank data and projections.

degree, the decline in terms of trade for net
energy importers may have been moderated
by price increases for non-oil commodities,
but much of the improvement in price has
been limited to a few products—among themcocoa, rubber, and coarse grains. True termsof-trade gains for this group are likely to wait
further softening in oil price and a firming
in non-oil prices associated with global economic recovery.
The medium-term outlook for developing
country exports is encouraging, given expected
growth in export markets, combined with
continuing pickup in market shares. East Asia
is likely to dominate developing country tradeflows over the forecast period, but better
performance is anticipated for Latin America,
Europe and Central Asia, and South Asia
(table 1.4).

The eventual return of Iraqi oil exports
will pressure OPEC and the oil price . . .
Oil prices averaged $31.3/bbl during the firstquarter of 2003. Fears of loss of oil supplies
from war in Iraq, low stocks, strong weatherrelated demand, and sharply reduced exports
from Venezuela all contributed to the pricehike. In response to the rise, supplies from22

other OPEC countries increased significantly.
Saudi Arabia raised output to more than
9mb/d to help offset the prevailing and potential shortfall, and other OPEC members outside Venezuela added more than 1mb/d. The
global oil price began falling shortly before the
Iraq war began, as traders did not want to becaught short as the conflict commenced, particularly if a release of strategic stocks were tocause prices to crash as they did at the start of
the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq’s oil infrastructure
was only minimally damaged during the war,and prices declined below $25/bbl during
April. But Iraqi exports did not resume shortly
after the war’s end, as widespread looting of oil
field equipment and of service industries that
supply the oil sector, such as electricity andwater, significantly delayed restart of production. Global crude oil inventories have remained persistently low, particularly in the
United States, as OPEC has well-managed salesof its surplus production into the market.
While U.S. imports have risen, continued tightness in physical markets has caused prices torebound to around $27/bbl as of mid-June
2003 (figure 1.17).
Conditions surrounding Iraqi oil exports
will likely be the most important drivers of oil

G L O B A L

Figure 1.17 The price of oil fell sharply
before the war in Iraq
Brent oil price $/bbl
March 20

April 9

35

33

31

29

27

25

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

tions to double or triple capacity, but such an
endeavor would take several years to achieve
and require substantial investment. Nevertheless higher capacity in Iraq, along with growing
capacity within other OPEC members and significant expansion outside OPEC, is expected
yield lower prices over the forecast period (box1.3). Large increases in non-OPEC supplies thatwill capture much of the expected moderate
growth in world oil demand are expected in thenext several years. A “high-side” risk to themedium-term outlook for the oil price is that
OPEC might exert stronger discipline to sustain
higher prices. Such a policy, however, would
raise incentives for non-OPEC producers tobring additional supplies to market.

03
3/
6/

03
2/
5/

03
2/
4/

03
3/
3/

3
/0
30
1/

12

/3

1/

02

23

Source: DECPG Commodities Group.

prices in the near term. Iraq’s production fordomestic needs resumed quickly after the war,
but export volumes were limited to pre-war
storage that was shipped in late June. Oil exports are scheduled to resume in the third
quarter of the year, but technical difficulties aswell as recent pipeline explosions will initiallyconstrain shipments to about 1mb/d. However,
the risk of further disruption is high, and it isunlikely that Iraq will achieve pre-war production levels of some 2.5mb/d during 2003. A
gradual return of exports should enable OPEC
to curtail production in a timely manner andkeep the oil price within its target band of$22–28/bbl during 2003, particularly given theextremely low level of global inventories. Difficulties for OPEC could deepen in 2004 when
Iraq’s exports are anticipated to reach pre-war
levels.
Initial investment in Iraq’s oil sector will focus on refurbishing and improving efficiency ofthe present infrastructure. Limited growth incapacity could occur in 2004, but production is
not expected to rise significantly above pre-war
levels until 2005 and beyond. There are sugges-

But the dollar’s decline and supply-side
conditions outweigh the effects of the Iraq
war on non-oil prices
Non-oil commodity prices have patently been
affected by the war in Iraq—through increased
freight costs, a buildup of inventories prior to
the war, and the continuing reduction of stocks
in the wake of military engagement. In addition, the war generally dampened consumer
and industrial demand. Other factors, however, have been more important in influencing
recent commodity price trends—among them
the weakening of the dollar, supply conditionsin individual commodities, and extremely depressed levels of some commodity prices before the recent recovery. The index of non-oil
commodity prices rose 5.1 percent in 2002
after having declined by a cumulative 33 percent from 1997 to 2001. Prices are anticipatedto increase an additional 7 percent during 2003
and advance at a modest 1 percent per year for
the following three years. But even after recovery in 2003, nominal prices will remain well
below their peaks of the mid-1990s.

The recovery in agriculture prices
is expected to be modest
The index of nominal agricultural prices rose
8.5 percent in 2002. It is projected to increaseby 7 percent in 2003 and by a more modest 1
percent per year for the next three years. The

23

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 1.3 OPEC struggles to achieve higher prices
amid growing supply competitioncompetition and below-trend demand growth, and toil markets suffered minimal disruption as a refall below $20/bbl by mid-decade. By 2006–07, sigsult of the Iraqi conflict, as other OPEC producnificant new supplies from West Africa, the Caspian,ers, particularly Saudi Arabia, raised production in
Russia, deepwater-areas of the Atlantic basin, andanticipation of reduced Iraqi output and to replaceelsewhere are expected to come on stream and, couVenezuelan exports. Oil prices peaked at $34.2/bbl
pled with rising capacity within OPEC, exert severe
just before the conflict commenced but quickly fell
downward pressure on prices. A risk to the forecast
below $25/bbl. Oil stocks have stayed persistentlyis that OPEC could maintain strong production discilow and prices have since recovered.
pline over the next few years to keep prices at or
Oil prices have been extremely volatile during
above $25/bbl. To achieve this goal, however, thethe last few years, largely because of fluctuations in
OPEC production. Beginning in 2000,
OPEC has targeted a price band of$22–$28/bbl for its basket of crude. By
Before and during war in Iraq, OPEC raised production
and large the organization has been sucand quotas
cessful. With the exception of the postMillions of barrels per day, January 1996–July 2003
September 11th slump, oil prices have30
averaged about $27/bbl since late 1999.
29
OPEC including Iraq
OPEC-10
This compares with an average price of
28
about $17.6/bbl over the 1986–99 period
27
when OPEC was mainly concerned with26
regaining market share.
25
OPEC’s new strategy is to keep inOPEC-10 Quota
24
ventories low and prices high, but doing23
so requires it to both raise and lower
production during the year because of22
the seasonal pattern of oil consumption.
21
Typically the industry builds stocks in theJan. 1996 Jan. 1997 Jan. 1998 Jan. 1999 Jan. 2000 Jan. 2001 Jan. 2002 Jan. 2003
summer for use during the peak-demand
Sources: IEA and DECPG Commodities Group.
winter season. However, it is difficult toprecisely anticipate demand and supply
three to six months forward, and this cancartel would have to yield market share for higher
result in large imbalances and volatile prices.
prices. High prices would add to the growing presAchieving higher prices has been countersures on world demand and competing supplies. In
balanced by loss of OPEC’s market share. In recent
the end, it is probable that prices would still fall
years virtually all of the modest growth in world oil
below $20/bbl within a few years.
demand (less than 1 percent annually from 1997 to
In the longer term, demand growth will be mod2002) has been captured by non-OPEC producers—
erate, as it has been for the past 20 years, but new
and much by the former Soviet Union. For OPEC 10
technologies, environmental pressures, and govern(excluding Iraq), its crude oil production as a sharement policies could further reduce growth. Pricesof total world supply fell from 35 percent in 1996–97
below $20/bbl are sufficiently high to generate adeto 30 percent in 2002. Continued high oil prices willquate development of conventional and unconvendampen future demand growth and, more importantly,
tional oil supplies, and there are no apparent restimulate development of non-OPEC supplies. Risingsource constraints far into the future. In addition,
capacity within OPEC, desires for higher quotas (Algenew areas continue to be developed (for example,
ria and Nigeria), and a recovery of Iraq’s exports could
deep-water offshore sites and the Caspian Sea), andstrain OPEC’s efforts to support higher prices.
development costs continue to fall because of new
Oil prices are expected to decline from $26.5/bbl
technologies, shifting supply curves outward.
in 2003 to $22/bbl in 2004 because of rising supply

O







24

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.18 Agricultural prices have begun to decline as crop prospects improve
Prices in US$, indices May 2001 = 100
130.0
Beverages


122.5

115.0


Food

107.5



100.0

92.5

Raw materials

85.0
May 2001

Aug. 2001

Nov. 2001

Feb. 2002

May 2002

Aug. 2002

Nov. 2002

Feb. 2003

May 2003

Source: DECPG Commodities Group.

advance in 2003 is driven primarily by the recovery of coffee, rubber, and vegetable oil
prices after severe declines from 1997 to 2001.
Most other agricultural commodity prices are
expected to show only modest gains, however,
because of high stock levels, excess production
capacity, and slow demand growth associatedwith the modest recovery of global economic
activity. Sharp increases in wheat prices at mid2002 were quickly reversed as supply conditions in the United States improved and nontraditional exporters—Ukraine and Russia—
increased international shipments. Other commodities, such as coffee and sugar, are burdened by large stock overhang; price increases
are not anticipated despite historically low levels (figure 1.18).
Metals prices have undergone rallies overthe past years but have faltered—mainly because of renewed expectations of weak demand. Recently, worries about the impact of
the SARS virus on East Asian demand has also
taken the luster out of metals prices. Inventories remain high for most metals and most markets are expected to remain in surplus this year.
Nickel is the exception; stocks are low, there
has been strong demand for stainless steel—

especially in China—and prices have risen
quite sharply. Gold also posted higher prices
tied to reduced producer hedging and concerns
about U.S. equity markets and the dollar. Although production cutbacks have been madefor most metals, idle capacity will haunt themarket even after the anticipated recovery indemand is finally underway. Metals prices are
expected to increase by about 6 percent per
year for the next two years, after decreasing by
about 3 percent in 2002. Copper, the most balanced market among base metals, could tilt
into deficit next year along with nickel. Other
metals are expected to remain in surplus for alonger period, unless further production cuts
occur, and prices are likely to lag behind that ofcopper during the recovery.

Financial markets have shown
some surprises
The divergence between the sharp rally in developing countries’ fixed-income asset prices
and the fairly tepid capital flows in response to
those prices has been the hallmark of marketbased financing during early 2003. This development was not expected at the start of theyear (see World Bank 2003). While asset prices

25

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4have evolved along expected trends—thoughmore sharply and swiftly than anticipated—advances in gross capital flows have been
lower than expected—and lower than warranted by the spectacular pickup in market
prices.
The rally in developing-country debt pricesthat commenced in fall 2002, once concerns
over elections in Brazil and Turkey had faded,
gained momentum through mid-2003. As investors pursued yields higher than those in industrialized countries, the availability of capital for investment in developing-country debt
increased swiftly, outpacing demand for debt
financing from developing-country borrowers.
The outcome was not new volumes of financing but a sharp adjustment in benchmark
prices. These dynamics played out differently
than they have since the late 1990s, when low
industrial-country yields failed to promote a
surge in availability of capital for developing
countries (because investors were focusing moreon credit risk than returns).
Benchmark spreads on emerging markets
dropped from a peak of 869 basis points in September 2002 to 500 basis points by mid-year,

the lowest level since 1998 (figure 1.19). The
decline in spreads for several countries that had
attracted investor concern was more spectacular. Benchmark spreads for Brazil, Argentina,
and Uruguay declined by 1,700, 1,300, and700 basis points, respectively over the period.
Spreads on Turkish debt, which had escalated
to 1,100 basis points by end-March 2003,
dropped close to 700 basis points by mid-May.
Gains in fixed-income prices stand out moreclearly when benchmarked against the volatility and performance of global equity markets,
which returned, on average, barely any gains
between October and mid-May, even when taking into account the fall of the U.S. dollar.
Despite the narrowing of benchmark
spreads, gross market-based capital flows todeveloping countries lost some ground during
the early months of 2003 after musteringstrength late in 2002 (figure 1.20). During thefirst quarter, capital flows slumped to $34 billion, down about 14 percent over fourthquarter levels. After a strong start to the year,
flows eased in February and dropped further inMarch. But a revival in both bond issuanceand banking lending during April–May brought

Figure 1.19 Emerging-market spreads rallied sharply after late 2002
Basis points
Brazil [right scale]

2,500



1,400

1,200
2,000
1,000
1,500
800



All emerging markets [left scale]

1,000

600

1/
2/
1/ 02
22
/0
2/ 2
11
/0
3/ 2
3/
3/ 02
23
/0
4/ 2
12
/0
5/ 2
2/
5/ 02
22
/
6/ 02
11
/0
7/ 2
1/
0
7/ 2
21
/0
8/ 2
10
/
8/ 02
30
/
9/ 02
19
/
10 02
/9
10 /02/2
9
11 /02/1
8
12 /02/8
12 /02
/2
8/
1/ 02
17
/0
3
2/
6/
0
2/ 3
26
/
3/ 03
18
/0
4/ 3
7/
0
4/ 3
27
/0
3

400

Source: World Bank, DECPG Finance Team.

26

500

G L O B A L

Figure 1.20 Bond issuance dominates
capital market flows in 2003
Billions of dollars, monthly averages
14

Banking

Bonds
Equities

12





10
8
6
4


2
0
2002 Q1

Q2

Source: World Bank data.

Q3

Q4

2003 Q1 AprilMay

flows to a rate of $40 billion, comparable
to the patterns established during the second
quarter of 2002. The ups and downs in overall capital flows were led by bond financing,which is sensitive to short-run developments. A
noteworthy feature in bond financing was theeasing of access for Latin American borrowers
compared with 2002. Brazil was able to cometo the market with a $1 billion issue after being
absent for a year. However, the major portionof bond issuance from Latin America has beenaccounted for by investment-grade-rated countries. Contrasted with 2002 outturns, bank lending to developing countries has remained subdued, with monthly lending standing some 20
percent below comparable 2002 levels, as banksof almost all domiciles have been slow in extending credit to developing countries.
Market-based capital flows to developing
countries have so far performed below the estimates set out for 2003 earlier this year, by
about $2 billion a month on average. The subdued response of capital flows to the strong
performance of asset prices can be traced toseveral factors: (a) uncertainty in the runup to
the Iraq war, (b) renewed concerns over thestrength of the economic recovery, and (c) in-

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

creased volatility in financial markets during
the early months of 2003. Many borrowers
avoided or postponed borrowing.
The demand for external debt financing by
developing countries remained limited, as
many (especially in East Asia) have learned tolive with less debt, while others are being kept
in check even though financing conditions
have eased relative to 2002. Capital flows
could strengthen during the remainder of 2003.
Borrowers may (a) take advantage of favorable
financing conditions and move up their financing targets; (b) establish benchmarks for the
purpose of setting favorable pricing in the future, or (c) undertake liability management,
given the improvement in terms of borrowing over terms on previously contracted debt.
Novel aspects of financing are already being
encouraged. Mexico arranged a $2 billionbank loan to retire some of its Brady debt.
And bond issues with collective action clauses
have swiftly become more acceptable with relatively little or no premium. Mexico, Brazil,
and South Africa issued bonds with such
clauses between March and April.
The stimulus to developing-country capital
flows from low industrial-country yields could
persist over the short-to-medium terms, asyields in the G-3 countries are unlikely to rise
sharply and swiftly even if they do turn thecorner. Barring major fallout, investors may
continue to grow less risk averse. Most of thevulnerabilities in emerging-market economies
and in high-yield industrial-country markets
have been exposed and have evolved throughchanges in market prices. Substantial fallout
from the troubled Latin American borrowers
was largely avoided. Foreign exchange reserve
positions of developing countries in general
are holding steady, and their dependency on
external debt is falling. Vulnerability to adverse external shocks appears to have been reduced from the high levels of the last two
years, and flexible exchange rates have helpedin this area. And for several countries, themacroeconomic implications of accession to
the European Union have vastly improved
credit risk perceptions.

27

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The developing countries: Back on
track toward growth?

Developing countries appear poised for
growth to resume at more rapid rates. Despite continuing geopolitical uncertainties andsubdued conditions in the rich countries atpresent, developments in several areas are converging to support the expectation of a step-up
in output growth. Should conditions in theexternal environment improve as expected overthe next years, countries should have the opportunity to advance export-market sharesand grow export volumes at more robust rates.
International financial markets have become
more accessible to developing countries, andcompression of spreads has reduced the cost ofraising capital. International reserves haverisen to record proportions, especially in developing East Asia, providing a degree of cushioning against potential vagaries in global financial markets.

Developing-country fundamentals
are improving
On the domestic front, fiscal positions havegenerally improved across developing regions,allowing a degree of stimulus to be undertaken
to bolster domestic demand, and prospectively,
more can be achieved here. While industrial
production supporting both external and internal demand growth is currently mixed acrossregions, the seeds of firmer recovery appear tobe fairly widespread. Inflation is moderating,and this trend should be enhanced as the oil
price moves downward over the next years—
and for several countries, currency appreciation will abet improved inflation performance.
Finally, recent political and financial difficulties in Latin America appear to have moderated, though uncertainties persist. In contrast,
developments in the Middle East and North
Africa region (MENA) remain unsettled in theaftermath of conflict, and heightened uncertainty and risk aversion among exporters, investors, and tourists is likely to affect growth
for the countries of the region for some time.
Recent trends in industrial production highlight the current mixed picture across key re-28

gions, to a large degree, integrated with ongoing global developments. For developing
countries as a group, output has recovered to 7
percent year-over-year rates from troughs experienced in early 2002 (figure 1.21a). The
MENA region, which accounts for some 9 percent of developing-country value added, has enjoyed a 15 percent surge in crude petroleum
and other energy production, as OPEC members have exceeded quota levels in expectationof the loss of Iraqi output. In contrast, some underlying influences of SARS may be discernedin drooping production figures for the East
Asia and Pacific region (EAP), though otherfactors, including the slowdown of world tradeand poor conditions in high-tech markets, arelikely the more important elements at work.
Latin America, meanwhile, is building on revitalization of output in Argentina, and earlier
in Brazil and Mexico, but activity in the lattercountries appears to have eased recently. Europe and Central Asia (ECA) has benefited
from Turkey’s dramatic recovery from its financial crisis of 2001, while hydrocarbon exporters in the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), including Russia, have ramped up
oil and gas production to fill part of the gap leftby loss of Iraqi crude oil. As some of the nearterm distortions to production dissipate—the
recovery now underway for low- and middleincome countries should firm and broaden overthe coming quarters and into 2004.
Inflation has moderated for developing
countries as a group, from recent peaks of 5.5
percent as of mid-2001 toward a 3 percent
year-over-year pace at present (figure 1.21b).
Improvement has been spearheaded by developments in the EAP region, where tendencies
toward deflation in China (largely productivity driven), and easing of price pressures inmost ASEAN countries have yielded a reduction of 3 percentage points in annual inflation,from 5 toward 2 percent rates. And developments in the ECA region have been quite
promising as well, with a 4 point fall in CPI
over the like period, from 6 to 2 percent, reflecting improvement in Turkey, Russia, andmany of the countries of Central Europe. In-

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.21a Regional trends in industrial production are mixed
IP, 3-month/3-month, percent change, year/year
16.0
East Asia

12.0

Europe andCentral Asia

8.0


4.0



Latin America

–4.0



All developing0Middle Eastand North Africa
–8.0
Jan.
2000

April
2000

July
2000

Oct.
2000

Jan.
2001

April
2001

July
2001

Oct.
2001

Jan.
2002

April
2002

July
2002

Oct.
2002

Jan.
2003

April
2003

Oct.
2002

Jan.
2003

Sources: National agencies.

Figure 1.21b Inflation is moderating in the developing world
Consumer price index, percent change, year/year
5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5
Jan.
2000

April
2000

July
2000

Oct.
2000

Jan.
2001

April
2001

July
2001

Oct.
2001

Jan.
2002

April
2002

July
2002

Note: GDP weighted growth.
Source: National Agencies.

flation remains at moderate 3 percent rates
in South Asia (SA), but has re-accelerated in
Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, reflecting earlier currency devaluations in theformer region, and adverse fiscal conditions
and large-scale currency decline in several
large African states.

The fall of the dollar vis-à-vis partner currencies has affected more than the cross-rates
for the euro, yen, or sterling. Since October
2002, the brunt of dollar depreciation has
fallen upon several Latin American currencies,
importantly the Brazilian real and Argentine
peso (20–25 percent appreciation), reflecting29

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.21c Major currencies in Latin
America and East Asia are firming up
Dollar depreciation against major currencies since
October 2002, percent change
–0

–5

–10

–15

–20

S$
W
on
NT
$
K

C
St $
er
lin
g
Ye
n
Ba
h
Ro t
ub
le

Br
Re
Ar al
Pe
so
Eu
ro

–25

Source: Datastream.

in part strong rallies in financial markets in
those countries, along with sharply narrowing
spreads on benchmark bonds and fixedincome funds (figure 1.21c). Several East
Asian currencies have also appreciated more
moderately against the U.S. unit—notably theThai baht and Korean won, while the Russianrouble has risen in like proportion. Currency
appreciation in Latin America is likely to deliver mixed results: while serving to dampen
export prospects—an important vehicle for
economic recovery—appreciation will help toreduce inflationary tendencies in both Argentina and Brazil, providing room for neededinterest rate reductions and a stronger foundation for domestic growth.

Growth should pick up across regions
during 2004–05
Over the last years, GDP growth for the developing and transition countries has undergone dramatic shifts and suffered volatility
associated with global business-cycle developments, as during the recessions of the early
1980s and 1990s. Several region-specific crises

30

and transformations also have induced sharp
variations in aggregate growth—among themthe Latin debt crisis of the early 1980s, theperiod of recession associated with transitionin the former COMECON countries during
the early 1990s, the East Asian financial crisis of 1997–98, and the Russian devaluationof 1999 (figure 1.22). The global downturnof 2001 exacted a toll on developing country growth, but the deceleration of output has
been much less dramatic than in earlier
episodes.
In the base-case projections, developingcountry growth is expected to reaccelerate inall regions from the relatively sluggish performance of 2001–02 to an average GDP advance of 4 percent during 2003, reaching
about 5 percent growth by 2004–05, consistent with previous peaks in 2000 and 1996–97(figure 1.22). Latin America is expected to see
the most substantial gain, as the region consolidates following the Argentine crisis. A return to stronger growth in India powers theSouth Asia region, while more moderate gains
are achieved in Europe and Central Asia—
tracking the slower pace of revival in EU activity. The pickup in growth will be lower
in the Middle East and North Africa, where
uncertainty regarding the regional politicaland economic situation is likely to persist, andin Sub-Saharan Africa, where only moderate
gains in commodity prices and sluggish European growth play a role (figure 1.23).

SARS carries some adverse economic
affects for the East Asian economy
The East Asia and Pacific region was able toovercome a retrenchment in world trade, asluggish high-tech sector, geopolitical uncertainty, and soaring oil prices in 2002 to register
solid 6.7 percent growth (figure 1.24). China
and Vietnam, at 8 percent and 6 percent respectively, were the engines of the regional
economy, as exports spilled over into domestic
demand and generated strong demands for intermediate imports from other countries in theregion, including Korea, Thailand, Malaysia,
and the Philippines. The main exceptions to theG L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.22 Developing countries are on track toward long-term growth
GDP growth, percent per annum, 1981–2005
5

4
Trend

Early 1980s
debt crisis

32001 global
downturn
2
East Asia
financial crisis
1
1990s recession
transition countries

05

04

20

03

20

02

20

01

20

00

20

99

20

98

19

97

19

96

19

95

19

94

19

93

19

92

19

91

19

90

19

89

19

88

19

87

19

86

19

85

19

84

19

83

19

82

19

19

19

81

0

Source: World Bank data and projections.

Figure 1.23 Growth rates in developing
countries will rise through 2005
GDP growth, 2001–02 and 2003–05 (percent)
All Developing
East Asia
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Europe andCentral Asia
South Asia

2001–02

Middle Eastand North Africa

2003–05
Africa
–1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Source: World Bank Development Prospects Group.

buoyant performance were Hong Kong (China)
and Singapore, which failed to capitalize onburgeoning intraregional trade, and Indonesia.
Growth in East Asia is expected to slow by
more than half a percent to 6.1 percent in

2003, in part because of the outbreak of SARS
centered in China and Hong Kong. According to favorable World Bank estimates, SARS
may subtract about 0.5 percent from regional
growth during 2003 through its effects on
travel, tourism, and domestic consumption andinvestment (box 1.4). Some countries are likely
to be more affected than others—because ofhigh tourism shares in GDP or their importance as hubs of international trade. In Hong
Kong (China) and Singapore, growth may dropby several percentage points from 2002 results.
Meanwhile, growth in the Philippines is expected to ease because of consolidation of government finance, and Indonesia is vulnerable toa fall in confidence, especially in conjunction
with high levels of household debt.
Though near-term prospects are muted,
longer-term performance is expected to remain strong. In 2004, growth is expected toreach 6.7 percent based on a quick containment of the SARS epidemic, together with recovery in industrial countries and an upturn inthe high-tech cycle. By 2005, the EAP region is
expected to return to a long-term trend rate ofoutput growth of around 6.5 percent.

31

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.24 Before the SARS outbreak,East Asian* GDP was growing robustly
GDP growth, percent change, Q/Q saar
9.0

6.0

3.0

4
Q

3
20

02

Q

2
20

02

Q

1
20

02

Q

4
20

02

Q

3
20

01

Q

2
Q

01
20

01
20

20

01

Q

1

0.0

*Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand.
Source: Aggregation from national agencies.

Latin America shows signsof renewed recovery
Latin America showed increasing evidence ofa recovery during 2003, after growth fell to–0.8 percent in 2002. In fact, the negative
growth performance for 2002 results exclusively from severe contractions in Argentina,
Uruguay, and Venezuela; and a regional average excluding these countries registers positive
growth of 1.6 percent, underscoring that contagion had been limited. Industrial production
returned to positive growth during the fourth
quarter of 2002, up 5.6 percent, underpinned
by gains in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil (figure1.25). Falling yield spreads confirmed the impression of an improvement in financial health.
In Brazil, for example, spreads declined from apeak of 2,067 basis points in October 2002
to 754 basis points by April 2003, as risk aversion eased among global investors. Though
capital flows, especially bank lending, to Latin
America and the Caribbean remain weak, thestrengthening of several local currencies against
the dollar (Argentine peso, Brazilian real,
Chilean and Mexican pesos) has occurred in

32parallel with improving investor sentiment regarding local equity and fixed-income markets.
Though still dependent on an accommodatingexternal environment, threats of financial
crises and attendant spillovers appear to havereceded.
In Brazil, President Lula da Silva’s commitment to balanced macroeconomic policies hashelped to restore confidence, and has alreadyfacilitated access to international finance, while
additional support from the International
Monetary Fund should be forthcoming. Meanwhile, rising consumer confidence and receding
unemployment in Argentina indicate a growing
consensus that the worst may be over. Yet inflation risks persist, and the credibility of economic policy will need to be established by the
new president. Both countries continue to face
the challenges of supporting growth in the context of tight constraints to fiscal and monetary
policy. In contrast, the Republica Bolivariana
de Venezuela restarted its oil exports following
a strike-induced shut-in lasting some 60 days.
But, there the political crisis appears to be
unresolved and macroeconomic performancecontinues to suffer, with GDP declining by 9
percent in 2002 and forecasted to fall 14 percent for 2003. Peru’s performance has been remarkable for 2002 and prospects for 2003 arestill favorable, but recent political turmoil will
potentially be a drag on growth and raise public deficits. Recent political unrest in Bolivia
also had damaging repercussions, and in the
Dominican Republic a massive bank fraud triggered the collapse of the second-largest financial institution, with potentially heavy financial
and economic costs.
Given the extent of recent difficulties andremaining uncertainties, near-term growthprospects remain subdued. However, thelonger-term outlook is more optimistic. Multilateral trade agreements and regional marketopening initiatives in the European Union (EU)and U.S. markets bode well for external performance. Exports are diversifying into areas
such as tourism and other services. Macroeconomic stability and commitment to soundG L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Box 1.4 Economic effects of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS)

W

hile the threat of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS)—a virus that spreads easily
and has no known antidote—has shaken China,
Canada, and the world at large, the spread of theoutbreak has stopped and public panic has largely
subsided. The outbreak seems to have been brought
under control as a result of stringent public healthmeasures in the affected countries, though there may
also be a seasonal component to the disease. The economic impact should thus be concentrated in the second quarter of 2003, and is expected to be largely
limited to the East Asia region, with a relatively small
impact on global growth. As of end-June 2003, it isestimated that SARS had infected 8,450 people in 32
countries and to have killed over 800 people.
Short-term economic activity—particularly in‘face-to-face’ exchanges such as in the retail sector—
slowed in the most affected countries. Overall, theeconomic impact was largely transmitted through aggregate demand, but also to a lesser extent throughsupply mechanisms. Tourism and trade-related services declined as people became less willing to travel

to areas where there were SARS outbreaks. The airline industry was hit especially hard, as the SARS
virus came at an already difficult time, following the
September 11 attack and the war in Iraq, which already diminished vacation travel, in particular, butalso corporate travel, given sluggish world growth.
Manufacturing trade was also affected. Internationalfirms with production lines in affected countries suffered some interruptions to production because ofrestrictions on travel. Some (temporary) substitutions
may have been made; however, sustained losses inmarket share are unlikely. Finally, the SARS outbreaktemporarily depressed consumer and business confidence in the countries most affected, but containment of the outbreak should result in a quick returnto pre-SARS confidence levels. The macroeconomic
policy response to the outbreak is expected to be
most evident in increased fiscal outlays throughtransfers and tax breaks, in addition to increased
health care expenditures to respond to the outbreak.
Source: World Bank staff.

Figure 1.25 Argentina, Brazil, and Chile see strong upturn in production
IP, 3-month/3-month, percentage change, year/year
15

15

10

Argentina [right scale]


10

5

Brazil


Chile

0



–5

5

–10
–15


Latin America



0

–20

Venezuela [right scale]–52000 Q2

2000 Q4

2001 Q2

2001 Q4

2002 Q2

2002 Q4–25

2003 Q2

Sources: National agencies.

33

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4fiscal and monetary policies are becoming thenorm and already yielding benefits in the formof less costly international borrowing and morerobust domestic financial markets.

Figure 1.26 Growth will cool in CIS while
picking up in Central and Eastern Europe
GDP growth, percent per annum
10.0

34





7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0



Europe and Central Asia

–2.5
Commonwealth of
Independent States

–5.0

05

04

20

20

02

03
20

01

20

00

20

20

99

98

19

97

19

96

19

95

–7.5
19

Output expanded by 4.6 percent in the ECA region during 2002, primarily resulting from thestrength of domestic demand, which more thanoffset lackluster growth in the region’s main
export markets. A number of economies enjoyed a pickup in growth during the year
(Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak
Republic, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia), though excluding Turkey activity was marked down about half a point to
3.9 percent. Output in the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) eased to 4.7 percent
growth in 2002, from robust 5.8 percent outturns of 2001, and from the spike in growth of
8.4 percent posted in 2000. The critical factor
in this development was erosion of stimulus to
the Russian economy stemming from the rouble devaluation of 1998 and the rents fromstrong energy prices. In turn, diminished import demand from Russia—representing an important export market for the remaining CIS
countries—contributed to the slowdown for
the rest of the group. Activity in the Central
and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), excluding Turkey, was unchanged in 2002 relative to 2001, at 2.9 percent. Including Turkey,
growth averaged 4.5 percent for the group, a
sharp upswing from contraction of 0.8 percent
in 2001, reflecting a 7.8 percent recovery enjoyed by Turkey in 2002. For the CEECs, domestic demand was spurred by fiscal policy(Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia,
Slovakia) and/or easing of monetary policy(Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania).
Aggregate growth for the region is anticipated to slow moderately to 4.3 percent in
2003, as a return to more modest advances in
Turkey, under the burden of required fiscal
consolidation and related issues, will carrysome weight (figure 1.26). Among the CEECs,

Central Asia
Central/Eastern
Europe19

The outlook for Europe and Central Asia
is mixed: greater EU demand, but flagging
oil prices

Source: World Bank data and projections.

excluding Turkey, growth in 2003 is projected
to ramp-up moderately (by 0.5 points) as a result of three factors: a gradual recovery toward year-end in the EU, the group’s main export market; notable acceleration of growth in
Poland (representing about 13 percent of theregion’s GDP); and expected improvement ingrowth performance in the Czech Republic,
Slovenia, and Albania. An expected boost
to consumer confidence is likely because of
progress in the EU accession process.2 Growthis projected to strengthen slightly among the
CIS countries in 2003, as domestic demandhas begun to firm in Russia, which in turnshould support growth in other CIS countries
dependent on Russia’s import demand. ECA
regional growth is expected to accelerate to
4.5 percent in 2004 and then to slow to 4.1
percent in 2005, reflecting divergent trends atthe sub-regional level. Growth in the CEEC
sub-region (including Turkey) is likely to accelerate from 3.5 in 2003 to 4.3 and 4.7 percent in 2004 and 2005, respectively, in part
because of firming of external demand andsignificant inflows of FDI to new EU mem-

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

bers, in addition to EU transfers. Growth islikely to slow in the CIS from 5.3 percent
in 2003 to 4.6 and 3.4 percent in 2004 and2005, respectively, assuming a substantial fallin the oil price in both 2004 and 2005 and a
decline in growth impetus through fiscal linkages, especially in Russia.

The war in Iraq and its aftermath
are the key factors for the Middle Eastand North Africa region
The buildup to the war in Iraq and its aftermath have dominated events in the Middle
East and North Africa region over the past
year. The developments were, on balance, positive for oil exporters. The oil price surged,
peaking at $38/bbl, and production quotas
were raised in early 2003 (figure 1.27). Buoyant oil revenues boosted economic performance by supporting higher fiscal expenditures. Elsewhere in the region, however,tourism and trade, not fully recovered from theeffects of September 11, 2001, were further
battered by the prospect of conflict in Iraq. The
most affected countries were those closest to
the conflict. Tourism in Jordan and Egypt wasseriously affected; for Jordan, where tourism
accounts for some 10 percent of GDP, the con-

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

sequences were particularly adverse. For Egypt,lower non-oil trade also affected revenues fromthe Suez Canal.
Short-term prospects for the region will be
conditioned by political resolution in postconflict Iraq. Uncertainties over the future of
the country, with respect to governance, aidflows, and reconstruction, will continue to affect the region for some time. Nevertheless,growth should accelerate somewhat during
2003. The oil-exporting countries are expected
to grow more quickly in 2003 as a result offiscal pump priming and increased oil production quotas. For the diversified exporters,
particularly Jordan and Egypt, a gradual recovery in tourism and other sectors affected by
the conflict could unfold in the second halfof 2003, but such recovery would be fragile.
Other factors, not directly associated with recent developments in Iraq, will shape the nearterm outlook. Egypt is suffering from a periodof extended weakness in the domestic sector,
and despite reforms to the exchange rate regime earlier in 2003, growth expectations forthe year have dimmed as private investment
remains subdued. Moroccan agriculture will
provide a substantial boost to output in 2003
following the severe drought in that country. A

Figure 1.27 Middle East oil production has increased to prevent shortages
Oil prices, and production three-month moving average, percent change, year/year30

32

Oil price, 3mma [right scale]


25

30

20
28
15
26

10


5

24

0
22

Algeria production[left scale]–5Saudi Arabia production[left scale]

–10

18

–15
Jan. 2000

20

June 2000

Nov. 2000

April 2001

Sept. 2001

Feb. 2002

July 2002

Dec. 2002

May 2003

Source: World Bank data.

35

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4similar situation exists in Tunisia, where agricultural output fell by an estimated 11 percent
during 2002.
The economic consequences of the conflictin Iraq will play out through its impacts on
confidence and investment spending. A protracted process of reconstruction could exacerbate these problems. A downward trend in
the oil price presents a further risk. With sluggish growth in world demand, oil prices could
trend lower than anticipated, cutting exporters’ incomes and putting fiscal expenditure programs at risk. Moreover, further political instability in the tense environs of theregion cannot be ruled out, a developmentthat would hamper investment and growth foran extended period of time.

A stronger external environment, upswing
in agricultural cycle, should boost South
Asian growth
Growth in the South Asia region slowed to 4.2
percent during 2002 from 4.9 percent in 2001,
marking a downward revision from previous
estimates, largely because of adverse weather
conditions and declines in agricultural output
in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Nepal experienced a plunge in tourism receipts and a sharp
fall in manufacturing output, as domestic insurgency intensified. Pakistan and Sri Lanka
both enjoyed a pickup in growth during theyear linked to strong government spending inPakistan; and for Sri Lanka, a recovery in theservices sector and improved political stability
tied to progress in peace talks and implementation of a year-long cease-fire. Current account balances for the two largest economies,
India and Pakistan, posted surpluses and the region’s aggregate external balance strengthened.
A number of economies experienced a significant increase in remittances during 2002.
These were driven largely by: incentives introduced by the Bangladeshi government to channel remittances through official sources; highinterest rate differentials in India—reflecting
significant government borrowing requirements there; and improvements in the security

36

situation and progress in macroeconomic stabilization in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Growth is anticipated to accelerate throughout the region in 2003, to an average of 5.4
percent, assuming a return to trend agricultural
production, a recovery in external demand,
continued improvement in political stability
and regional security, and a firming of domestic demand, especially in India (figure 1.28). In
the medium term South Asian growth is likely
to be sustained near 5.4 percent, assuming acontinued recovery in external demand and establishment of normal trends in agricultural
output. Bangladesh and India should benefit
from an ongoing recovery in domestic demand.
Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka are projected toenjoy continued macroeconomic stability andan associated acceleration of growth. Similarly,
Nepal is anticipated to experience a pick-up
in growth, assuming continued improvementin the security situation there, with a recovery indomestic demand and in tourism receipts.
Furthermore, recently improved relations
between India and Pakistan are hoped to leadto greater stability in the region, paving theway for increased business confidence and stability. The fiscal positions of the South Asian
economies are forecast to improve moderately,
assuming some progress in raising budget revenues (as a share of GDP) and improvement in
the management of government expenditure.
Inflation is projected to increase somewhat, albeit still at moderate levels, because of stronger
growth and assumptions of a more accommodative monetary stance in many countries.
Falling oil prices are expected to provide someoffset to these domestic factors.

Sub-Saharan Africa maintains positive
per capita growth in spite of a difficult
external environment
A subdued world economy together with familiar problems of drought and civil strife held
growth in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to 2.8 percent in 2002. Import demand from Europe, theregion’s main trading partner, was particularly
weak. Though most (dollar denominated) com-

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.28 Indian production of food and automobiles recovered sharply in early 2003
Industrial production, 3-month/3-month, percent change, year/year
24
20
16

Food


Transport equip


12
8
4

Total production
0
–4
–8
Jan.
2000

April
2000

July
2000

Oct.
2000

Jan.
2001

April
2001

July
2001

Oct.
2001

Jan.
2002

April
2002

July
2002

Oct.
2002

Jan.
2003

April
2003

Sources: Feri and national sources.

modity prices have rebounded from recent
lows, terms of trade for non-oil exporters haverecovered little of their losses of the past few
years. At the same time, travel and tourism suffered not only from slower world income
growth, but also from terrorist fears and thebuildup to war in Iraq. As a result, foreign trade
made a negative contribution to the region’s
growth. Domestic economies also slowed aspoor weather or civil disorder disrupted agricultural production in countries containing
over half the region’s population, depressing incomes and demand. Notably, though, investment spending was relatively resilient. There
were pluses to note as well. South Africa overcame the depressed tourism market to become
the world’s fastest growing tourist destinationin 2002, with arrivals up over 20 percent. Nontraditional exports covered by AGOA preferences—transportation equipment, textiles andapparel, and agricultural products—registeredstrong growth despite the slowdown in the U.S.
economy, indicating that with the right incentives and opportunities, SSA countries can becompetitive. Most encouraging of all, according

to preliminary estimates 12 countries in the region achieved growth of 4 percent or better andaverage per capita income rose for a fourth successive year—the longest sustained rise in overtwo decades.
The region’s largest economy, South Africa,
registered relatively sound performances during 2002. Growth slowed toward the end of
the year, but remained in positive territory as
it has since 1999. Because of the increasing
strength of the rand, foreign trade contributed
negatively to growth, but domestic absorption
was strong enough to offset that impact andgrowth overall reached 3.0 percent. Investment was particularly strong, up 6.5 percent inspite of high real interest rates. In Nigeria, thepicture was mixed. The successful presidential
election helped cement the fledgling democratic process; however, progress on fiscal andeconomic reforms continues to be frustratingly
slow. Despite high oil prices, budget gridlock and a reduced OPEC quota held growth
to only 1.9 percent. Progressively weaker oil
prices over the next few years will put pressure
on fiscal and external accounts, though expan-

37

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

sion of the energy sector, especially of liquid
natural gas (LNG), should sustain moderatereal growth in the medium term.
In the medium term, the economic performance of Sub-Saharan Africa should benefit as
the global recovery consolidates. Yet, with expectations for Europe at best moderate, the external impetus to growth will remain weak. For
the region as a whole, growth is expected to remain unchanged at 2.8 percent in 2003, thenrise to 3.5 percent in 2004. Both oil and non-oil
producers will share in the acceleration. For oil
producers—including additions to the list suchas Côte d’Ivoire—rising capacity presages substantial growth in medium-term productionand exports, even though prices and terms oftrade are expected to fall sharply. Major energyrelated infrastructure projects will further support demand. For the rest of the region, the recent rebound in commodity prices has largely
run its course, but at least the expectation is fora measure of stability in key export markets at
levels where exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa
can continue to compete. With luck, better
weather conditions will stimulate domestic incomes and expenditure as well (figure 1.29).
In the longer term, per capita growth is expected to average 1.6 percent—a substantial
improvement on long-run historical trends,
though barely half what would be needed toachieve the MDGs. The region continues toface immense development challenges from
HIV/AIDS, to low savings and investment, poor
infrastructure, shortages of human capital, andnegative perceptions of international investors(box 1.5). Nor does the forecast anticipate
any significant help from a reversal of recent
terms of trade losses. But the region’s most critical need is to re-establish civil order, where
lacking, and to raise standards of governanceand policymaking, for these are the most powerful predictors of economic performance.
Here there is encouraging progress to report,with signs of institutional strengthening at
both the country and regional levels. On balance, assuming a continuation of this trend,
the forecast of positive, albeit moderate
growth for the region should be achievable.

38

Figure 1.29 Growth in Africa is expected
to improve modestly
GDP growth, 2001–02 and 2003–05
Sub-SaharanAfricaEast/South
RSA
West
Nigeria
2001–02
2003–05

CFA
countries
Oil
exporters
RSA andNigeria
0

1

2

3

4

Note: RSA is Republic of South Africa.
Source: DECPG.

Trade, growth, and poverty
in developing countries

W

orld trade growth reached unprecedented levels in the 1990s, accompaniedby accelerating flows of foreign direct investment (FDI). The sectoral and regional composition of trade changed dramatically with thespectacular growth of export volumes. While
natural resource–based commodities—agriculture, oil and gas, minerals—were driving factors in developing countries’ export growth in
the past, more recent trade growth has been
driven largely by manufactured goods—hightech products as well as low-skill-intensive
goods. These trends have led to stronger economic growth in many countries and significant reductions in global poverty.
Can these trends be sustained over the next
10–15 years? And can they be broadened to include countries that have not benefited fromtrade growth, but have very large proportionsof poor people? The answer to both questions is“probably.” The long-term forecast anticipatesthat the MDG of halving the number of theworld’s people living in extreme poverty will bereached by 2015. Nonetheless, significant pockets of poverty will persist, and the goal will not
be achieved in all developing regions.

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Box 1.5 AIDS is taking a rising tollin Sub-Saharan Africa

S

ub-Saharan Africa continues to be the epicenter ofthe AIDS epidemic. According to UNAIDS, 28.5
million Africans were infected in 2001 and 2.2 million died, lowering population growth by one-thirdof a percentage point. Given social and financial hurdles, treatment and care programs are likely to haveat best a modest impact on the course of the epidemic. UNAIDS predicts 55 million deaths attributable to AIDS in Africa between 2000 and 2015
(UNAIDS 2002).
Although effective antiretroviral therapies havebeen developed, they are not in widespread use. Partof the explanation is cost. Providing these drugs tothe entire infected population of Sub-Saharan Africa
would cost nearly $9 billion, about 70 percent of
current official development assistance to the region.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that such an expenditure, equivalent to just 0.04 percent of OECD GDP,
would be cost effective from a development standpoint, by alleviating the burden on health-care systems and raising productivity (Moatti and others
2002). While more money is becoming available, itremains only a fraction of what is needed.
In addition to the financial obstacles to treatment, there is a deadly culture of denial to be overcome. In Botswana, the most afflicted country in theregion, the incidence rate in the adult population isnear 40 percent and life expectancy has dropped
from more than 65 to less than 40. Yet a $100 million partnership between the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Merck to provide free antiretrovirals
to all who need them has, so far, achieved only limited success. Less than 5 percent of Botswanans havebeen tested for HIV, and fewer than 0.1 percent of
those thought to be infected are enrolled for freetreatment.
Many researchers have explored the economics
of HIV/AIDS using macroeconometric and CGE
models. The magnitudes of impact appear surprisingly small, seemingly out of proportion to thehuman tragedy. From a macroeconomic standpoint,
impacts of HIV/AIDS arise from:• Slower labor-force growth and a higher proportionof younger, less-skilled, and less productive workers• Lower productivity because of illness or worry on
the job, or more time off work
• Higher costs to governments and employers ofhealth care, training, and sick pay• Reduced household savings after payments fortreatment or funerals, and, simultaneously, lesspublic and private investment because of financing
constraints, uncertainty, and lower expected
profits.
Quantifying these channels is not straightforward, but the preponderance of results suggests
an overall reduction of per capita growth somewhere
between 0.5 and 1 percentage point. This reduction
is a significant cost to a region where long-term
growth lies in the 0.8 to 1.6 percent per capita
range, and it underscores Greener’s point (2002)
that economic policy is important so that better
economic performance can offset the enormous
devastation.
HIV/AIDS has major implications for publicfinance and the provision of health services. Even
without the epidemic, African public health budgets, which average $50 per capita, would be
woefully inadequate. In addition, the disease may
have major, though not well studied, implications
for income distribution. An individual household iseither affected or not; and for those vulnerable tobeing tipped into poverty by the loss of one or morebreadwinners, the effect can be tragic. The threat
posed by large numbers of homeless, uneducated,
angry youths with no parents and no prospects may,in the long run, turn out to be the greatest cost of
the epidemic.

Sources: Greener (2002), Moatti et al. (2002).

39

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Within a decade export revenues in developing countries rose from less than 15 percent of
GDP to almost 25 percent (figure 1.31).

Trade performance over the 1990s
was unprecedented
From several points of view, trade performance during the 1990s was unprecedented.
The overall volume of trade accelerated relative to output, growing nearly 2.5 times fasterthan GDP, compared to an historical averageof 1.5. Such increase in income elasticity wasa global phenomenon, although it was clearly
more pronounced in developing countries,
which had experienced a sharp fall in tradeduring the debt crises of the 1980s, and a
sharp boom just before the financial crises of1997 and 1998 (figure 1.30).
The robustness of the recent trade expansion was highlighted following the East Asianfinancial collapse. Trade flows recovered fromthat crisis much more quickly than they did
after the Latin American debt crises of theearly 1980s. During the 1990s, developing
countries’ merchandise exports increased at
an annual rate of 8.5 percent, up from growthtrends of less than 2 percent during the 1980s.
Despite the financial crisis of 1997, exports
from East Asia increased on average by 13.4
percent per year during the decade, almost
doubling the strong performance of the 1980s.

The change in the composition of exports
was a major factor underpinning growthMore remarkable than the overall growth of
trade was the transformation in the productmix of exports. Developing countries now rely
less on shipments of primary commodities thanon manufactured goods. Whereas two decades
ago developing countries derived 70 percent ofmerchandise export revenue from sales of primary commodities—agriculture and energy—
the situation is now completely reversed, with
80 percent of revenue coming from exports ofmanufactures. Even exports from Sub-SaharanAfrica are no longer primarily resource-based,
as the share of manufactures in African exports
has risen from 25 percent during the late 1970s
to 56 percent today. Almost all of the increase
was realized during the last decade.
With the rising share of manufactures intotal exports, underlying high growth rates inmost manufacturing sectors have an increasingly large impact on overall export growth.
The shift toward manufacturing clarifies some

Figure 1.30 Income elasticity has risen globally, but particularly in the developing world
Trade to GDP elasticity by region, 1967–2001
4

3
Industrial countries
2



1



World total0Developing countries–1

Source: World Bank data.

40

00
20

97
19

94
19

91
19

88
19

85
19

82
19

79
19

76
19

73
19

70
19

19

67

–2

G L O B A L

Figure 1.31 Export-to-GDP ratios haverisen sharply in developing countries
Merchandise exports, percent of GDP, 1980–2002
25.0

22.5

Developing countries


20.0

17.5


15.0
High-income countries

12.5

02

00

20

98

20

96

19

94

19

92

19

90

19

88

19

86

19

84

19

82

19

19

19

80

10.0

Source: World Bank data.

of the regional differences in overall trade performance—growth has been fastest where theshare of manufactured products in total exports was already large—and suggests that theacceleration of overall trade growth was not a
temporary phenomenon, as the share of manufactured products is likely to increase further.
To illustrate the importance of the export
mix, annual growth of export revenue during
the 1990s for East Asia and Sub-SaharanAfrica are calculated with different sectoral
weights, while using actual growth rates at asectoral level. Merchandise export revenue in
Sub-Saharan Africa advanced at an annual
rate of 5.4 percent during the 1990s. However, if the region had already reached the maturity of East Asia, with a significantly larger
share of manufactures in total exports, thesame sectoral growth rates—double digit for
manufacturing and small for natural resources—would have led to 10.6 percent overall revenue growth. Alternatively, applying
East Asian growth rates to Sub-Saharan shareswould have led to 10 percent growth, insteadof the 17 percent annual growth actually realized. This suggests that roughly half of thedifference in overall growth between the two

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

regions was due to differences in sectoral
growth rates, the other half to the larger shareof manufactures in East Asia.
Such compositional effect will continue toinfluence overall growth numbers during thecoming decade as the share of manufactured
products rises further. Should all developing
countries achieve the same growth of export
revenue at a sector level as during the 1990s,
overall revenue growth would rise to 20 percent per year, instead of the 11 percent realized annually during the 1990s. The composition effect of 9 percent a year applies to mostregions, with regional effects ranging from 5.1
percent in Latin America to 10.6 percent inEurope and Central Asia.

Changes in the composition of trade canbe traced to several factors
What accounts for the growth in manufactured exports? Will trade continue to grow atsuch robust rates? The driving forces are a
combination of policy reforms, structuralchange in global production processes, andgeneral economic trends related to continuous
increases in real per capita incomes. The contribution of these various forces cannot be decomposed in a linear fashion, because some aretightly linked with others. However, because
the strong links work in a virtuous circle, it islikely that the combined effects evident in current trends will continue into the coming years.
Policy reforms began in the 1970s in East
Asia. They were later initiated in other regions,culminating in a rapid acceleration of reforms
during the 1990s. A key element of the policychange was lowering of trade barriers in manufacturing—unilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally. But in all successful cases, change wasembedded in broader domestic institutional
reforms. Technological progress lowered transportation costs, improved communications andbusiness practices, and made it possible tobuild global production networks. The lastchange radically altered geographic specialization patterns and intensified trade in intermediate products. Income growth triggered consumers’ desire for more and newer varieties of41

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

goods, creating markets for foreign products.
These factors reinforced one another: Lower
trade barriers triggered a new, global organization of production to take advantage of diversity in comparative advantage across theworld. Desire for new products and a search
for new markets provided a strong incentive
for lower trade barriers. And importantly, technological progress and income growth werespurred by increased global competition andefficiency gains through global networks.
The decline in manufactures trade prices
relative to domestic price deflators is a clear
indicator of strong productivity growth insectors operating on global markets. Prices ofmerchandise exports from high-income countries fell by almost 2 percent per year relative
to domestic prices. This marked a significant
acceleration of the price differential comparedto the 1980s, when relative export prices fell
1 percent per year. A similar indication of accelerating productivity growth in sectors producing for global markets was observable in
East Asia, where exports were already heavily
concentrated in manufactures. In that region
the price differential changed almost 2 percentage points during the 1990s. Though forother developing regions price trends are
mixed—partly because of different specialization patterns, partly because of imperfections
in domestic-factor markets—an accelerationof productivity growth in manufacturing sectors that compete in global markets appears to
be a worldwide phenomenon.
While there are several key factors driving
the changes in trade, there is no doubt that thesustained dismantling of trade barriers has beena primary driver. For example, the growth of
production networks and their association withtrade growth would not have been possible if
trade barriers had remained high. Expanding
the benefits of trade to a broader range of countries will require significant further decline intrade barriers, particularly for those commodities in which poor countries have a comparativeadvantage—agriculture and low-skill-intensive
manufacturing. While expanding market accessis not a sufficient condition to catalyze the42

economies of poor countries, it is a necessary
condition to be able to justify indispensable investments—in public and private infrastructureand education—to enable these economies totake off. The Doha Round will be a key complement to other more limited efforts to reduce
trade barriers, for example, regional free trade
agreements and unilateral reform efforts.

Greater trade will build on ongoingreforms to spur per capita growthin all regions
Intensified trade relations have laid the foundations for continuation of a virtuous circle inwhich access to new markets, increased competition, and productivity growth reinforce
each other. Such an upward spiral would accelerate per capita income growth in many developing countries, especially those in which
the effect of reforms is visible in certain sectors—even if not yet on an aggregate level. As
competitive manufacturing sectors grow andreforms spread further, the results will become
evident in economic figures over the next 10
years (table 1.5). The growing reliance on
manufacturing will also reduce vulnerability
to sharp and disruptive commodity cycles.
The impact of industrialization on productivity is reflected, for example, in the sharp
acceleration of per capita income growth in
Sub-Saharan Africa, from annual decline of 0.2
percent during the 1990s to an increase of 1.6
percent per year during the coming years. On
the other hand, countries that, over the last
decades, have experienced a rapid catching-up
in productivity as a result of integration in
global markets are bound to experience some
slowdown, as the gap with the technologicalfrontier narrows in some sectors. However,East Asia is still anticipated to outperform
other regions, with average per capita income
growth of 5.4 percent—lower than the 6.4 percent growth achieved during the 1990s.
As these fundamental structural shifts promote development, other conditions acrosscountries are improving. Reduced imbalancesin the external and internal accounts of developing countries have lowered their vulnerabil-G L O B A L

Table 1.5

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

GDP per capita will grow faster in the developing world than in the OECD area

Real GDP per capita, annual average percentage change, 1980s, 1990s, and forecasts
Forecast
Medium termLong term

1980s

1990s

2001–05

2006–15

World total

1.3

1.2

1.0

2.2

High-income countries
OECD
United States
Japan
European Union
Non-OECD countries

2.5
2.5
2.2
3.5
2.1
3.1

1.8
1.8
2.2
1.2
1.7
3.8

1.4
1.4
1.5
0.7
1.5
1.1

2.5
2.4
2.5
1.9
2.3
4.2

Developing countries
East Asia and the Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

0.7
5.6
0.6
–0.9
–0.6
3.6
–1.1

1.7
6.4
–1.8
1.7
1.2
3.3
–0.2

2.7
5.4
3.8
0.3
1.4
3.4
1.0

3.4
5.4
3.3
2.5
2.5
4.1
1.6

Note: Aggregations are moving averages, reweighted annually after calculations of growth in constant prices.
Source: World Bank.

ity to swings in international interest rates
and exchange rates and provided governmentswith some room to manage economic downturns. And macroeconomic conditions have
improved—for example, lower inflation andinterest rates are providing an improved environment for long-term investment by both domestic and foreign entities.
Apart from acceleration in growth, the relative importance of growth-supporting factors
is likely to change. Productivity will likely increase in importance relative to population
growth and capital accumulation (figure1.32). This is especially true for countries in
Latin America, where population growth during the coming 10 years is expected to be 0.5
percentage points lower than during the
1990s, capital accumulation will slow, andcountries will be less able to rely on continued
large current-account deficits. Reforms will
have created the right environment to absorb
technological innovations.
For the high-income countries, the scenario
suggests per capita growth of around 2.5 percent over 2006–15, an acceleration of 0.7 percentage points from the average growth rateof the 1990s. Acceleration in the developing
countries will be more dramatic, with a projection of per capita growth of 3.4 percent for
2006–15, driven partly by a turnaround in Europe and Central Asia—an improvement already under way in the late 1990s. With adhesion to the European Union only months away,
the accession countries can anticipate the typeof growth experienced by Portugal and Spain
upon their accession—built on solid investment
flows, improved market access, and financial
assistance from Brussels. The other countries in
the region will benefit through trade linkages;
they, too, will continue to consolidate the benefits from reforms initiated during their transition from planned economies.
Somewhat more tentatively, the scenario
also presumes improved economic performance in Sub-Saharan Africa, which has witnessed two decades of negative per capita
income growth. Despite the nearly 2 percentage point turnaround in per capita growth, arate of 1.6 percent per capita if achieved,
would still leave Sub-Saharan Africa at thelow end of the developing-country growth
spectrum, inadequate to make much of a dent

43

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.32 Productivity will contribute more to GDP growth through 2015 than will capitalor labora. Decomposition of GDP growth, 1990–2000

Average percent per annum
8
6
Productivity


4Capital

Labor



2



0
–2
–4
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

Europe andCentral Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Middle EastandNorth Africa

South
Asia

Sub-SaharanAfricaMiddle EastandNorth Africa

South
Asia

Sub-SaharanAfricab. Decomposition of GDP growth, 2005–2015

Average percent per annum
8
6
Productivity

4Capital


2

Labor


0
–2
–4
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

Europe andCentral Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Source: DECPG staff estimates.

in poverty and other MDGs. Nonethelessthere are positive signs emerging from partsof Sub-Saharan Africa, with per capita income
growth positive for the fourth consecutive
year, and a dozen countries achieving growth
rates in excess of 4 percent per annum.
The main difference with the long-term
scenarios contained in Global Economic
Prospects 2003 resides in the Middle East and

44

North Africa. Recent and prospective policychanges suggest that the region could attain a
per capita growth rate of 2.5 percent over the
next 10 years. Such an achievement would
facilitate effort—particularly in private-sector
development—to absorb the rapid increase in
the labor force.
Growth rates in East Asia and Pacific are
expected to remain strong through the long

G L O B A L

term. At official exchange rates, incomes inrich countries remain more than 20 times
higher than the average in East Asia and Pacific, and even at purchasing-power exchange
rates, incomes are six times higher.
After the Middle East and North Africa,
South Asia is the region least integrated into
the global economy. Growth over the last
decade can be attributed partly to trade policy
reforms. Those reforms are expected to be
pursued by local governments over the next
decade, giving rise to sustained growth at rates
approaching those of East Asia.
Latin America, like many of the other regions, has significantly diversified its exports
over the last years and gained a strong
foothold in global production networks. It is
still, on average, relatively closed compared tosome other developing regions and therefore
will benefit from pursuing trade reforms
within the hemisphere and beyond. Improved
macroeconomic conditions—lower inflationary expectations and more flexible exchange
rates—will provide better starting conditions
to achieve higher potential growth of around
2.5 percent in per capita terms.
The risks to the long-term forecast are nevertheless not to be minimized. Many countries
are still grappling with relatively low revenuecollection rates, which could become critical ascountries attempt to make up for lost tariff revenues. The limits on government revenues are
straining the capacity for required investment
in public infrastructure—roads, ports, education, and other social services. The private sector can (and will) fill in some of the gaps, provided the right structures are in place. Conflict
could affect growth prospects, particularly at
the regional level, as we have seen in someparts of Sub-Saharan Africa in recent years orin the Middle East and Central Asia. Finally, alack of progress in trade reforms or, worse yet,a return to protectionist tendencies could curb
the expansion of trade and the ensuing benefits. The final section of this chapter assesses
some of the economic benefits to be derived
from further trade reform, above and beyond
the baseline forecast presented here.

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

And growth will greatly reduce poverty
Strong economic growth—particularly in
China and India, with yet-high concentrationsof poor—will lead to substantial reductions in
the incidence of poverty through 2015, with
the MDG of halving extreme poverty being
achieved on a global level—if not in eachcountry or region. Sub-Saharan Africa—unless dramatic changes occur—almost surely
will not reach the goal. Even under a somewhat optimistic economic forecast, the percentage of the African population living on$1/day or less will remain above 42 percent
through 2015, far from the goal of 23.7 percent. Sub-Saharan Africa will have nearly
three times the incidence of poverty as thenext poorest region (table 1.6).
South Asia, having approximately the same
initial level of poverty as Sub-Saharan Africa
in 1990, had already achieved impressive
gains by 2000 (from 42 percent to 32 percent
according to the latest figures) and will likely
almost halve that level by 2015.3
According to current projections, Latin
America will reach 2015 some 38 percent
above the target, and Europe and Central Asia,
90 percent above—the latter after recovering
sharply from the large rise in poverty during
the transitional 1990s.
This year’s poverty forecast contains somenoteworthy changes from last year. The changes
can be attributed to four factors—changes in
the initial estimation of the number of poor,4changes in the macroeconomic relation between per capita consumption growth andpoverty reduction, changes in the economic
forecast, and changes in the population forecast. The first two factors are derived fromupdated surveys and National Account data.
The third factor—changes to the economic
forecast—are mainly attributable to changes
in the short- and medium-term forecast withlittle or no change to the long-term forecast(with one exception, noted below). The poverty
forecast also incorporates the World Bank’s
most recent population projections. Growthin population has been revised downward inmany regions. If per capita consumption

45

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 1.6

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Global poverty will decrease significantly, but not uniformly across regions

Regional breakdown of poverty estimates in developing countries, various measures
GEP 2003
RegionGEP 2004

1990

1999

2015

1990

2000

2015

486
377
110
6
48
5
506
241

279
223
57
24
57
6
487
315

80
73
7
7
47
8
264
404

470
361
110
6
48
5
466
241

261
204
57
20
56
8
432
323

44
41
3
6
46
4
268
366

1,293
917

1,168
945

809
735

1,237
877

1,100
896

734
692

East Asia and Pacific
China
Rest of East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

30.5
32.9
24.2
1.4
11.0
2.1
45.0
47.4

15.6
17.8
10.6
5.1
11.1
2.2
36.6
49.0

3.9
5.3
1.1
1.4
7.5
2.1
15.7
46.0

29.4
31.5
24.1
1.4
11.0
2.1
41.5
47.4

14.5
16.1
10.6
4.2
10.8
2.8
31.9
49.0

2.3
3.0
0.5
1.3
7.6
1.2
16.4
42.3

Total
Excluding China

29.6
28.5

23.2
25.0

13.3
15.7

28.3
27.2

21.6
23.3

12.5
15.4

East Asia and Pacific
China
Rest of East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

1,114
819
295
31
121
50
1,010
386

897
627
269
96
132
68
1,128
480

339
219
120
45
117
62
1,139
618

1,094
800
295
31
121
50
971
386

873
599
273
101
136
72
1,052
504

354
256
98
48
124
38
968
612

Total
Excluding China

2,711
1,892

2,801
2,173

2,320
2,101

2,653
1,854

2,737
2,138

2,144
1,888

East Asia and Pacific
China
Rest of East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

69.7
71.6
64.9
6.8
27.6
21.0
89.8
76.0

50.1
50.1
50.2
20.3
26.0
23.3
84.8
74.7

16.6
15.7
18.4
9.3
18.9
16.0
68.0
70.4

68.5
69.9
64.9
6.8
27.6
21.0
86.3
76.0

48.3
47.3
50.8
21.3
26.3
24.4
77.7
76.5

18.2
18.4
17.6
10.3
20.5
10.2
59.2
70.7

Total
Excluding China

62.1
58.7

55.6
57.5

38.1
44.7

60.8
57.5

53.6
55.7

36.4
42.0

Number of people living on less than
$1 per day (millions)
East Asia and Pacific
China
Rest of East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Total
Excluding China$1 per day headcount index (percent)Number of people living on less than$2 per day (millions)$2 per day head count index (percent)

Source: World Bank staff estimates.

46

G L O B A L

growth rates remain unchanged, the revised
rates of population growth will have no effecton the poverty headcount index (all else
equal), but it would lower the absolute number of poor.
One of the changes in table 1.6 is the useof the year 2000, rather than 1999, as thebase year for the forecast. Because developing
countries were booming in 2000, the headcount index—assuming distribution neutrality—would have declined substantially.5 Most
regions indeed witnessed a decline in the headcount index in 2000, compared with the 1999
headcount index reported last year, except for
the Middle East and North Africa, and SubSaharan Africa.6 At the global level, the estimate of the headcount index in 2000 is 21.6
percent, compared with the 23.2 percent estimate for 1999 in last year’s report—representing a decline of 6.9 percent.
However, not all of the changes can be attributed to the change in the base year. This
year’s estimates are also based on new surveys
and methodology affecting, among others, thetwo largest developing countries—China andIndia. The estimate of the number of poor in
China has been revised downward for two
reasons. The first is that, for the first time,
consumption-based data—deemed more appropriate for poverty analysis—are available
on a time-series basis. The second is that rural/
urban population shares have been revised,with the urban share higher than previously
estimated. The lower incidence of poverty inurban areas accounts for the downward revision in the overall poverty level for China.
The new survey used in India has also led toa downward revision in the estimate of thepoverty level. A new household survey provided the basis for our revision of Pakistan’s
poverty profile. The Middle East and North
Africa regime benefits from new surveys in
Morocco and Tunisia. The estimated level of
initial poverty in Yemen has raised the regional
level of poverty, but from a very low base.7
There are eleven new surveys for Latin American countries, including Brazil and Mexico.

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Looking forward to 2015, there are somerather sharp changes in the poverty forecast,focusing on the $1/day indicator. At a global
level, the new forecast for 2015 for the headcount index drops to 12.5 percent, comparedwith 13.3 percent in last year’s report—a 5.9
percent decline. The projected number of poorin 2015 declines to 734 million, from 809 million last year. Part of the decline in the numberof poor can be attributed to a decline in the
population growth rate through 2015.
Compared with last year’s forecast, theheadcount index for East Asia declines by
44 percent, from 3.9 percent to 2.3 percent. By
and large, the decline is the result of a new
estimate of the headcount elasticity, since thelong-term GDP growth rates remain largely
unchanged. The other key difference is for the
Middle East and North Africa region. The incidence of poverty starts from a low level (between 2 and 3 percent). With growth prospects
revised upward, the headcount index is expected to drop to 1.2 percent, compared withlast year’s 2.1 percent, despite the upward revision in the base number of poor. In SouthAsia, the headcount index in 2015 has been revised upward from 15.7 percent to 16.4 percent, despite the decrease in the initial level.
The new survey information suggests that theestimate of the headcount elasticity has declined, as the shape of the income distribution
curve has shifted the poor toward the left endof the distribution tail, away from the poverty
line. For Sub-Saharan Africa, the 2015 headcount index is forecast at 42.3 percent, a dropfrom last year’s 46 percent. This improvement
incorporates some new survey information,
but positive trends in the short- and mediumterm forecast, particularly for the oil exporters,
account for most of the change.

Looking ahead to theDoha RoundA

successful outcome of the multilateral
trade negotiations known as the Doha Development Agenda, or the Doha Round, would47

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

greatly improve the growth and poverty outcomes discussed above. This section analyzes
an illustrative pro-poor scenario of multilateral
trade reform, using the World Bank’s global
trade model.

An illustrative pro-poor scenario
Several proposals to improve market access formerchandise trade have been tabled in advanceof the upcoming WTO ministerial meetingsin Cancun in September 2003 (see chapter 2).
Most observers concur that any agreement
reached in Cancun should meet at least threecriteria—it should be simple, it should address
tariff peaks, and it should be developmentfriendly. An illustrative pro-poor scenario andits potential impact on incomes, trade, andpoverty are discussed below.
Rich countries would be subject to a maximum tariff in agriculture of 10 percent—that
is, all peaks would be cut back to a maximumof 10 percent (table 1.7). The average tarifftarget would be 5 percent. On the manufacturing side, tariff peaks would be scaled back to
5 percent, with a 1 percent target on the average manufacturing tariff rate, which is alreadylow. Developing countries would be subject toa maximum agricultural tariff of 15 percent,with a targeted average of 10 percent (double
the rich-country average). In manufacturing,
the peak would be capped at 10 percent; thetargeted average would be 5 percent.
The pro-poor scenario includes eliminationof export subsidies, decoupling of all domestic
Table 1.7 Tariffs could be cut clearlyand simply
Pro-poor tariff targets by type of country and sector (percent)Industrial

Developing

Agriculture
Average
Maximum

5
10

10
15

Manufacturing
Average
Maximum

1
5

5
10

Source: World Bank.

48

subsidies, and the elimination of the use of
specific tariffs, tariff rate quotas (TRQs), andantidumping duties and sanctions. Specific tariffs and TRQs have unpredictable and perhaps
unintended consequences for exporters8 andconsumers, and—in the case of TRQs—have
proven difficult to administer. Antidumping
measures, in increasing use since 1995, have achilling effect on many exporters by presenting
them with the possibility of losing market access on short notice.
Analyzing the impact of the pro-poor scenario is not a trivial exercise, partly because ofdata issues—the difficulty in quantifying specific tariffs and TRQs—and partly because of
methodological issues—modeling TRQs andthe impact of antidumping measures raises anumber of thorny problems. Nonetheless,drawing on the work published in Global Economic Prospects 2002, the next section describes the impact of the foregoing scenario,
using the World Bank’s trade model (withmodifications).

Assessing the impact of the pro-poor
scenario is complex
The starting point is the GTAP database—usedby trade analysts worldwide for trade assessments. The base year is 1997, with more recent
agricultural protection data, but excluding
other developments—such as recently signed
regional trade agreements, China’s WTO accession offer, and future changes to farm programs (such as the recently agreed reform of
the EU’s Common Agricultural Program). Taking these points into consideration, together
with other features of the GTAP dataset, theimpact assessment likely will overstate some of
the benefits of the pro-poor scenario. It is also
possible, however, that other factors, such as
the pro-competitive and dynamic effects oftrade reform, could prove our impact assessment to be an underestimate.
Summary indications of the scenario’s impact on tariffs using the GTAP level of protection are presented in table 1.8. The table isdivided into two broad sectors—agriculture (in-

G L O B A L

Table 1.8

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

The pro-poor tariff scenario would significantly lower protection

Analysis of initial and final average tariffs in agriculture and manufacturing under the World Bank’s tariff scenario,
using World Bank trade model (percent)Agriculture

Initial

Final

Percent
reductionin non-peaktariffs

15.9
22.4
10.8
50.3
49.4
1.6
12.0
38.8
25.9
9.0
11.8
23.6
45.7
32.5
23.6
22.9
14.5
24.9
22.4
76.4
35.5
20.6
8.1

6.0
7.4
5.0
10.0
8.2
1.6
10.0
11.0
13.2
7.4
10.0
10.0
12.2
11.4
10.3
11.9
10.0
12.8
10.0
12.8
10.2
10.5
6.0

100.0
100.0
60.6
100.0
100.0
0.0
21.3
100.0
100.0
0.0
12.3
61.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
77.9
100.0
92.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0

Average tariff

OECD Cairns countries
European Union with EFTA
United States
Japan
Korea, Rep. of, and Taiwan (China)
Hong Kong (China) and Singapore
BrazilChina
India
Indonesia
Russian Federation
MexicoSouthern African Customs Union
VietnamRest of South Asia
Rest of East Asia
Rest of Latin America and Caribbean
EU accession countries
Rest of Europe and Central Asia
Middle East
North Africa
Rest of Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of WORLDManufacturing

Initial

Final

Percent
reductionin non-peaktariffs

2.2
4.2
2.4
1.6
5.7
0.0
14.6
13.8
21.7
8.6
12.3
2.7
9.4
16.9
31.3
7.9
12.0
7.5
5.0
8.4
18.6
16.0
7.5

1.0
1.2
1.0
0.9
3.1
0.0
6.9
8.6
8.8
5.0
5.6
2.3
5.0
5.2
9.9
5.0
6.3
5.0
4.7
5.0
9.1
8.8
5.0

56.3
100.0
57.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.0
100.0
0.0
32.4
100.0
100.0
29.6
100.0
35.5
0.0
49.4
100.0
100.0
15.6

Average tariff

Note: Agricultural tariff peaks are cut to 10 and 15 percent respectively in high-income and developing countries. Manufacturing
tariff peaks are cut to 5 and 10 percent respectively in high-income and developing countries. The targets for average agricultural
tariffs are respectively 5 and 10 percent, respectively, for high-income and developing countries. Targets for the average manufacturing tariff are 1 and 5 percent, respectively, for high-income and developing countries.
Sources: GTAP release 5.3 and World Bank staff calculations.

cluding processed foods) and manufacturing.
The first column in each sector provides the (import weighted) average tariff.9 Thus for Japan,
the average tariff is 50 percent in agriculture but
less than 2 percent in manufacturing.
The second column shows the targeted
average tariff rate. The rich-country agricultural target of 5 percent is achieved in the
United States, for example. In Japan and someregions, it is not achieved. In Japan, for example, the scenario would lead to an average rateof 10 percent, twice the target rate, because
Japan’s peaks are high and cover a wide percentage of agricultural trade. Initial tariffs
below the peaks would have to become negative for the target to be achieved.10 In somecases cutting the peaks is sufficient to achieve
or surpass the targeted tariff level. This is thecase, for example, for Indonesian agriculture,
where the average tariff is already below thetarget and reducing the peaks simply drops theaverage.
The third column provides the level of reduction in non-peak tariffs. In the UnitedStates, for example, non-peak agricultural tariffs would be reduced by an average of 60 percent to achieve the 5 percent average target.
Rich countries would see a significant dropin the average agricultural tariff. In the advanced countries of Asia, in particular, average
agricultural tariffs would fall from near 50 percent to somewhere around 10 percent—still49

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

above the target level. The United States would
achieve the target, but from a more modest 11
percent initial level, whereas the European
Union would see a drop in the average (extraEU) tariff from 22 percent to just above 7 percent. Developing countries would also see significant reductions, higher on average than inrich countries. Many regions would not meetthe 10 percent target because of the many tariffs higher than the 15 percent cutoff point.
In manufacturing, the average tariff rate inrich countries would decline slightly following
the removal of peaks. In developing countries,
the 5 percent target could be met in many
regions, with Mexico and the EU-accession
countries already below the target with theirprevailing initial tariff rates.11
The “decoupling” part of the scenario isachieved by removing all domestic support inagriculture—input and output subsidies andpayments to land and capital. These would be
replaced by direct payments to farm households. Such lump-sum transfers, not modeled
explicitly, are important in determining income distribution within each region, but they
have no direct effects on the distribution of
production, on income across regions, or on
the results described below. Export subsidies,
which have played a relatively small role recently, are also removed. The impacts of specific tariffs and TRQs in agriculture are captured in the base protection data and aremodeled as part of the ad valorem equivalenttariff. The full ad valorem tariff is subject tothe reductions described in table 1.8.

The scenario would yield significant gains
The scenario described and analyzed above
would generate $291 billion in global economic gains—nearly 75 percent of the total
potential gains from full merchandise trade reform.12 Measured in static terms, some$159 billion13 in additional income would be
reaped by developing countries in 2015 (compared to the baseline); rich countries would
gain around $132 billion (figure 1.33). The
gains, which would raise income levels by 1.5
and 0.5 percent, respectively, for developing

50

Figure 1.33 The pro-poor reform scenario
promises substantial income gains
Change in real income in 2015 relative to baseline($1997 billion)
350
300
250
Static gains

Dynamic gains

200
150



E C O N O M I CG L O B A L

100
50
0
High-income countries

Developing countries

Source: World Bank staff simulations.

and rich countries, could be much higher if dynamic effects—such as increases in productivity14 and increasing FDI—are taken into consideration. Varying the trade model to linksectoral productivity to the export/output ratioshows that dynamic effects can indeed be substantial. In developing countries, the dynamic
gains from the trade reform scenario are some
120 percent higher than the static gains. The
dynamic gain for rich countries is less dramatic, because of the low GDP weight of agriculture, for which protection is strongest.
The reduction of trade barriers in agriculture and food yield $193 billion (in 2015), twothirds of the total static gains from merchandise
trade reform of $291 billion (table 1.9). Morethan 50 percent of these gains in agriculture
and food, $101 billion, are reaped by developing countries, of which 80 percent is the resultof own-reform in these two sectors. In otherwords, reform of agriculture and food in richcountries would lead to a gain of some $20 billion for developing countries as a whole. Manufacturing liberalization by rich countries
would lead to gains of $25 billion to developing countries and could potentially even lead toa (small) loss to rich countries as increased mar-

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E STable 1.9 A large share of real income gains comes from lowering of barriers inagriculture and food(real income gains in 2015 relative to the baseline in $1997 billion)
Liberalizing region
Low- and middleincome countries

High-income
countries

All countries

Decomposition of static impacts
Gains to low- and middle-income countries
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

80
33
114

20
25
44

101
58
159

Gains to high-income countries
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

23
44
67

64
–3
63

91
41
132

Global gains
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

103
77
181

84
22
107

193
98
291

Decomposition of dynamic impacts
Gains to low- and middle-income countries
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

167
95
265

75
9
85

240
108
349

Gains to high-income countries
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

19
36
55

100
13
115

117
48
169

Global gains
Agriculture and food
Manufacturing
All merchandise trade

185
131
321

174
22
199

358
156
518

Source: World Bank staff simulations.

ket access by developing countries generates
terms-of-trade losses for rich countries—losses
not fully compensated by the gains in allocative
efficiency. There is a degree of asymmetry in theimpacts of the reforms on rich and on developing countries. The former gain significantly
more from their own reforms ($114 billion of
the $159 billion total), whereas the impacts
for rich countries are more or less evenly spread
between own-reform and developing-country
reforms.
Trade would increase sharply under the
scenario—particularly in the most severely
protected sectors: agriculture and food (figure1.34). Globally, merchandise trade would increase by about 10 percent (more than$800 billion), but exports from developing
countries would rise by 20 percent (nearly$540 billion). The largest percentage increasein trade (nearly 50 percent) would occur inprocessed foods. Agricultural trade would riseby 32 percent. Developing countries should
see an increase in their exports of textiles,
clothing, and footwear, although its magnitude would depend on the final implementation of the Uruguay Round.
The number of poor would decline substantially under the partial reform scenario de-51

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.34 Exports should rise sharply
Change in export volumes in 2015 relative to baseline ($1997 billion)
200

150


Developing countries

100

High-income countries

50

0Agriculture

EnergyProcessed
foods

Textile, clothing
and footwear

Other
manufacturing

Source: World Bank staff simulations.

scribed here. At the world level, the number of
persons living on $1/day or less would decline
by 61 million, or 8 percent of the current forecast for 2015 of 734 million (figure 1.35).15
The number living on $2/day or less would decline by 144 million. The greatest reduction

in absolute terms would come in Sub-SaharanAfrica. The region’s unskilled workers would
see the largest percentage increase in nominal
wages and decreases in the cost of living. The
largest percentage fall would occur in the
Middle East. This region has the highest over-Figure 1.35 Millions of people would be moved out of poverty
Changes in number of poor in 2015 relative to base (millions)
70
60
50
40
30
$2 per day20$1 per day

10



0
East Asia
and Pacific

Europe andCentral Asia

Source: World Bank staff simulations.

52

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Middle EastandNorth Africa

South Asia

Sub-SaharanAfricaG L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 1.36 Gains for most, but adjustment costs for some
Percent change in rural value added in 2015 relative to the baseline
Latin America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Rest of East Asia
China
NIEs
Other OECD
United States
Japan
Europe
–30

–20

–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent
Note: The negative impacts on Chinese farmers could be overstated since the baseline simulation does not incorporate the impactsof WTO accession.
Source: World Bank staff simulations.

all barriers to imports and a substantial tax
on consumers. However, the region has a relatively low level of poverty, particularly compared to Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
The positive impact on overall growth, accompanied by a sharp boost in trade and apoverty outlook improvement leaving all regions better off in aggregate, does not signifythat the reforms are without adjustment costs,
even over the long term.16 For example, given
the levels of protection in the agricultural sectors, particularly in the OECD countries, farmers stand to lose the most from reductions inprotection. The change in agricultural incomesneeds to be put in context. First, the adjustment will occur over a 10-year period, allowing for a gradual adjustment. Second, the adjustment in most countries will be limited to asmall share of GDP. In high-income countries,
agricultural output is less than 3 percent of
total output on average. For developing regions, agricultural output varies from a low of
7 percent for upper middle-income countries
to 24 percent for low-income countries. Additionally, manufacturing will expand, and thetransitional impacts will be mitigated to the extent that rural economies are diversified.
As can be seen in Figure 1.36, rural value
added in Europe and in Japan could decline
by more than 20 percent over the long term.
And within agriculture, the distribution of the
impacts is likely to be highly differentiated—
across sectors within agriculture, as well as byfactor ownership. For example, tenant farmers
could be better off than landowners because theprice of land is expected to fall in most OECD
regions with the removal of protection. Farmers in some developing regions could also witness a decline in overall agricultural income—particularly in China and the Middle East andNorth Africa. On the other hand, farmers in
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will reap
significant rewards from this reform, as will
farmers in the rest of East Asia (for example in
new market access for rice and vegetable oils),
Latin America (grains, livestock, and sugar),and in Sub-Saharan Africa (sugar).
These adjustments will be accompanied bystructural shifts in world agricultural and foodoutput, following closely the patterns of changes

53

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 1.37 Significant shifts in global output patterns
Percent change in output in 2015 relative to the baseline

Latin America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Rest of East Asia
Processed foods


China
NIEs
Other OECD

United States

Agriculture
Japan
Europe
–30

–20

–10

0

10

20

30

40

Percent
Source: World Bank staff simulations.

in rural value added (figure 1.37). The changes
in agricultural output tend to dominate thosein processed foods, despite relatively similarlevels of protection, in part because of thelower costs of inputs—that is, raw agriculturalcommodities—for the processing sectors. The
main reductions in output occur in Europe,
Japan, and the Middle East and North Africa

54

for both agriculture and processed foods. The
beneficiaries include Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand among rich countries; Asia outside of China; Sub-Saharan Africa; and Latin
America. The NIEs—particularly Korea andTaiwan (China)—show that they could becompetitive in processed foods were they to remove agricultural protection.

Annex 1

Historical trade dynamics for developing countries

Table 1.A1

Sectoral export decomposition for developing countriesa

Percent
Share(percent)

Average growth(percent per annum)Contribution to
growth (percent)

1977

1987

1997

1977–87

1987–97

1977–87

1987–97

High income Asia excluding Japan b
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

5.1
0.6
0.9
8.7
30.0
0.4
10.9
12.6
30.9
100.0

1.8
0.1
0.4
5.1
25.1
1.8
17.1
17.3
31.4
100.0

0.3
0.1
0.2
2.3
13.5
3.4
31.7
22.4
26.1
100.0

4.6
–6.5
5.6
9.7
13.8
33.6
21.2
19.6
16.0
15.9

–5.9
12.6
5.5
3.1
4.9
19.0
18.7
14.5
9.6
11.6

0.9
–0.1
0.2
4.0
23.7
2.2
19.0
18.7
31.5
100.0

–0.4
0.1
0.1
0.9
7.7
4.2
39.0
24.9
23.4
100.0

East Asia and Pacific
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

19.1
25.3
11.3
20.3
5.1
0.1
1.8
2.8
14.3
100.0

13.1
20.7
5.5
15.2
14.0
0.7
7.2
4.4
19.1
100.0

2.2
3.6
2.1
6.9
22.4
0.7
20.9
13.8
27.4
100.0

7.0
8.9
3.5
8.0
23.0
36.9
27.7
16.2
14.4
11.1

–1.8
–1.4
6.3
8.5
23.0
17.3
30.7
31.5
21.7
17.4

9.9
18.3
2.4
12.5
18.8
1.0
10.0
5.3
21.7
100.0

–0.6
–0.7
1.2
4.8
24.5
0.7
24.4
16.1
29.5
100.0

South Asia
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

27.8
0.3
13.4
19.8
14.0
0.9
0.3
5.3
18.2
100.0

22.1
1.7
16.9
12.8
27.9
0.6
0.4
4.7
13.0
100.0

5.9
0.1
5.2
10.3
46.5
1.2
1.2
4.5
25.0
100.0

5.3
29.4
10.3
3.2
15.4
3.9
10.5
6.4
4.2
7.8

–1.1
–15.9
0.4
10.5
18.8
20.6
25.0
12.5
20.5
12.8

16.9
2.9
20.1
6.5
40.2
0.4
0.5
4.1
8.4
100.0

–1.0
–0.6
0.3
9.3
54.4
1.4
1.6
4.5
30.1
100.0

Latin America and the Caribbean
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

26.0
14.2
7.1
20.1
2.7
1.5
1.7
3.6
23.1
100.0

17.8
16.3
5.8
14.1
3.8
3.6
3.1
7.6
27.9
100.0

10.0
6.9
4.4
12.0
8.5
8.4
5.9
13.3
30.6
100.0

4.3
9.7
6.0
4.5
12.2
18.5
14.9
16.7
10.4
8.3

2.8
0.0
6.0
7.1
18.1
18.6
16.2
15.1
9.9
8.9

11.1
17.9
4.7
9.1
4.7
5.3
4.2
11.0
31.9
100.0

4.1
0.0
3.4
10.4
12.0
12.0
7.9
17.5
32.6
100.0

(Table continues on next page)55

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 1.A1

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

Percent
Share(percent)

Average growth(percent per annum)Contribution to
growth (percent)

1977

1987

1997

1977–87

1987–97

1977–87

1987–97

Europe and Central Asia
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

22.8
0.2
18.6
15.0
9.9
1.3
0.6
10.1
21.6
100.0

14.7
2.6
9.7
13.4
18.0
1.5
0.6
8.5
30.9
100.0

5.2
11.0
4.7
6.3
12.6
3.0
2.1
9.3
45.9
100.0

5.2
45.1
3.1
8.7
16.8
11.7
10.3
8.1
14.0
9.9

10.6
41.7
14.1
13.8
18.4
31.4
38.8
24.0
27.7
22.8

9.6
4.2
4.2
12.4
23.2
1.7
0.6
7.5
36.8
100.0

3.8
12.2
3.9
5.2
11.8
3.2
2.3
9.5
48.1
100.0

Middle East and North Africa
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

1.8
86.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.8
7.6
100.0

2.4
69.4
2.3
1.5
2.1
0.3
0.6
2.4
19.0
100.0

1.9
42.4
2.0
1.4
5.8
0.5
2.0
4.1
39.9
100.0

2.5
–2.5
8.1
4.7
7.1
–5.9
13.6
11.4
9.3
–0.3

2.1
–0.4
3.0
4.6
15.6
11.2
18.0
10.1
12.7
4.6

–15.9
586.9
–37.8
–16.0
–31.6
6.6
–12.6
–47.7
–332.0
100.0

1.0
–5.0
1.4
1.4
12.2
0.9
4.4
6.9
76.7
100.0

Sub-Saharan Africa
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

23.9
37.9
13.3
8.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.0
14.4
100.0

20.4
38.2
12.7
7.0
1.2
0.2
0.2
1.7
18.4
100.0

13.2
18.3
12.2
6.5
4.7
0.9
0.4
4.1
39.8
100.0

1.1
2.8
2.2
0.3
16.5
9.2
12.7
8.6
5.3
2.7

0.9
–2.1
4.9
4.5
20.8
25.2
13.1
15.1
13.8
5.4

8.8
39.2
10.6
0.9
4.0
0.4
0.6
4.0
31.5
100.0

2.8
–10.8
11.4
5.6
9.7
2.0
0.7
7.6
70.9
100.0

Low- and middle-income countries
Agriculture
Oil and gas
Other natural resources
Processed foods
Textiles, apparel, and leather goods
Motor vehicles and parts
Electronic equipment
Other machinery
Other manufacturing
Total

13.4
51.6
6.3
9.5
2.6
0.6
0.7
2.1
13.4
100.0

12.6
33.5
6.3
10.0
7.1
1.4
2.7
4.7
21.7
100.0

5.2
12.0
3.8
7.4
15.5
2.8
9.8
10.6
33.0
100.0

4.1
0.4
4.8
5.4
16.1
13.6
20.4
13.8
10.0
4.8

1.9
0.5
5.9
8.0
20.3
19.4
26.6
20.8
16.1
11.3

11.2
3.3
6.3
10.9
14.8
2.6
6.1
9.1
35.7
100.0

1.4
0.8
2.5
6.0
19.8
3.5
13.5
13.6
38.9
100.0

a. The years represent three-year averages to remove some of the volatility from the data. Thus 1977 represents the average of
1975–77, 1987 is the average of 1985–87, and 1997 is the average of 1995–97. Relative caution is advised regarding Europe andCentral Asia, where data prior to 1990 are not always reliable. This would have only a small impact on the total because of theregion’s relatively small weight.
b. High-income Asia is excluded from the low- and middle-income region in the totals. It is provided for information andincludes Hong Kong (China), Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (China).
Source: GTAP release 5.0.

56

G L O B A L

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E STable 1.A2 Regional export decomposition for developing countriesa
Percent
Share(percent)

Average growth(percent per annum)Contribution to
growth (percent)

1977

1987

1997

1977–87

1987–97

1977–87

1987–97

High income Asia excluding Japanb
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

65.6
7.8
8.5
0.7
1.3
0.2
7.1
2.6
6.1
100.0

69.4
8.6
9.2
2.1
1.1
0.2
3.9
1.2
4.4
100.0

47.0
15.1
25.0
1.6
2.8
1.6
2.1
1.2
3.6
100.0

16.5
16.9
16.9
28.7
13.5
13.2
9.1
7.1
12.0
15.9

7.4
18.1
23.3
8.5
22.6
39.3
5.2
11.8
9.5
11.6

70.5
8.8
9.5
2.5
1.0
0.2
2.9
0.8
3.9
100.0

35.9
18.3
32.8
1.3
3.6
2.3
1.3
1.2
3.2
100.0

East Asia and PacificQuad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

66.1
18.7
4.8
1.3
2.4
0.3
2.9
1.4
2.1
100.0

58.6
26.2
4.9
2.1
1.3
0.7
2.6
0.7
2.8
100.0

54.8
26.2
7.1
1.5
2.0
1.4
2.6
1.0
3.4
100.0

9.8
15.0
11.4
16.4
4.8
21.3
10.1
3.6
14.2
11.1

16.6
17.4
21.7
13.2
22.2
26.6
17.5
21.5
19.8
17.4

54.6
30.3
5.0
2.6
0.7
0.9
2.5
0.3
3.1
100.0

53.8
26.2
7.6
1.3
2.1
1.6
2.7
1.1
3.6
100.0

South Asia
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

52.7
4.4
4.6
4.7
0.6
2.0
22.2
4.1
4.7
100.0

64.8
7.3
2.8
4.8
0.6
1.2
12.8
2.2
3.5
100.0

62.3
9.5
7.3
3.5
1.6
2.9
7.4
2.8
2.8
100.0

10.0
13.4
2.7
8.1
7.8
2.7
2.0
1.3
4.5
7.8

12.4
16.0
24.0
9.1
24.2
22.9
6.8
15.9
10.5
12.8

75.6
9.8
1.3
5.0
0.6
0.5
4.3
0.5
2.4
100.0

61.2
10.5
9.1
2.9
2.0
3.5
5.1
3.1
2.5
100.0

Latin America and the Caribbean
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

75.0
0.7
1.0
0.3
15.9
1.0
3.3
1.0
1.8
100.0

77.2
1.9
1.6
0.6
12.0
0.7
2.9
1.4
1.6
100.0

68.9
2.9
2.8
0.4
20.2
1.0
1.8
0.8
1.1
100.0

8.6
20.1
13.6
15.2
5.3
5.2
6.9
11.4
7.1
8.3

7.7
13.6
15.0
5.9
14.7
12.5
4.1
2.8
4.6
8.9

79.1
2.9
2.1
0.8
8.8
0.5
2.6
1.6
1.5
100.0

62.8
3.7
3.7
0.3
26.2
1.2
1.1
0.3
0.7
100.0

(Table continues on next page)57

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 1.A2

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

Percent
Share(percent)

Average growth(percent per annum)Contribution to
growth (percent)

1977

1987

1997

1977–87

1987–97

1977–87

1987–97

Europe and Central Asia
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

75.7
0.9
0.6
1.1
2.6
0.9
10.9
1.5
5.7
100.0

68.3
0.5
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.9
19.4
0.4
4.2
100.0

57.9
3.2
5.5
0.6
1.3
23.5
3.9
0.3
3.9
100.0

8.8
4.1
26.0
13.1
4.0
18.7
16.4
–4.2
6.4
9.9

20.8
46.2
33.7
11.5
21.2
57.5
4.6
20.7
22.0
22.8

63.6
0.3
3.4
1.7
0.8
2.6
24.8
–0.3
3.1
100.0

56.4
3.5
5.9
0.4
1.3
26.7
1.6
0.3
3.9
100.0

Middle East and North Africa
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

77.3
5.1
1.9
1.0
6.0
1.1
4.6
0.9
2.1
100.0

74.6
6.5
2.1
3.5
3.2
2.7
4.8
0.7
1.9
100.0

66.6
11.3
6.3
3.6
1.9
2.8
4.0
1.4
2.2
100.0

–0.7
2.2
0.5
13.3
–6.4
9.1
0.0
–2.7
–1.2
–0.3

3.4
10.6
16.7
4.6
–0.7
5.2
2.8
11.6
6.1
4.6

158.5
–37.8
–3.1
–75.5
89.1
–46.0
0.4
6.8
7.6
100.0

52.4
19.8
13.6
3.6
–0.4
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.8
100.0

Sub Saharan Africa
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

83.7
1.1
0.6
0.5
3.3
0.3
2.0
3.9
4.6
100.0

84.4
2.3
0.8
1.0
3.9
0.6
1.4
4.0
1.7
100.0

70.8
6.5
4.8
1.9
2.9
1.3
1.7
7.2
2.9
100.0

2.8
10.6
4.6
8.7
4.4
11.1
–0.7
3.1
–7.1
2.7

3.5
16.6
26.5
12.9
2.5
14.1
7.4
11.7
11.4
5.4

86.6
6.3
1.2
2.3
5.7
1.6
–0.5
4.5
–7.8
100.0

50.9
12.5
10.6
3.3
1.6
2.3
2.1
11.9
4.7
100.0

Low and middle income
Quad countries
High income Asia excluding Japan
East Asia and PacificSouth Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of the world
World total

75.5
5.1
2.1
1.0
6.9
0.9
4.5
1.5
2.6
100.0

72.1
8.9
2.6
2.0
5.1
1.3
4.4
1.3
2.2
100.0

61.7
13.5
5.6
1.5
6.1
4.4
2.9
1.4
2.9
100.0

4.3
10.8
7.2
12.8
1.8
9.3
4.5
3.0
3.3
4.8

9.6
16.0
20.3
8.5
13.2
25.7
7.0
12.2
14.2
11.3

66.5
15.3
3.5
3.8
2.2
2.1
4.2
0.9
1.6
100.0

56.2
15.9
7.2
1.3
6.6
6.0
2.2
1.4
3.2
100.0

a. The years represent three-year averages to remove some of the volatility from the data. Thus 1977 represents the average of
1975–77, 1987 is the average of 1985–87, and 1997 is the average of 1995–97. Relative caution is advised regarding Europe andCentral Asia, where data prior to 1990 are not always reliable. This would have only a small impact on the total because of theregion’s relatively small weight.
b. High-income Asia is excluded from the low- and middle-income region in the totals. It is provided for information andincludes Hong Kong (China), Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (China).
Source: GTAP release 5.0.

58

G L O B A L

Notes
1. Technically, the non-economic component ofconfidence is modeled as an unobserved state variable
and estimated using a Kalman filter/smoother, withdata pertaining to economic conditions as exogenous
controls. The model was fitted on monthly data overthe period 1984–2001 (September). Then the estimate
was used together with actual, observed economic data
to predict confidence out of sample over the period October 2001–April 2003.
2. It was decided at the December 2002 Copenhagen Summit to invite eight transition countries tojoin the EU in May 2004.
3. The differences between Sub-Saharan Africa andSouth Asia are not limited to the higher growth rate in
the latter over the last decade. The poverty gap indicator—a measure of the average distance to the poverty
line for the poor—has been much higher in SubSaharan Africa. This implies that even at identical growth
rates, poverty would have decreased more rapidly inSouth Asia.
4. The initial poverty estimate will also be subject
to revisions in the national income and product accounts because adjustments to the survey-based consumption levels will follow adjustments to consumption derived from the national accounts.
5. A numerical example may help clarify the procedure. Say population is 1,000 in 1999 and per capita
consumption growth in 2000 is 5 percent and population growth is 1 percent. If the headcount index is
40 percent in 1999, then the number of poor is 400.
With a headcount elasticity of 1.5, the headcount index
would improve from 40 to 37 percent (40*(1–1.5*0.05)), assuming there is no change in the distributionof income. Total population in 2000 reaches 1,010,
thus the number of poor is 374, a decline of 6.5 percent, whereas the headcount index improves by 7.5 percent. The difference is the population growth rate.
6. These comparisons are not strictly exact because
last year’s 1999 levels do not incorporate the new survey information nor other adjustments to the historicaldata.
7. The survey coverage in the Middle East andNorth Africa region is particularly sparse compared tomost other developing regions. Per capita GDP acrossthe region tends to be relatively high and therefore
poverty rates low, so small changes to poverty levels in
one or two sizeable countries with a fair number ofpoor—for example Egypt or Yemen—can have a disproportionate impact on the regional poverty level.
8. For example specific tariffs penalize more competitive exporters with relatively lower prices.
9. In the case of the European Union, intra-EU
trade is excluded from the average tariff calculationand the reduction.

O U T L O O K

A N D

T H E

D E V E L O P I N GC O U N T R I E S

10. The formula for cutting the non-peak tariffs isgiven by the following expression:
τ1i = χ ⋅ τ 0i
χ=for i ∈ {Agric, Manu} whereτ ∑ Mi −1ai∑ τ1p Mii ∈{Peak}0iii ∈{Peak}∑ τM

The target average is τa1. The import levels are given by
M. All tariff peaks are reduced to τp1. All other tariffs
are reduced by the factor χ, given by the formula
above. There is nothing preventing the adjustment factor from being above 1 (that is, initial tariffs could increase to achieve the target reduction) or below 0 (thatis, non-peak tariffs would have to become negative toachieve the target). In the illustrative pro-poor scenario, the reduction factor is capped above by 1—in
which case the average will be below the target, andbound below by 0 in which case the average will be
above the target. This is the case of Japan in agriculture. An alternative would be to further reduce thepeaks so that the target is achieved.
11. Setting the level of the maximum tariff can havesome unintended consequences. In the case of developing country manufacturing tariffs, for example, setting
the maximum tariff to 20 percent instead of 15 percent
could actually reduce the overall average. The reason isthat all tariffs in the 15 to 20 percent band in the latter (15 percent) case are bound to below 15 percent. In
the former (20 percent) case those tariffs would be reduced by a certain percentage amount—perhaps even100 percent. The difference in the average tariff will
depend on the number of tariffs within the 15 to 20
percent band and the relative import weights.
12. The model is similar to that used to produce thegains from trade reform in Global Economic Prospects
2002. More information regarding the nature of
the simulations and a more detailed description of theresults is given in that report. The model documentation is available at //http://www.worldbank.org/
prospects/pubs/techref.pdf. Global Economic Prospects
2002 reported global merchandise trade reform gainsof $355 billion (in the static exercise). The gains haverisen modestly in this report—essentially for two reasons. We have upgraded the database from release 5.0of the GTAP data set to release 5.3, and we have a new
baseline reflecting two years of observed changes in
economic performance and a (minor) reevaluation of
long-term growth prospects. The current model is also
based on a different regional and sectoral aggregation,
which can affect the impacts of trade reform. (There
are more regions and sectors and, all else being equal,
one would expect this to raise the real income gains byremoving some of the aggregation bias of trade policy59

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

instruments). There have also been a few minor changes
to model specification and parameters.
13. All figures, unless otherwise stated, refer tochanges in 2015 compared with the baseline level. Dollar amounts are measured in real terms and are basedon 1997 dollars. Figures can be converted to 2003
terms by adjusting for economic growth and inflation.
The former would involve dividing a figure by(1.03)^(2015–2003), where it is assumed that the
global economy grows at 3 percent per annum in realterms between 2003 and 2015. The inflation adjustment involves multiplying a figure by (1.025)^(2003–1997) where it is assumed that the rate of inflation is 2.5 percent per annum between 1997 and 2003.
(Both growth and inflation rates are approximations.)
The total adjustment factor is 81 percent, so that the
global gain of $295 billion in 2015 is more or lessequivalent to $235 billion in 2003 global GDP andprices.
14. Few dispute that trade openness will improve
productivity. There is nonetheless great incertitude
about the channels—greater domestic competitiveness,
imports of technology-laden goods, FDI, export-driven
competitiveness—and the magnitude. The results reported herein are intended to illustrate the potential
magnitudes.
15. This compares with a reduction of 114 million
persons in the case of full merchandise trade reform.

60

16. The positive income gains—identified in virtually all of the model’s regions—imply that transitional
mechanisms can be implemented, leaving everyone better off. Whether these mechanisms are designed andimplemented is an important issue, but typically the decision of local governments.

References
Greener, Robert. 2002. “AIDS and Its Macroeconomic
Impact.” In Steven Forsythe, ed., State of the Art:
AIDS and Economics. International AIDS andEconomics Network, 49–55. Available at http://
www.iaen.org/library/statepidemic/chapter7.pdf.
Moatti, J. P., I. N’Doye, S. M. Hammer, P. Hale, and M.
D. Kazatchkine. 2002. “Antiretroviral Treatment
for HIV-Infected Adults and Children in Developing Countries: Some Evidence in Favor of Expanded Diffusion.” In Steven Forsythe, ed., Stateof the Art: AIDS and Economics. International
AIDS and Economics Network, 96–117. Available at http://www.iaen.org/library/statepidemic/
chapter12.pdf.
UNAIDS. 2002. Fact Sheet: Regional Roundup: SubSaharan Africa. July. Available at http://www.
unaids.org/barcelona/presskit/factsheets/FSssafrica_
en.pdf
World Bank. 2003. Global Development Finance 2003.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

2
Trade Patterns and Policies:
Doha Options to
Promote Development
Developing countries have become major
players in the global economy
Over the past two decades, developing countries have increased their share of global tradefrom about one-quarter to one-third. As agroup, they have moved beyond their traditional specialization in agricultural and resource exports into manufactures. Countries
that were low income in 1980 managed to raise
exports of manufactures from roughly 20 percent of their total exports to more than 80 percent, and many have entered the ranks oftoday’s middle-income countries. The middleincome group of 1980 also increased its manufactured share, but somewhat less rapidly, toreach nearly 70 percent. This dramatic change
in trade volume and composition has given developing countries a new interest—and a powerful voice—in the ongoing Doha round.
These changes are not just due to declines in
the prices of agricultural and resource commodities relative to manufactures—the strong
shift in the composition of exports shows up
even when price changes are removed. Further,
it is not just an artifact of a few large, highgrowth exporters such as China and India. The
share of manufactures in the exports of developing countries other than China and India
rose from one-tenth in 1980 to almost twothirds in 2001. It increased sharply, but notequally, in all regions. The share of manufactures in merchandise exports is now between
80 and 90 percent in East Asia, Europe andCentral Asia, and South Asia, but only 60 percent in Latin America. Sub-Saharan Africa andthe Middle East and North Africa have yet toreach the 30 percent mark, and many countries—particularly poor countries—remain dependent on exports of agricultural and resourcecommodities.
The rising tide of exports did not lift allboats. Forty three countries had no increase on
average in their merchandise exports for the 20
years after 1980. Of this group, 20 countries remained strongly dependent on oil or other natural resources, such as phosphates for Nauru or
copper for Zambia. Severe conflicts undercut
the performance of another 18 countries, including Rwanda and Timor Leste. Trade embargos stifled the export performance of fiveother countries, including Libya and Sudan. In
almost all these countries, the investment climate was not sufficiently favorable—for arange of reasons, sometimes resource depletion,
sometimes poor economic management—to attract the investments needed to transform thepattern of exports.

Developing countries are moving into
high-value-added products
Growth in traditional labor-intensive manufactures accounts for only part of the gain in exports of manufactures. Exports of textiles andclothing from low-income countries grew at
14 percent per year between 1981 and 2001,
but other commodity groups grew even faster.

63

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Exports of electronic products, many of which
did not exist in 1980, grew at 21 percent peryear—fast enough to double every few years.
Further, developing countries expanded theirrange of markets, with the share of developingcountry markets growing from 15 to 35 percent over the period. The continual move to
new products and new markets helped highgrowth exporters like India and China to avoid
sharp declines in their terms of trade, which,given the rapidity of their export growth, mightotherwise have been expected.
Between 1991 and 2001, all regions improved their competitiveness in the global
marketplace as measured by market share. Europe and Central Asia, Latin America, andSouth Asia outperformed the other regions,but all gained market share at the expense of
the rich countries. This was not true in thepreceding decade, when several regions lost
market share, notably Europe and Central
Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and
Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why did such rapid and fundamental
changes in trade patterns occur?
Investments in people and in factories bothplayed a role. Average educational levels andcapital stock per worker rose sharply throughout the developing world. Also, improvements
in transport and communications, in conjunction with developing-country reforms, allowed
the production chain to be broken up into
components, with developing countries playing a key role in global production sharing.
Policy was no less important. The dramatic
liberalization of tariff and nontariff barriers indeveloping countries after the mid-1980s increased developing countries’ competitiveness.
The negative impacts of protection on all export activities declined, but more so for manufactures and processed primary products thanfor agriculture and natural resources. Although
successive multilateral trade rounds liberalized
global manufactures, rich countries continued
to protect their agriculture. That pattern has

64

been progressively emulated by developing
countries over the last two decades, with the result that developing countries’ agricultural exports grew more slowly than if agriculture hadtaken the liberalizing path of manufactures.

Now comes the hard part: reducing
protection of sensitive sectors
Developing-country exports now face obstacles in the most sensitive sectors. Industrialcountry tariffs on manufactures from developing countries are five times higher than they
are on manufactures from other industrial
countries. The barriers imposed by developing
countries on other developing countries, however, are even higher. Of course, protection
takes forms other than ad valorem tariffs—
among them quotas, specific duties, and antidumping duties. As with tariffs, these measures tend to be used more frequently against
the labor-intensive products from developing
countries. Average antidumping duties are tentimes higher than tariffs in industrial countries, and around five times higher than in developing countries. In short, both groups ofcountries impose substantially higher barriers
on exports from developing countries.
The way in which protection is reduced will
make a difference to developing countries
Several approaches—modalities—for negotiations have been proposed for reducing tariffs
on agricultural and nonagricultural goods. The
146 World Trade Organization (WTO) members are now discussing formulas that provide
enough discipline to bring about liberalization
and address tariff peaks and escalation, while
offering enough flexibility to accommodate theconstraints of all members. Besides tariffs, reform of the rules on antidumping measures is a
critical priority. Antidumping measures, originally intended as a response to anticompetitive
behavior, are now widely regarded as being
used to facilitate market cartelization and areincreasingly a source of nontransparent andcostly protection.

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :Changing patterns in developingcountry exports

H

istorically, developing countries havebeen regarded as exporters of primarycommodities and importers of manufactures,a theme repeated even in recent textbooks on
development (Todaro 1994). The situation haschanged drastically since the beginning of the
1980s, however, as developing countries havebecome important exporters of manufactured

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

products (figure 2.1). Manufacturing exports
have risen in importance in high-income countries, with their share in total exports risingfrom around 70 percent to more than 80 percent in the 20 years preceding 2001. This shift
was much more marked in the middle- andlow-income countries. In the middle-income
group, the share of manufactures in total exports rose from 20 percent to almost 70 percent over the period. In low-income countries,

Figure 2.1 Developing countries have become important exporters of manufactured products
a. Manufactured products now make up approximately
80 percent of exports from low-income countries

b. When China and India are excluded, manufactures
still make up more than 60 percent of exports

Share of exports by sector, 1981–2001 (percent)100

Share of exports by sector, 1981–2001 (percent)
100

90

90

Manufacturing exports

80

80
Resources exports70

Resources exports

60

60





50

Manufacturing exports



70

50

40

40
Agricultural exports

30
20

30



20



89

91

93

95

97

99

19

01

19

19

19

20

01

19

99

20

87

97

19

19

95

19

85

93

19

19

91

19

83

89

19

19

87

19

81

85

19

19

83

19

19

81

0
19

10

0
19

10

Agricultural exports

c. Manufactures make up nearly 70 percent of exports
from middle-income countries

d. During the same period, export patterns ofhigh-income countries have remained stable

Share of exports by sector, 1981–2001 (percent)100

Share of exports by sector, 1981–2001 (percent)
100

90

90

80

80

Manufacturing exports

70



70

Manufacturing exports



60

60

50

50
40

40

Resources exports

30

30
Agricultural exports



20


10

Agricultural exports

Resources exports

89

91

93

95

97

99

01

19

19

19

19

20

01
20

19

99
19

87

97
19

19

95
19

85

93
19

19

91
19

83

89
19

19

87
19

19

85
19

81

83
19

19

81

0

19

0



10



20

65

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4the share of manufactures rose from 20 percent to more than 80 percent.
Nor are China and India the only countries
driving these changes. Even when China andIndia are excluded, the rise in the share of manufactures is from 10 percent to more than 60
percent of total exports. Clearly, China andIndia are important, but much broader changes
in the composition of developing-country exports are under way. If we eliminate the disproportionate effects of large exporters altogether,by considering simple average export shares,
the average share of manufacturing exportsrose from 25 percent to 50 percent in the unweighted low-income country group, and from28 to 48 percent in the middle-income group.
The share of manufacturing exports in totalexports has risen sharply in all regions (figure2.2). In East Asia and the Pacific, the increasebegan from a high base—over 50 percent—butthen increased to almost 90 percent by 2001. In
Europe and Central Asia, the manufactures
share began at an even higher level, over 60
percent, and rose to almost 90 percent by
2001. Because of Latin America’s strong natural resource endowments (de Ferranti, Perry,
Lederman, and Maloney 2002) the situation
there was quite different initially, with manufactures contributing only 20 percent of totalexports in 1981. That share had almost tripled
by 2001—to more than 60 percent. In the Middle East and North Africa, resource exports,
particularly oil, remain dominant, although
their share fell from more than 90 percent toaround 60 percent during the period under
scrutiny, while the importance of manufacturing exports rose from close to zero to around30 percent. In South Asia, manufacturing exports rose from around half of total exports tomore than 80 percent. Resource-based exports
and agricultural exports remained importantin Sub-Saharan Africa, although the share ofmanufactures rose from 10 to 27 percent.
Clearly, agricultural and resource exports
remain important for many countries and regions, particularly in Africa. However, thebroad-based nature of the shift into manufacturing exports means that developing-country
policymakers and others concerned about de-66

velopment must consider the impact of policies on trade in manufactured products.1

Developing countries are moving up thevalue-added ladderA decomposition of the growth rates of exports from each group of countries by level oftechnology indicates that developing countries
are gaining ground in higher-technology exports (table 2.1). The low-income group hadby far the highest growth rate of total exports,
at 14 percent per year—a rate sufficient tocause exports to expand 14-fold over the 20year period considered.2 The middle-income
countries also experienced substantially higher
growth rates than the high-income countries,
suggesting that developing countries have beencatching up with developed countries in theirtrade patterns—in strong contrast with the indications of divergence observed in many analyses of economic growth (Pritchett 1997).
At the product level, growth in exports of
raw primary products was relatively low, at
2 percent per year globally. In processed agricultural products, such as meats, processed
foods, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products,
and processed woods, growth rates were substantially higher, at 6 percent globally, 7 percent for the low-income country group excluding China and India, and 12 percent for
China and India.
Trade in low-technology manufactures(such as textiles and clothing), simple manufactures (toys, sporting goods), and iron andsteel products grew at rates substantially above
the world average rate. Exports of these products from the low-income country group grewat much higher rates than from other country groups, with export growth rates of 14 percent for textiles and 16 percent for other lowtechnology products.
In medium-technology manufactures, a similar pattern emerges, with global growth rates
above the world average, and growth rates ofexports from low- and middle-income countries greatly outstripping rates from the highincome countries. Exports of automobiles andcomponents from low- and middle-income
countries grew particularly rapidly, at more

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Figure 2.2 Manufactures account for a growing share of exports in all regions
a. Manufactures now make up almost 90 percent ofexports from East Asian developing countries

b. The same is true of the developing countries of Europe
and Central Asia

Share of exports by sector, East Asia and Pacific, 1981–2001(percent)

Share of exports by sector, Europe and Central Asia,
1981–2001 (percent)

100

100
Manufacturing exports

90



80

Manufacturing exports

80

70

70

60

60

50



90

50
40

Resources exports

20

Resources exports

30
Agricultural exports

20



10

Agricultural exports



30



40

10

01

99

20

97

19

95

19

93

19

91

19

89

19

87

19

85

83

19

19

81
19

19

01

99

20

97

19

95

19

93

19

91
19

19

89

87

19

19

83

19

19

19

85

0

81

0

c. The share of manufactures in exports from Latin
America and the Caribbean tripled in the last two decades

d. Manufactures grew from insignificance in exports from
the Middle East and North Africa

Share of exports by sector, Latin American and the
Caribbean, 1981–2001 (percent)Share of exports by sector, Middle East and North Africa,
1981–2001 (percent)

100

100

90

90

80

80
Manufacturing exports

Resources exports

70
60
50
40

99

97

95

01
20

19

19

19

93

91

19

89

87

19

85

19

81



Agricultural exports

19

01

99

95

97

20

19

19

93

19

91

89

19

19

19

19

19

19

87

0

83

0

85

10

81

20

10

83



20

19

Manufacturing exports

30

19

30

19

Agricultural exports

40

19

50







60



70

Resources exports

e. Manufactures grew to almost 80 percent of exports
from South Asia

f. The share of manufactures in exports from Sub-SaharanAfrica nearly tripled, but from a low baseline

Share of exports by sector, South Asia, 1981–2001(percent)

Share of exports by sector, Sub-Saharan Africa, 1981–2001(percent)

100

100


80

90
80

70

70

60

60

50

Resources exports

Manufacturing exports

90

50
Agricultural exports

30



20

20





10

Manufacturing exports

5

87
19
89

19

19
8

19
83

19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01

0

19
89

19
87

19
85

19
83

19

81

Resources exports

19
81

10
0

Agricultural exports

40

19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01

30



40

Source: COMTRADE.

67

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 2.1

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Developing countries are becoming exporters of high-value products

Annual growth rates (percent)Primary products
Resource-based manufactures
Agricultural
Other
Low-technology manufactures
TextilesOther
Medium-technology manufactures
Automotive and components
Process industry products
Engineering products
High-technology manufactures
Electronic
Other
Total

Low income,less China
and India

Low
incomeChina andIndia

MiddleincomeHighincome

World

1

2

5

1

4

2

7
4

8
7

12
10

6
5

6
5

6
5

14
16

15
19

15
20

7
10

5
6

8
8

22
14
21

20
13
23

19
12
24

19
11
12

7
6
7

8
7
8

21
10
13

26
16
15

36
20
17

17
12
10

10
9
6

13
9
7

Note: Table 1 presents the annual growth rates by product group and by country groups assigned on the basis of 1981 income
levels to avoid the selection bias that results when end-of-period attributes are used as the basis for selection. Product definitions
are supplied by the WTO. Data analysis undertaken in World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS) using “mirror” data from UN
COMTRADE. Country groups defined by income status in 1981.While the results from this approach must be treated with somecaution, because the level of technology of the process involved is frequently more important than the technology level of the
product, examining the nature of the products being traded is clearly of interest.
Source: COMTRADE, WITS, WTO.

than 22 percent per year. Exports of engineering products such as engines, pumps, andinstruments from low-income countries grewat close to 21 percent per year. The highest
growth rates of all occurred in high-technology
products—particularly electronic goods, suchas computers, televisions, and components.
World trade in these goods grew more than
twice as fast as overall world trade. Export
growth from low- and middle-income countries was much faster again, with exports ofelectronic products from low-income countries
growing at the extraordinary rate of more than
21 percent per year—enough to expand exports almost 50-fold over the period.

Low-income countries are less reliant than
before on resource-based exports
The importance of the growth rates noted
above depends greatly on the share of eachbroad product type—resource-based, lowtechnology, medium-technology, and hightechnology—in total exports.
Low-income countries showed the mostdramatic transformation of export patterns

68

between 1981 and 2001 (figure 2.3). In 1981,
these countries depended on resource-based
products for 87 percent of their exports, ashare that had fallen to 25 percent by 2001.
The share of low-technology manufacturesrose substantially, from 13 to 38 percent,while that of medium-technology exports
went from 3 to 15 percent. High-technology
exports exploded from 2 to 21 percent.
The middle-income countries in 1981 wereoriginally much more dependent than othercountries on resource-based products—an important contributor to their economic success
up to that point (figure 2.3b). In 1981, resource-based products accounted for 81 percent of their exports, a share that fell to a stillsubstantial 39 percent in 2001. The share of
low-technology manufactures rose from 9 to
18 percent in the same countries, while theshare of medium-technology exports morethan tripled from 6 to 27 percent, and hightechnology manufactures jumped from 3 to 24
percent.
The transformation of high-income countries’ exports was much less dramatic than forT R A D E

P A T T E R N S

Box 2.1

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Poor export performance in 43 countriesNot all countries participated in the otherwise
positive trends for developing countries. Fortynine countries experienced negative real growth rates
over the 20-year period for merchandise exports.
Six of the 49 were tourism-based economies that
did poorly in merchandise trade but in fact experienced rising national incomes associated with
tourism exports.
Of the 43 export-contracting countries, poor
performance was attributable to combinations ofexcessive dependence on one or two primary products, civil conflict, and politically motivated tradeembargoes—often complicated by inept governance.
In 1981, these countries derived an average of 85
percent of their export earnings from primary products; 20 years later the average was 75 percent. Of
the 43 countries, 20 were less-developed countries.
Twenty cases were heavily dependent on one or
two primary products, such as oil (Cameroon), phosphates (Nauru), or copper (Zambia), and failed todiversify over the next two decades. Cameroon, forexample, despite its richness in natural resources,
relies on oil for about one-third of export revenues,
and timber or cocoa for much of the rest, leaving it
vulnerable to fluctuation in the prices of these com-the developing countries. The share of resourcebased exports fell from 37 to 5 percent, while
the share of low-technology exports remained
close to 13 percent (figure 2.3c). The export
share of medium-technology manufacturesrose from 36 to 38 percent, while that of hightechnology exports increased sharply—from
13 to 24 percent of total exports.

Global production sharing is creating
new opportunities
Much of the change in developing-country
export patterns, and particularly the rise inhigh-technology exports, is associated withthe phenomenon of global production sharing(Deardorff 2001; Hummels, Ishii, and Yi
2001). Production sharing benefits rich andpoor countries by allowing production to bebroken into discrete stages, each performed inmodities. The oil boom led to a significant increasein public spending and a top-heavy civil service,
which makes it difficult to respond swiftly to decreases in the price of oil. To make matters worse,the lack of a clear agricultural policy transformed thecountry into a net importer of food, accelerating thealready deteriorating trade balance.
Eighteen countries experienced severe conflicts
or war—among them Comoros, Rwanda, and Timor
Leste. Another five countries, including Libya andSudan, experienced trade embargoes.
A more felicitous tale is that of Barbados, one of
the tourism-based economies. In 1981 the country
was highly dependent on sugar. But progressive andstable political leadership, investments in education,and public investments in infrastructure to support
tourism diversified and transformed the economy.
Barbados once had the same per capita income as
Jamaica; today it is one of the most prosperous
countries in the Caribbean, with a per capita GDP
of $9,700 in 2000.

Source: World Bank staff.

the countries best suited to it. Labor-intensive
stages of production, for example, are typically done in labor-abundant countries. Potentially, production sharing can greatly expand
the range of activities in which developing
countries can participate—holding out thepromise of increasing employment and reducing poverty.
Of course, breaking the once-rigid linkages
among stages in the production process makes
it more difficult to interpret the implications of
the shift to manufactures—particularly hightechnology products. In many cases, developing
countries undertake only those production activities that require low-skilled labor—a lowtech part of the production of high-tech commodities. However, the buoyant demand forsuch commodities helps offset the relatively
stagnant demand for some traditional agricul-

69

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 2.3 Technology-laden manufactures
have increased as a share of exports fromeach group of countries, while the share ofresource-based exports has diminisheda. Low-income countries are moving out of resourcebased industries into low-technology exports

Share of exports by sector, low-income countries,
1981–2001 (percent)
100
1981


90
80
70
60
50
40

2001


30
20
10
0

Resourcebased

Low techMediumtech

High techb. Middle-income countries are increasing the level oftechnology in their exports

Share of exports by sector, middle-income countries,
1981–2001 (percent)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Resourcebased

Low techMediumtech

High techc. In high-income countries, the share of hightechnology exports has risen rapidly

Share of exports by sector, high-income countries,
1981–2001 (percent)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Resourcebased

Low tech

Source: COMTRADE.

70

Mediumtech

High techtural commodities and can create important
productivity gains through learning-by-doing
and the expansion of productive firms.
The move to global production sharingheightens the importance of timely, efficient,and low-cost transportation. Even quite small
differences in transport costs and the timelinessof transportation services can have quite dramatic consequences for national incomes.
Hummels (2001) estimates that an increase of
one day in the time taken to deliver a good isequivalent to an increase of 0.8 percent in thecost, not just of transportation, but of the gooditself. Redding and Venables (2001) conclude
that differences in transport costs in a world ofglobal production sharing may account for alarge proportion of the observed differences inincomes among countries. In this mode of production, countries must pay transport costs toobtain their inputs and to consign their outputs. If value added is a small share of output
value, as is frequently the case, then transport
costs have enormous leverage on the residual
returns available to pay workers and ownersof capital. If value added is 20 percent of thegross output value in the absence of trade
costs, for example, then a transport cost of 10
percent of output to ship products out, and an
equal cost to bring in components, could wipeout returns to productive factors.
To gain an idea of the potential importanceof global production sharing in developing
countries, we have calculated indexes of vertical specialization of the type developed by
Hummels, Ishii, and Yi (2001) for several developing countries. These indexes expose theshare of imported inputs embodied in each unitof goods exported—either directly or after indirect use of imported inputs is taken into account. Although imperfect—they do not allow
for differences between export- and domestically oriented sectors in their use of intermediate inputs—these measures provide a
structured assessment of the extent and changes
in production sharing.3 Two sets of results arepresented in figure 2.4. The lower bars estimate
the share of export value accounted for by direct use of imported intermediates, whereas the

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Figure 2.4 Global production sharing is increasingly important for China and India
Share of imported inputs in a unit of exports, India, 1980–1998 (percent)25

Direct andindirect use(India)20
Direct use(India)15



Direct use(China)Direct andindirect use(China)



10





5

0
1980

1985

1990

1995

1998

Source: World Bank staff.

higher bars represent direct plus indirect use ofimported intermediates.
The importance of global production sharing in India has more than doubled since1980. In China, even though production sharing began from a considerably higher level
than in India, it almost doubled over the period, to 22 percent. Even so, the estimates understate the importance of global production
sharing in China, where policy has strongly favored the use of imported inputs in laborintensive production of manufactures (Ianchovichina 2003), and where exports based on
the processing of imported intermediates account for about half of total exports. However, the graph highlights the substantial increase in the importance of the phenomenon
in China over the period—particularly since
1987, when duty-free access was extended toa wide range of imported intermediates usedin the production of exports.
To take several other examples, Singapore’s
economy is much more integrated into theworld economy than is middle-income Colombia. Singapore’s total vertical specializationindex hovered around 60 percent of the valueof its exports over the past two decades, witha direct specialization index of more than 50
percent. By contrast, in Colombia, the total

index rose from 6.4 to 7.9 percent—not much
more than a tenth of Singapore’s. Although
Colombia’s larger economy would be expected
to show less vertical specialization than Singapore’s, the fact that it is so much less integrated
than China’s or India’s suggests that constraints on transport and communications may
be inhibiting Colombia’s participation in
global production sharing.4
China and India have tightened their integration with the world economy since 1980.
Their experience suggests that successful exporters of manufactures can avoid the problems of declining terms of trade that preoccupied many thinkers in the 1950s and 1960s(Bloch and Sapsford 2000) and that remain implicit in many current models of world tradeand growth. A striking feature of the expansionof exports from developing countries is that theterms of trade of countries whose exports haverisen extremely rapidly have not deteriorated tothe extent that one might predict using conventional economic models. Most of the models
used by economists would predict that large increases in exports would be followed by substantial declines in export prices, as countries
exported more and more of the same products.
Declines in the terms of trade of China,
India, and other high-export-growth countries,71

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 2.5 Soaring exports from China and India had only a moderate effect on China’s
and India’s terms of tradea. China
Terms of trade and exports of goods and services, 1979–2001 (billions of dollars)
350

140
120

300

Terms of trade [left scale]


250

100

200

80
Exports of goods and services[right scale]

60

150



40

100

20

50

0

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

b. India
Terms of trade and exports of goods and services, 1979–2001 (billions of dollars)
80

160
Terms of trade [left scale]

140

70



120

60

100

50

Exports of goods and services[right scale]

80

40



60

30

40

20

20

10

0

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Source: World Bank staff.

however, have been much more modest thanwould be expected given their high rates of export expansion. China’s export revenues grewalmost thirty-fold (3,000 percent) in value
terms between 1979 and 2001 (figure 2.5).
Over the same period, the ratio of China’s
export prices to import prices—its terms oftrade—declined by nearly 30 percent. Clearly,
China’s gains in export value would have been72

considerably greater had the terms of trade
not deteriorated in this way, but the gains ingrowth of export value, and its purchasing
power, were clearly enormous. While reaping
immense benefits from its burgeoning export
trade, China essentially shared some of thosebenefits with its trading partners in the form of
improvements in their terms of trade. India’s
exports grew sevenfold during the same period,

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :while its terms of trade deteriorated by perhaps
4 percent.
A key to the apparent discrepancy between
the predictions of economic models and actual
outcomes is that export growth in some developing countries appears to have been accompanied by vigorous expansion in the rangeof products exported and in the markets inwhich those exports were sold (Hummels andKlenow 2002; Kehoe and Ruhl 2002; Evenett
and Venables 2003), and by increases in thequality of the goods exported (Schott 2002).
These important developments mean that policymakers in developing countries can worry
much less about declining terms of trade if
they can focus on reform of policies—both at
the border and behind it—and on competing
successfully in new products and markets.
Clearly, the dramatic changes seen in developing countries’ export patterns can be expected to have a major impact on their interests in the current WTO negotiations. In theearly 1980s, before the Uruguay Round, developing countries relied heavily on exports ofresource-based products and had relatively
limited interest exports of manufactured products, which until then had been the focus of
WTO negotiations on market access. Since
that time, however, the interests of the middleincome countries and the many poor countries
that now export high-technology products
have broadened dramatically. Further, given
the dramatic increase in vertical specializationin production, all countries are much more dependent on the availability of the services
needed to support decentralized production—
giving developing countries a much greater
stake in negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Behind the patterns: Economic
and policy determinantsW

hat caused the transformation in world
trade patterns described in the previous
section? Did exports grow “passively” in response to expansion in world markets? Or
did the observed growth depend on improve-

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

ments in competitiveness resulting from reforms in policies, or on growth in investment
and productivity?
Differences between export growth in agiven region and average world growth rates
can be ascribed to two key factors: (1) growth
in world demand for the region’s products and(2) increases in competitiveness because oflower output prices, improvements in quality,or shifts in the pattern of exports to products
in greater demand.
From 1981 to 1991, the developing countries of East Asia experienced export growthof 232 percent, compared with the global average growth rate of 115 percent. The demand forthe products exported from East Asia grewslightly faster than the world average, at 124
percent, but East Asian export performance wasoutstanding primarily because of an increasein competitiveness that raised East Asia’s exports by 109 percentage points relative to overall market growth. Europe and Central Asia lostcompetitiveness over the same period, causing
their exports to grow by 94 percent relative to
growth in the market for their exports of 124
percent and to world export growth of 115 percent. The commodity-dependent exporters of
the Middle East and North Africa sufferedheavily from contractions in the demand forthe products they produced; the world market
for their exports shrank by 21 percent. In addition, they lost competitiveness within their own
product markets, with the result that their exports fell by 24 percent over the period. By contrast, the product mix of South Asian exporters
was helpful; the markets for their products grewby 129 percent over the period. South Asian
countries also experienced substantial improvements in competitiveness, which accounted foran additional 70 percentage points of export
growth, bringing their total export growth tojust under 200 percent. The market for the
products exported by Latin America and the
Caribbean expanded by 54 percent—less thanhalf the average for the world as a whole—butthese countries managed to gain an additional
21 percent increase in their exports through increases in competitiveness.

73

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 2.2

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Developing countries’ exports became more competitive in the 1990s

Source of export growth relative to world average growth, 1981–2001 (percent)
1981–91

1991–2001

Total

DemandCompetitiveness

Total

DemandCompetitiveness

133
94
232
75
–24
199
10
115

148
122
124
54
–21
129
20
—

–16
–28
109
21
–3
70
–10
—

48
255
139
137
60
113
68
68

70
48
75
50
58
36
35
—

–22
206
64
87
3
77
33
—

Industrial countries
Europe and Central Asia
East Asia and Pacific
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
World
Source: COMTRADE.

For 1991 to 2001, export growth in all developing country regions outstripped that of
the industrial countries (table 2.2). While highin East Asia and the Pacific, it was even higher
in the developing countries of Europe and Central Asia, where market share responded toa dramatic improvement in competitiveness.5
Of the developing country regions, only East
Asia and the Pacific benefited from aboveaverage growth in demand. But all regions except the Middle East and North Africa grew ator above world average growth rates throughincreases in competitiveness.

What explains improvements
in competitiveness?
Changes in production factors used by developing countries probably improved their competitiveness. One of the most misunderstoodpredictions of economics is that changes in
the factors employed in open economies willchange the mix of goods produced and exported, rather than the prices of the input factors. Increases in the amount of capital per
worker in an open economy can, for instance,
be expected to increase the share of output
from capital-intensive sectors, rather than depress the return on capital. Similarly, increases
in the amount of education per worker can be
expected to increase the share of output fromknowledge-intensive activities, rather than declines in returns to education and increases inunemployment of skilled workers. In this respect, open economies are much better placed

74

than closed economies, where growth in any
factor can be expected to depress its price, as
the domestic demand for the goods in which
it is used intensively becomes saturated. Of
course, world markets, too, are finite, andrapid increases in supply can lead to declines
in world prices—as appears to have occurredin coffee markets in recent years. But world
markets are much larger than those of individual countries. The problem of saturation ismuch less likely to become serious for tradein manufactures, because there is much more
two-way trade among developing countries inthese goods. For this reason, Martin (1993)
found that each developing country was likely
to be better off if all developing countries benefited from increases in manufacturing productivity than if it alone benefited.
Other likely influences on the structure of
outputs and exports include changes in tradeand investment policies; changes in the market
opportunities facing developing countries; andthe development of new market opportunities in which developing countries alreadyhave, or can develop, a comparative advantage.
Clearly, these influences are related—increases
in market opportunities and improvements intrade and investment policies are likely to stimulate investment in physical and human capital.
Increases in the importance of foreign direct investment are another contributing factor to the changes in developing countries’
participation in international trade. As documented in World Bank (2002), foreign direct

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

Table 2.3

Investment in people and in capital grew rapidly

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Percent annual changes in factor endowments, 1960–90

Industrial
Developing
East Asia and Pacific
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

Capitalper worker

Education
per worker

Secondaryeducation
per worker

Tertiary
education
per worker

3.7

0.3

2.2

4.9

5.1
2.4
3.4
3.2
2.1

4.2
2.0
2.3
3.3
4.2

9.2
5.3
1.9
4.3
9.7

3.4
6.7
6.3
6.4
12.6

Source: Nehru and Dhareshwar (1993); Nehru, Swanson, and Dubey (1995).

investment grew dramatically during the 1990s.
Not only did it bring capital to developing
countries, augmenting the total supply of capital per worker, but it brought know-how, andconnections with other elements in the network of global production sharing.
One likely contributor to the observedchange in the mix of developing-country exports is the rising amount of capital per worker
available in some developing economies. In
East Asian economies, the annual growth rates
of capital per worker have been almost one
and a half times those in the advanced industrial countries (Nehru and Dhareshwar 1993;
Nehru, Swanson and Dubey 1995). In otherregions, the average rate of growth in capitalper worker has been lower than in the industrial countries, even though some developing
countries outside East Asia have rates of saving
and investment that match those found in East
Asia. Increases in the amount of secondary andtertiary education per worker have been muchhigher for most developing country regions
than in the industrialized world—albeit frequently from a low level.
To the extent that these resources have beeneffectively employed, this deepening of financial and human capital per worker can be expected to encourage a shift away from laborintensive activities toward activities that use
more capital and skills. Broad estimates of thegrowth rates of financial and educational capital are presented in table 2.3 for each developing country region. The first column mea-sures the growth of capital per worker, while
subsequent columns measure years of education and average years of secondary and tertiary education per worker. While these are
only crude measures of the growth of these inputs per worker, they do represent an indication of the efforts that have been made in developing countries to increase the capital andskills available per worker.
The relationship between accumulation offactors of production and the export mix islikely to be quite complex, with countries first
expanding their output of labor-intensive manufactures and then, beyond a certain level ofcapital and skills, moving into a different rangeof products (Schott 2003). Further, questions
have arisen regarding how effectively many
countries have been able to use the additional
capital and human skills (Pritchett 2000,
2001). It seems highly likely, however, that theobserved rapid increases in capital and skills
per worker have been important in many casesof successful development and that they arevital to long-term progress. Without large increases in the availability of skilled labor, it
would be difficult to explain the rapid increases in the exports of high-technology products from developing countries—especiallyfrom the low-income countries. Even where
high-technology exports involve routine operations performed on sophisticated imported inputs, advanced organizational and technicalskills are needed to ensure consistent and reliable supplies of high-quality exports.

75

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Lowering protection throughout thedeveloping world created newopportunities—
Since the mid-1980s, the large-scale liberalization of trade policies in developing countries
has widened market access and lowered theimplicit taxation on exports that import tariffs
entail. Average tariffs in developing countries
fell to around 12 percent by 2000—about
one-third of their level in 1983. This large reduction was accompanied by even larger reductions in nontariff barriers and exchangerate overvaluation—both of which strongly
exacerbated the protectionist effects of tariffs
in the 1980s (World Bank 2000).
Absolute reductions in protection were evenlarger in individual countries. India, for example, reduced its average tariff from 100 percent
in 1986 to 32 percent in 1999. While some reductions in protection have occurred in industrial countries—through tariff reductions andthrough abolition of nontariff barriers—thechanges have been quite small relative to thosein developing countries. Between 1980 and
2001, the average tariff in industrial countries
fell from 9.8 to 3.7 percent—a significant fall,but much smaller than that observed in developing countries, where the average tariff fell
from 30 percent to 12.7 percent over the same
period.
These figures, and some standard assumptions, allow us to divide up the contribution of
trade reform to developing country export
growth into a component due to countries’
own liberalization and one due to improved
market access and export demand. The tariff
reductions in developing countries reduced theprice of imports to domestic consumers by anaverage of 12 percent, while import prices in
the industrial countries were reduced by 3.4
percent. The increase in the demand for exports from developing countries is determinedby the reductions in import prices in their markets—both in industrial countries and in otherdeveloping countries. Over the period from1986 to 2001, the industrial countries absorbed two-thirds, on average, of developingcountry exports. Therefore, we estimate the im-76

provement in market access by weighting theprice change due to tariff cuts in industrial
countries by two-thirds and the reduction indeveloping countries by one-third, yielding an
average price reduction for developing country
exports of 6.4 percent, almost exactly half thestimulus that comes from developing countries’
own exports. This suggests that, in aggregate,developing countries’ own liberalization has
been the primary channel through which tradereform has expanded developing countries’
export growth. Because reform in any one developing country benefits other developing
countries as well, the total contribution of developing country reform can be captured by
combining the “own-liberalization” effect withthe market-access benefits provided by otherdeveloping countries. When we do this, we findthat 88 percent of the stimulus to developingcountry exports following tariff liberalization
derives from developing-country liberalization.
Such large reductions in protection can be
expected to have marked effects on the patternof exports, as well as their level. Protection
raises the costs of all domestic industries by increasing the costs of their inputs—including
both intermediate inputs and factors.6 However, this effect varies among sectors. Typically,
manufactures are much more vulnerable tothe adverse effects of protection because they
are more dependent than agricultural andresource-based activities on imported intermediate inputs. Further, this vulnerability has
grown over time as production has moved
from regionally integrated production—the
original approach taken by firms such as Fordand the large integrated steel mills in an earlier
era of industrialization—to internationally integrated production networks involving many
firms and countries.
Protection regimes are often erected to promote industrialization without thorough consideration of their impact on the production of
manufactured goods and the structure of exports. Tariffs and other trade barriers affectexports primarily by raising the costs of production inputs. Because protection policies
rarely improve the returns small developing

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :countries can obtain from sales of their exports, their impact on exports can be judged
by considering their effect on the costs of intermediate inputs—and hence on the returns
available for payment to factors. This can bedone simply by applying the concept of the effective rate of protection to measure the effectof protection on the value added in export
production. While this approach underestimates the adverse effects of protection by ignoring indirect cost-increasing effects, it provides a simple and transparent indication of
the direct effects.

—by reducing the implicit taxes
on exports
The burden on exports of tariffs on intermediate input costs7 is illustrated by the cases ofBrazil, China, India, and Malawi in 1986,
when estimated rates of average protection
were first available for each country, and1997, following large reductions in protection(table 2.4). The impact of protection on exports differs considerably from country tocountry, but two key features are evident.
First, agricultural processing and manufacturing (whether labor or capital intensive) for export are much more heavily taxed than are
agricultural and resource commodities. Second, the rate of taxation has generally declined substantially since the mid-1980s, whileremaining substantial for industrial products.
At the levels of protection prevailing in
1986, export activities in agricultural process-

Table 2.4

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

ing and in capital- or labor-intensive manufactures were taxed at essentially prohibitive
levels. In India, the taxes directly imposedby protection on agricultural processing andcapital-intensive manufacturing averaged morethan 60 percent. (Nontariff measures, domestic licensing requirements, and exchange-rate
distortions, if computed, would have further
increased the effective tax.) In Brazil, the estimated impact of tariffs on returns from exporting manufactured products and processed
agricultural goods was even more sharply negative—around 70 percent. In China, the direct
impacts of protection appear to have been on
the same order of magnitude, with agriculturalprocessing facing taxes of more than 70 percent and labor-intensive manufactures close to
60 percent. These problems were compoundedby strong policy-driven obstacles to the expansion of state-run firms, which eventually were
mitigated by the emergence of an entirely newclass of firms—the township and village enterprises—not subject to the constraints of thestate-run firms. The export tax rates in Malawi
appear to have been much lower than in China
and India, even before the reforms, perhaps because such a small and trade-dependent economy simply could not maintain the types oftrade barriers found in the bigger countries.
Although a very few agricultural processing
and manufacturing activities that depended
less on intermediate inputs might have beenable to survive at average tariff rates of 100
percent (as in India), it seems highly likely that

Tariffs hurt exports—but less so in the 1990s than in the 1980s

Cost penalties on exports associated with import tariffs (percent)BrazilAgriculture
Agricultural processing
Resources
Labor-intensive manufacturing
Capital-intensive manufacturing
Services

China

India

Malawi

1986

1997

1986

1997

1986

1997

1986

1997

–43
–83
–45
–72
–79
–31

–5
–28
–6
–17
–22
–3

–28
–72
–14
–54
–46
–26

–15
–54
–7
–35
–28
–14

–14
–64
–9
–45
–60
–16

–5
–39
–3
–23
–35
–6

–9
–20
–6
–18
–11
–5

–7
–16
–5
–15
–9
–4

Note: Effective rate of protection applying to exporters is the proportional change in returns to value-adding factors resulting
from tariff protection.
Source: World Bank data.

77

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

reductions in tariffs—and nontariff barriers—of the type observed around the world between
1986 and 2001 (World Bank 2000) must havecontributed to the great expansion of developing countries’ manufacturing exports.
Reductions in average tariffs were complemented by the introduction of duty-exemption
or drawback arrangements under which export
producers obtained access to duty-free inputs
for use in export production. These arrangements offer one way, legal under GATT, to reduce the burdens imposed by import duties.
Some exporters, such as China, have used themsuccessfully to develop labor-intensive exports(Ianchovichina 2003; Ianchovichina and Martin 2003).
However, such policies are an imperfect solution to the problems created by protection.
Whether introduced throughout the economy
or in specific free-trade zones, such arrangements are administratively demanding. In manycases, particularly in Africa, they have failed
to operate successfully (Madani 1999). Further,
they tend to encourage firms to concentrate on
production activities that add a small amount ofvalue to imported inputs, rather than on activities more closely integrated with domestic production. Ianchovichina (2003) found that exporting activities had become much more
import-intensive than other industries as a resultof the incentives created by duty exemptions.
Since one of the key lessons of the new economic geography is that there may be substantial gains from activities that encourage
the development of backward—as well as forward—linkages (Amiti 2003), incentives toward shallow processing activities may cause
highly protected economies to miss many opportunities for growth. Reductions in overalltariffs are a much better alternative than duty
exemption. Not only do they remove the incentive for unnecessarily shallow specialization, butthey also reduce the price of nontraded goods
and factor inputs (Corden 1997), and further
increase the stimulus to production for export.
Another problem with relying on duty exemptions rather than relatively low and uniform tariff rates is that their introduction re-78

duces the pressure for more general reductionsin protection, since exporters—a potentiallypowerful source of pressure for reductions intariffs—no longer suffer the direct impact ofprotection (Cadot, de Melo, and Olarreaga2002).
Redressment of behind-the-border costs imposed by inadequate infrastructure and excessive, inappropriate regulation has also
helped developing-country exports (Dollar,
Hallward-Driemeier, and Mengistae 2003).
Other behind-the-border problems include
those associated with clearance through customs—excessive or arbitrary inspections or requests for documentation, demands for bribes
or other informal payments, and so on. Several of these problems are dealt with in greater
detail in chapters 5 and 6.
The dramatic changes in the nature of their
participation in world trade have greatlychanged the incentives of developing countries
to participate in the world trading system.
When developing countries exported goods—
cocoa, rubber, coffee—that did not compete directly with those produced in developed countries, they had little incentive to participate inpolitically difficult exchanges of market-accessconcessions that characterized the multilateral
trading system. At the same time, the effects onexports of their protection regimes were relatively subdued, since their primary exports—as
we have seen—required fewer intermediate inputs. The shift to manufactures increases theimportance of access to markets in which there
is likely to be strong domestic competition.
And the prices of export-oriented manufactures are, of course, very sensitive to the costs
of intermediate inputs, since exporters are unable to pass these costs on without pricing
themselves out of the market.

Market access for development:
The agenda

R

eciprocal exchanges of tariff reductions,the key element of all previous WTO negotiations, will be a critical element in the current negotiations. Tariffs, however, are not theT R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :only issue. Two additional topics central tomarket access for developing countries are:
• The phasing out of textile and clothing
quotas, and• Frequent recourse to antidumping measures.

Phasing out quotas on textiles andclothing is crucial
The commitment to phase out quotas on textiles and clothing was made in 1994 as part of
the Uruguay Round agreement. That commitment took the form of an Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, under which quotas were
to be phased out in three tranches. Products
accounting for 16 percent of 1990 imports
were to return to GATT disciplines immediately, with an additional 17 percent returning in
1998, and 18 percent in 2002. However, because the imports used as the baseline included
products typically traded only by the industrialized countries, importing countries were able
to meet their commitments without abolishing
any significant quotas until the third phase of
integration, beginning January 1, 2002. The
delay in the abolition of quotas has meant thatperhaps 85 percent of the effective quotas
against developing countries remain in effect—
including the most restrictive. Unless the industrial countries go back on their solemn commitments, often reaffirmed, all of the remaining
quotas will be abolished on January 1, 2005.
It is difficult to predict the impact of quota
abolition, since the textile industry is so heavily
distorted by quota and tariff protection in bothindustrial and developing countries. What isclear is that some countries, such as China andIndia, with strong underlying comparative advantage in the production of these goods, have
had their exports sharply restricted by the presence of the quotas. Other suppliers, much lessseverely restricted by quotas and/or tariffs, havebeen able to expand their exports considerably.
This group includes three distinct categories:• Exporters such as Hong Kong, China;
Taiwan, China; and the Republic of

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Korea, for which clothing and textiles areindustries that likely will be allowed to
decline and “sunset”• Exporters such as Mauritius and Cambodia, whose exports have been less tightly
restricted by quotas and which have had
preferential tariff access for at least somecommodities• Countries such as Mexico and Turkey
that face neither quota constraints nor
tariff barriers in their major markets.
Abolition of quotas will remove much of
the incentive for continued production in thefirst group of exporting countries and reducethe margin of preference enjoyed by the freeaccess countries. (Their preference will dropfrom the margin provided by tariffs plus theexport-tax equivalent of other countries’ quotas, to just the margin provided by tariffs.)
Results provided by simulation models suggest that countries such as China and India,
which have relatively low production costs,
are likely to make substantial gains in market
share following abolition of the quotas (Yang,
Martin, and Yanagishima 1997; François andSpinanger 2002). These results are conditioned on the assumptions of the models, andparticularly on differentials in the extent towhich the quotas restrict the exports of different countries. While some countries, such as
China, provide high-quality data on the extent
to which the quotas restrict their exports, data
for many other exporters are much less widely
available. Another indicator of the underlying
competitiveness of individual exporters is theshare of their exports shipped to nonquota
markets. The more efficient the supplier andthe more restrictive the quotas it faces, themore of its exports it will tend to ship to lesslucrative nonquota markets (figure 2.6).
While the share of clothing exports (using
WTO categories) exported to nonquota markets is a crude index of the extent to which exports are restricted by quotas, some interesting
patterns appear. The first is that some countries—Albania, Costa Rica, Mexico, Morocco,
Pakistan, and Tunisia—directed almost all of79

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 2.6 Many developing countries face an adjustment when quotas are lifted
Share of clothing exports to nonquota markets by developing-country exporters, 2001 (percent)
Albania
Morocco
Mauritius
Tunisia
Costa Rica
MexicoPakistan
India
Czech Republic
Malaysia
Taiwan, China
South Africa
ThailandIndonesia
Hong Kong, China
Korea, Republic ofColombia
China
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Source: COMTRADE.

their clothing exports to the quota-restricted
countries, suggesting that their quotas werelarge enough to let them focus on these markets, or that their competitiveness did not allow
them to export to less-lucrative nonquota markets. Another group of countries, such as theCzech Republic, India, Indonesia, and South
Africa, exported more than 10 percent of theirexports to nonquota markets—suggesting both
restrictive quotas and an ability to compete atcurrently depressed world prices for clothing.
Finally, Colombia and China exported 50 and
79 percent, respectively, of their exports to nonquota markets. Countries in this category appear likely to be highly restricted and to havestrong potential for expanding their exports
following abolition of the quotas.
The abolition of some restrictive quotas inJanuary 2002 provides another source of insight into the implications of quota abolition.
Because the abolished quotas covered only asmall fraction of total textile and clothing trade,one would expect a disproportionate responseto their disappearance, since additional resources waiting to be channeled into textiles
and clothing could, for the moment, be redirected only into the products liberalized. In fact,a key feature of the adjustment to abolition of80

these quotas has been rapid growth in exportsof these products, particularly from China.
Whether current supplying countries maintain or lose market share following quota abolition will depend on whether they undertake
reforms in advance to maintain their competitiveness. The current system contains, formany countries, disincentives for policy reforms that lower costs, improve efficiency, andincrease supply. Increases in the supply of exports from a country that has filled its quotas
must be shipped to a limited range of markets
not constrained by quotas, where prices arelikely to decline if significant additional quantities are exported (Elbehri, Hertel, and Martin
2003). Once the quotas are abolished in theworld’s largest markets, however, the gains
from reforms that reduce costs are likely to bemuch greater. If countries use the greater competition that follows the abolition of quotas asa stimulus for reforms that increase productivity, they stand to gain much more than they
could have hoped to gain in the past. Bhardwaj, Kathuria, and Martin (2001) point toareas in India, for example, where such reforms
are needed to allow the industry to become
more competitive. Needed reforms include:
eliminating policies that create disincentives forT R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :Table 2.5 Quota abolition in China will
move resources from other activities totextiles and clothing
Percent change in export volumes
SectorApparelAutomobiles and parts
CottonElectronics
Leather and shoes
Metal products
TextilesOther manufactures

Anticipated change

125.7
–22.8
–8.6
–10.6
–5.0
–11.9
41.9
–14.1

Source: Staff results from model of Ianchovichina and Martin(2001, 2003).

factory production, eliminating reservation ofparticular activities for handloom production,and improving duty exemption arrangements.
The specific needs for policy reform will, ofcourse, vary across countries.
How will the phase-out of quotas on textiles and clothing affect other sectors? By inducing highly competitive producers to shift
from other activities into textiles and clothing,
the abolition of quotas is likely to reduce supplies of other goods, creating opportunities forother exporters. The likely response of Chinese industry, for example, to the abolition ofcurrent quotas on textiles and clothing is a
shift in resources away from other goods(table 2.5). The specific results presented intable 2.5, produced using a model by Ianchovichina and Martin (2001, 2003), should
not be seen as predictions of outcomes, however, since the phase-in of China’s liberalization commitments under its WTO accession,and the continuing high rates of investment inphysical and human capital in China, tend to
stimulate the output of many activities, including some of those mentioned in the table.
But the changes anticipated by the model
do suggest the importance of examining thedisincentives for production of goods otherthan textiles and clothing. If a country has, forexample, a duty-exemption arrangement covering the needs of the textile and clothing sectors and has not developed exports of other

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

manufactured goods, it is more likely to sufferfrom increased competition following abolition of the textile and clothing quotas than if
it had a more balanced export pattern. Thus,
policy should not only seek to improve productivity in the textiles and garment sector,
but also to improve productivity in other sectors, where competition may be less intense
following abolition of the quotas.

How tariffs are reduced will affect thedevelopment promise of Doha
Given the mercantilist nature of international
trade negotiations, developing-country policymakers contemplating the Doha Development
Agenda will want to identify the export sectors in which they face the most significant
trade barriers. The average tariff barriers facing exporters from each region are shown intable 2.6. Because separate negotiations onmarket access are being conducted for agricultural goods and nonagricultural goods, thetable is divided into two sections.
Tariffs imposed by the industrial countries
on imports from developing countries are typically much higher than those they levy onother industrial countries. In agriculture, theindustrial countries impose an average 15 percent tariff on imports from other industrial
countries, whereas the rates on imports fromdeveloping countries range from 20 percent(Latin America) to 35 percent (Europe andCentral Asia). Outside of agriculture, the discrepancy is even more striking. Tariffs on imports from other industrial countries average 1
percent, while those from developing countries
face tariff averages ranging from 2.1 percent(Latin America) to 8.1 percent (South Asia).
The differences in tariff averages reflect inpart the presence of major trading blocs suchas the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
include key industrial-country trade partners.
In part, also, they reflect differences in the pattern of exports and the broad profile of tariffs.
In the GATT trade rounds during which thegreatest strides toward liberalization weremade (the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds of the81G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Table 2.6 Industrial countries levy higher tariffs on imports from developing countries
than from other industrial countries—and some regions have high tariff walls
Protection rates facing exporters in each region, 1997 (percent)
Importing Region

Exporting Region

East
Asia

EuropeandCentralAsia

Latin
America

Middle
East

South
Asia

SubSaharanAfricaIndustrial

Agriculture
East Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Industrial

31.0
24.2
42.1
23.0
16.6
26.7
33.3

30.3
36.4
36.0
43.4
34.6
20.3
43.7

15.5
23.8
14.8
14.9
13.7
14.4
20.1

45.3
55.3
50.3
76.4
41.1
39.1
65.4

38.4
34.2
29.7
31.8
27.7
30.9
16.4

19.0
12.7
24.7
18.9
11.0
33.6
24.0

30.5
35.1
20.4
23.4
25.8
23.6
15.3

Nonagriculture
East Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Industrial

8.2
6.4
4.3
5.4
7.1
4.4
7.4

13.8
6.4
6.7
11.5
11.0
6.1
9.6

15.1
11.4
15.4
8.8
13.6
11.7
8.5

12.2
8.6
8.9
11.4
10.2
6.1
10.4

28.1
25.8
19.4
33.6
19.0
27.6
25.2

14.5
12.8
11.9
11.7
17.4
20.6
12.2

5.1
5.9
2.1
6.0
8.1
4.2
1.0

Source: Weighted averages calculated using GTAP Version 5 Database (www.gtap.org). Most-favored-nation rate except for
major free-trade blocs such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Does not include otherpreference schemes.

1960s and 1970s), developing countries were
not active participants in the trading of reciprocal market-access concessions. Under the circumstances, it was more likely that theirproducts would be omitted from the sharp reductions in tariffs made in those rounds.8
A reasonable objection to this interpretation is that some developing countries facesubstantially lower tariff rates than are presented in table 2.6 and may even benefit fromaccess to industrial country markets at prices
above world market levels. This is true formany countries and groups of countries. The
countries of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific group enjoy preferences on many of theirexports to the European Union. The leastdeveloped countries receive preferences under
the Union’s Everything But Arms Agreement.
Other countries receive preferences as members of Euro-Mediterranean agreements, theU.S.–Caribbean Basin Initiative, the U.S Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act, and preferences
provided to least developed countries and82

other developing countries under the Generalized System of Preferences.
Recent research suggests, however, that conditions such as rule-of-origin requirements reduce the benefits provided by such agreements
substantially below the gains implied by thenominal preferences (Brenton 2003). Furthermore, many of these countries suffer from restrictions on their access to markets for a wide
range of other products. And other countries
with a large fraction of the world’s poor receive
no benefit at all from these preferences—in fact
they are harmed by diversion of their exports
to preference-receiving countries. China andIndia alone contain well over 500 million people living on $1 per day or less (World Bank
2003). These countries receive only minimal
benefit from these preferential arrangements.
Developing countries tend to levy higher
tariffs on imports from other developing countries than do the industrial countries (table
2.7). This is particularly striking in the case of
agricultural products, where the tariffs leviedT R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

Table 2.7

Developing countries pay large amounts in tariffs to their neighbors

D E V E L O P M E N T

The share of the burden on each region’s exports imposed by region of destination (percentage of total barriers faced byexporting region)
Importing Region

Exporting Region

East
Asia

EuropeandCentralAsia

Latin
America

Middle
East

South
Asia

SubSaharanAfricaIndustrial

Total

Agriculture
East Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America (LAC) and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Industrial

32.8
1.7
13.7
2.1
12.6
7.1
16.1

0.7
19.8
1.6
3.0
2.0
2.3
3.2

0.6
0.6
10.8
0.6
0.7
0.4
5.0

5.6
13.9
14.8
44.4
28.2
4.8
19.1

4.7
0.4
1.4
1.6
7.5
4.0
0.6

2.1
1.4
1.9
1.0
1.8
10.0
2.7

53.6
62.3
55.6
47.3
47.4
71.4
53.3

100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Nonagriculture
East Asia
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Industrial

37.4
2.8
3.7
8.2
8.8
9.0
31.1

1.5
13.5
0.3
1.8
0.6
0.7
6.8

6.3
2.1
63.8
2.4
3.1
4.2
15.3

4.8
5.8
1.7
12.4
9.7
1.7
14.3

5.9
2.0
1.2
28.6
6.8
7.7
6.5

4.2
2.9
1.5
3.1
7.9
40.4
6.1

39.9
71.0
27.7
43.4
63.0
36.3
19.9

100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Source: Weighted averages calculated using GTAP Version 5 Database (www.gtap.org). Most-favored-nation rate except for major
free-trade blocs such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

on developing-country exports are frequently
twice as high as the already high rates levied by
the industrial countries. For nonagricultural
products, the differences are even greater inproportional terms. The tariffs imposed bySouth Asia on imports from developing countries, for instance, are frequently five times ashigh as the rates imposed by industrial countries. It is also notable that countries levy hightariffs on imports from other countries in theirregion, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa,
where the average tariff levied is higher on
African products than on imports from anyother region.
How important are the effects of the tariff
rates discussed above? The answer depends on
the size of the trade volumes to which they
apply. One way to get a rough indication of theimportance of tariffs in particular markets is to
examine the value of the duty charged on exports to that market. This measure effectively
weights each tariff rate by the value of the trade
to which it applies. Although clearly flawed incases where trade flows are strongly inhibitedby high tariff rates or where much trade takes
place at preferential rates, the measure does
provide at least a crude adjustment for the relative importance of different markets.9
In agriculture, all developing regions face
their most significant barriers in the industrial
countries. Although the burden is greatest in
Sub-Saharan Africa, where over 70 percent of
the barriers faced are imposed by the industrial countries, the industrial countries account for more than 50 percent of the barriers
facing all developing regions except South
Asia and the Middle East and North Africa.
Even there, industrial-country barriers aresubstantial, accounting for almost half of thetotal direct burden imposed on their exports.
In only one region, the Middle East and North
Africa—where barriers imposed by othercountries of the region loom particularly
large—do the barriers erected by the developing world approach the effect of those imposed by developed countries. After the devel-83

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

oped countries, however, the most importantbarriers are often found in neighboring countries, as in the case of East Asia, where neighbors’ barriers account for almost a third of thebarriers facing exporters, and the Middle East,
where they account for close to 50 percent.
In nonagricultural trade, industrial-country
barriers are clearly much more important thanwould be implied by the relatively low tariff
rates shown in table 2.7. Their importance toexporters, however, varies substantially by region. For developing countries in Europe andCentral Asia, they are particularly important,accounting for over 70 percent of total levies
on exports. Industrial-country barriers arealso particularly important in South Asia,
where they account for close to two-thirds ofthe tariff burden. By contrast, the industrialcountry share is closer to 40 percent in East
Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and
Sub-Saharan Africa, and under 30 percent in
Latin America and the Caribbean. For the industrial countries themselves, barriers in otherindustrial countries are now relatively small,at under 20 percent of the total, a fact that undoubtedly contributes to developed countries’interest in securing trade liberalization in developing countries. These generalizations notwithstanding, the differences mask countrylevel patterns, obliging policymakers in eachcountry to do their own analysis.

Use of antidumping actions
to generate protection has reachedan advanced stage
GATT and the WTO acknowledge the sovereign rights of member countries to impose certain new trade restrictions or to replace oldones. A number of these are “exceptions” tothe general intention of providing an open international trading system, such as import restrictions that relate to national security. Others are part of the management of the trading
system. These are usually described as being allowed under “GATT/WTO rules” rather thanas “exceptions.”
Within the GATT/WTO system the generaljustification for such rules is that they allow

84

members to accommodate and at the sametime isolate a powerful interest that might otherwise set back an entire liberalization program.10 Since the Uruguay Round these trade
rules—particularly antidumping—have been
invoked with increasing frequency—particularly by developing economies. Moreover,
WTO members increasingly treat their use asa reserved right of unilateral protection similar to the national-security exception, rather
than as an instrument to manage an ongoing
and multilateral process of liberalization. (Seebox 2.2.)
Recent data on the incidence of use of antidumping rules by broad country groups reveal several ominous patterns. The first is atendency for both developed and developing
countries to resort to antidumping measures—
1,979 between 1995 and June 2002 (table
2.8). More antidumping actions were initiatedby developing countries against other developing countries than by or against industrial
countries.
The emergence of developing countries as
major users of antidumping measures is a recent phenomenon. The use of this form of protection, which requires complex and expensive administrative processes, has traditionallybeen eschewed by developing countries. However, perhaps in part because WTO has become less tolerant of some other avenues for
introducing discretionary protection, such asmeasures for balance-of-payment purposes,
many developing countries have begun tomake use of antidumping measures. In 1996,
767 antidumping actions were pending, of
which 581 had been introduced by industrial
countries. By June 2002, the number of pending actions had grown to 1,189, of which 636
had been initiated by industrial countries and553 by developing and transition economies.
All groups of countries show a striking tendency to impose antidumping measures disproportionately against the exports of developing and transition economies. But when theactions shown in table 2.8 are divided by
the dollar value of imports from each group,
the result is that industrial countries impose

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Box 2.2 Swimming upstream: The case ofVietnamese catfish
On July 22, 2003, the New York Times wrote thefollowing editorial that illustrates well the vicissitudes of exporters in antidumping waters:. . . After embracing decidedly un-Marxist reforms, Vietnam became one of globalization’s
brightest stories in the 1990’s. The nation, a onetime rice importer, transformed itself into theworld’s second largest rice exporter and a player
in the global coffee trade. The rural poverty rate
was slashed to 30 percent from 70 percent. The
normalization of ties between Hanoi and Washington brought American trade missions bent on expanding Vietnamese free enterprise. One of thesedelegations saw in the Mekong Delta’s catfish agolden export opportunity, with the region’s natural conditions and cheap labor affording Vietnam
a competitive advantage. Sure enough, within a
few years, an estimated half-million Vietnamese
were living off a catfish trade nurtured by private
entrepreneurs. Vietnam captured 20 percent of
the frozen catfish-fillet market in the UnitedStates, driving down prices. To the dismay of theMississippi Farm Bureau, even some restaurants
in that state—the center of the American catfish
industry—were serving the Vietnamese species.
Soon . . . Vietnamese farmers were caught in anasty two-front war being waged by the Catfish
Farmers of America, the trade group representing
Mississippi Delta catfish farmers. The Mississippi
catfish farmers are generally not huge agribusinesses, and many of them struggle to make ends
meet. But that still does not explain how theUnited States, the international champion of freemarket competition, could decide to rig the catfish game to cut out the very Vietnamese farmers
whose enterprise it had originally encouraged.
Last year . . . the American catfish farmers managed to persuade Congress to overturn science.
An amendment, improbably attached to an appropriations bill, declared that out of 2,000 catfish types, only the American-born family—
named Ictaluridae—could be called ‘catfish.’ So
the Vietnamese could market their fish in America
only by using the Vietnamese terms “basa” and‘tra’. . . . Catfish Farmers of America, ran advertisements warning of a ‘slippery catfish wannabe,’saying such fish were ‘probably not even sporting
real whiskers’ and ‘float around in Third World
rivers nibbling on who knows what.’ Not satisfied
with its labeling triumph—an old trade-war trick
perfected by the Europeans—the American group
initiated an antidumping case against Vietnamese
catfish. And for the purposes of this proceeding,Congressional taxonomy notwithstanding, the fishin question were once again regarded as catfish,
not basa or tra. . . .
Antidumping cases involve allegations that imports are being sold more cheaply than they areback home or below cost, practices rightly bannedby trade laws. . . . In this case, the Commerce Department had no evidence that the imported fish
were being sold in America more cheaply than in
Vietnam, or below their cost of production. But
rather than abandoning the Mississippi catfish
farmers to the forces of open competition, the department simply declared Vietnam a “nonmarket”
economy. The designation allowed it simply to
stipulate that there must be something suspect
going on somewhere—that Vietnamese farmers
must not be covering all the costs they would in afunctioning market economy. Tariffs ranging from37 percent to 64 percent have been slapped by thedepartment on Vietnamese catfish. . . .
Prices along the Mekong crashed, as the exporters who buy his fish moved to protect their margins. . . . Faced with the prospect of losing theirinvestment, [farmers] might be shocked to learn
that [the] Commerce Department says they do
not operate in a free market. . .
The United States International Trade Commission,an administrative agency in Washington, provided its
final verdict on July 23. The verdict stated that theAmerican catfish industry was hurt by unfair competition due to dumping by Vietnam—making the tariffs permanent.

Source: New York Times, July 22, 2003.

85

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Table 2.8 Most antidumping actions are filed by developing countries against otherdeveloping countries
Antidumping actions initiated between 1995 and June 2002
Initiated against

Initiated byIndustrial economies a
Developing economiesb
Transition economies c
All economies

Industrial
economies

Developing
economies

Transition
economiesAlleconomies

198
357
4
559

494
649
6
1,149

127
138
6
271

819
1,144
16
1,979

a. Australia, Canada, 15 European Union members, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States.
b. All other economies excluding industrial economies and transition economies. China is included in the totals for developing
economiesc. 27 transition economies, as defined by World Development Report 1996 (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, BosniaHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Macedonia (FYR), Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation).
Source: WTO Antidumping Committee Reports.

antidumping measures on developing countries more than twice as frequently as the developing countries’ volume of exports would
imply. Against transition countries, the statistics are even worse, with measures being applied four times as frequently as their volumeof trade would imply. Developing countries
are only marginally better in their treatment ofdeveloping countries, and impose antidumping measures against other developing countries 50 percent more frequently than would besuggested by the volume of imports. Industrial
countries are treated relatively lightly by bothindustrial and developing countries, with only
43 percent as many actions imposed on themas would be implied by their value of imports.
Rates of protection being applied throughantidumping measures are astonishingly high(table 2.9). Though industrial economy tariffs
Table 2.9

now average only 4 percent, their antidumping
rates have been seven to ten times higher. Thisis new protection, not a temporary return torates of protection previously negotiated down
under WTO auspices. The antidumping duties
imposed by developing countries also are muchhigher than their tariff rates, with provisional
measures ranging from 84 to 126 percent.
And antidumping rates are discriminatory.
Antidumping decisions often apply different
rates to imports from different sources (table
2.9).11 The same biases are found in antidumping rates as have been reported for tariffs and various nontariff forms of protection:
rates applied by developing economies arehigher, and the bias against imports from developing economies is even more pronounced
in rates applied by developing economies thanin those applied by industrial economies.

Antidumping rates are much higher than tariff rates

Averages of highest and lowest rates applied in antidumping cases (percent)
Average antidumping margins
Provisional measures

Industrial economies
Developing economies
All economies

Definitive duties

Low

High

Low

High

Averagetariff rates

28
84
50

41
126
75

31
58
43

48
83
64

4
13
5

Note: Post-Uruguay Round applied tariff rates; antidumping measures in place as of December 31, 2002; ad valorem rates.
Source: Calculations based on countries’ notifications to the WTO.

86

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :The scale of the antidumping duties leviedvaries a great deal by country within groups,
with some countries imposing extraordinarily
high duties and other countries relatively moderate rates—although virtually all such duties
are very high relative to currently prevailingtariff rates. While some countries, such as Australia, impose duties in the same order of magnitude as current tariffs, some countries are imposing duties at truly astronomical rates, andrates that seem likely to be prohibitive underalmost all circumstances. A number of Latin
American countries have measures above 100
percent, and frequently substantially above thislevel—the rates in Argentina, Mexico, and Peru
exceed 300 percent (table 2.10). Further, these
Table 2.10

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

rules are frequently applied to much broader
groups of products in developing countries
than has been the case in the past.
The large differences among countries in
antidumping duty rates highlight the flexibility in the WTO rules on antidumping, flexibility that allows countries to “find” highmargins of dumping, and to allow countries
to impose high duties against them. It strains
credulity to believe that exporters to Mexicoand Argentina are 10 times as prone to dumping as exporters to the United States. Different
interpretations of the same WTO rules, therefore, are leading to widely different outcomes,
raising serious questions about the objectivityof the process.

Antidumping duties are high

Average dumping margins for measures currently in place, by country (percent)
Average antidumping margins

Against all economies
Provisional measures

Definitive duty

By country

Low

High

Low

High

Argentina
Australia
BrazilCanadaChina
Colombia
Czech Republic
Egypt
European Union (15)India
IsraelJamaica
Korea
Malaysia
MexicoNew Zealand
Peru
PolandSouth Africa
Taiwan, China
ThailandTrinidad and Tobago
TurkeyUnited States
Venezuela

163
6
54
40
28
34
n/a
n/a
33
64
4
256
47
28
269
42
75
n/a
40
n/a
36
119
n/a
30
116

328
16
64
41
50
40
n/a
n/a
45
91
10
256
56
65
345
42
330
n/a
63
n/a
47
119
n/a
49
119

62
20
38
42
27
53
29
22
32
69
11
104
31
10
51
28
73
23
38
76
32
135
93
29
123

63
43
47
42
50
67
73
55
46
105
26
104
41
25
65
62
246
23
53
116
36
135
101
50
123

n/a not applicable.
Note: Dumping margins associated with definitive measures in place as of December 31, 2002. Where applicable, numbers reflectdumping margins determined during the latest review of each case. For several countries (China, India, Peru, and Thailand), thetable illustrates dumping margins related to antidumping measures in place as of June 30, 2002.
Source: Semiannual reports under Article 16.4 of Antidumping Agreement, submitted by individual WTO members to Committee
on Antidumping Practices. The list of countries currently maintaining antidumping measures has been extracted from the Report(2002) of the Committee on Antidumping Practices, and from the above-mentioned Semiannual Reports of WTO members. No
data were available for Indonesia or the Philippines.

87

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 2.7 Antidumping barriers bysector and by country group
Dumping margins in place, as of December 2002:
target countries and sectors
High Technology
Manufactures
Medium Technology
Manufactures



Low Technology
Manufactures

Transition
economiesResource Based
Manufactures

Developing
economies
Industrial
economies

Primary
Products
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140

Average dumping margins (%)
Source: Calculations based on countries’ notifications to
the WTO.

The intensity of use of antidumping measures depends heavily upon the sectors in which
it is applied. Figure 2.7 shows the height of thebarriers imposed against developing countries
by the level of technology in their exports. It reveals that antidumping barriers are disproportionately high against their exports of primary
products, resource-based manufactures, andlow-technology manufactured exports. For primary products, the average antidumping duty
against developing countries is three times as
high, at around 60 percent, as against the industrial countries. This means that antidumping barriers are relatively lower on the mostdynamic exports of developing countries, hightechnology exports. However, the antidumping
barriers against these exports remain very highin absolute terms, at 65 percent.
The use of antidumping actions to generate
protection has reached an advanced stage. It
now threatens developing countries’ trade
both through the damaging effects on theirown economies, and through adverse impacts

88

on their export opportunities. The Ministerial
Declaration launching the Doha Development
Agenda includes consideration of antidumping measures, and provides an opportunity forbeneficial reform. Although reform will be difficult given the strong political support for thistype of protection from industries in both developed and developing countries, the rapidly
growing economic damage to all economies—
those imposing these duties and those suffering from them—makes reform a high priority.

From Doha to Cancún andbeyond: How should protection
be reduced?

M

ost of the protection in world markets
is imposed through barriers to market
access—an essential pillar of other elements ofprotection regimes, such as export subsidies inagriculture. Without a supporting tariff to preclude imports, an export subsidy will become
merely a subsidy on return—exports will flowout in order to collect the subsidy, but the
goods exported will be replaced by imports,
with no significant impact on domestic producer prices. Reducing tariffs and other barriers to market access, therefore, is the central
issue in removing the protection that distorts
world markets.
WTO members are negotiating, in accordance with the agenda agreed at Doha, on approaches to reduce protection on agriculturaland nonagricultural goods. For nonagricultural
goods, in particular, the negotiations are to include reduction or elimination of tariff peaks
and tariff escalation, and to emphasize products of interest to developing countries (WTO2001). An emphasis on reducing tariff peaks isimportant both because such peaks are very
costly to the countries imposing such tariffs,
and because they are frequently on productsof particular interest to developing countries.
Francois, Martin, and Manole (2003) find thatapproaches to trade reform that most sharply
reduce peak tariffs result in larger reductions in
the average tariffs facing low-income countries.

P A T T E R N S

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

The scourge of the specificAdvalorem equivalents of specific tariffs are usually higher on
Ad valorem equivalents of specific tariffs are usually higher on imports fromimports
developing
countries
than from high-income countries
developing fromcountries
than from high-income
countries
a. Ad valorem equivalent (AVE) protection on overcoat exports to the United States

Ad valorem equivalents of U.S. specific tariffs on overcoats (percent)30

EcuadorVietnam
Pakistan

AVE


25
20

India



15

Venezuela
FranceUnited Kingdom
Australia Ireland
GermanyJapan
Spain
Thailand
Uruguay
Canada Belgium
Italy
Morocco Turkey
New Zealand
Bolivia
Linear (AVE)
China

10
5
0
400

900

1,200

4,800
14,900
GNI($)/capita

21,30023,30036,000b. AVE tariffs on exports of leather shoes from Pakistan to Japan

Ad valorem equivalents of EU specific tariffs on leather shoes (percent)
800
PAK

700
600



AVE

500 VNM
400

THA

LKA

IND

300

Linear (AVE)IDN
CHNMARROM

200
100

TWN
TUR
HKG
BRAARGESPDEUAUTNLDGBRPRTGRCITA FRA
USA

0

0
90
1, 0
20
0
1,
70
2, 0
00
0
2,
50
3, 0
00
0
7,
0
10 00
,7
0
11 0
,8
13 00
,4
0
14 0
,9
19 00
,5
0
22 0
,7
23 00
,7
0
23 0
,9
24 00
,0
0
24 0
,2
25 00
,3
0
34 0
,9
00

0

80

0

70

0

50

0

–100

GNI/capc. Ad valorem equivalent (AVE) protection on starch exports to the European Union



Ad valorem equivalents of EU specific tariffs on starch (percent)300
Czech Republic
250
AVE (compound)
Thailand200
or most products, most countries impose protection
through ad valorem tariffs. This
form of protection is more transparent than other types of tariffs,
such as specific or compound tariffs. A 10 percent tariff rate raises
the price of an imported good by
the same 10 percent whether thegood is a car worth $20,000 or abicycle valued at $50. A specifictax of $50, by contrast, has anenormously different impact on
the bicycle and the car. Further,
the impact of the specific tariff
depends on market conditions. If
bicycle prices tumble to $20, thenthe specific tariff of $50 will raise
prices by 250 percent instead of
100 percent.
Specific tariffs, which arevery common on agricultural
products, also are important on anumber of industrial products ofinterest to developing countries,
particularly textiles, clothing, andfootwear. Recent research by
Schott (2001) has revealed astriking tendency for poorer
countries to export versions ofmany manufactured productswith lower unit values than thoseexported by higher-income countries. As countries develop, theyfrequently upgrade their products, using more capital and skill
to produce a better version of thesame product. Schott finds thatthe unit value of a shirt fromJapan, for instance, is 20 times
that of the same good from thePhilippines. In this situation, specific tariffs are likely to be much
more of a burden on poorer developing countries than on industrial countries.

42

F

P O L I C I E S :41

Box 2.3

A N D



T R A D E

150

Linear AVE (compound)
100
Australia

Canada

50

Japan

0
1,970

5,270

19,77021,34035,990

GNI($)/capita

Source: Stawowy (2001) and unit value data from COMTRADE.

(Box continues on next page)89

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 2.3

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

We draw on a detailed analysis of ad valorem
equivalents undertaken at UNCTAD (Stawowy
2001) to compare these burdens across countries.
We find many cases where the ad valorem
equivalents of specific tariffs are sharply higher onpoor than on rich countries. The top figure shows,for instance, that Vietnam and Ecuador face tariffs
on overcoats twice as high as Japan does—a type of
discrimination covered up by the specific tariff. Exports of leather shoes from Pakistan to Japan feel theboot strongly—they are subject to tariffs of around
700 percent, while exports from the advanced industrial countries are taxed at less than 100 percent.

Also in the EU market, Japan pays less than 50 percent, while Thailand and the Czech Republic pay
over 100 percent on their exports of starch—surely
enough to stiffen resistance to this form of protection
once the facts are known.
The nontransparency of specific tariffs, and thefact that they can discriminate so strongly against
lower-income countries, are two good reasons forsupporting proposals (WTO 2003a, Annex I) toeliminate specific tariffs under the Doha Development Agenda. The proposals for the elimination of
specific tariffs clearly deserve strong support fromeveryone concerned about the welfare of the poor.

Using a formula is important
A key choice in multilateral market-accessnegotiations is whether to proceed using a“request-and-offer” approach or a formula approach. Under a request-and-offer approach,countries with major supply-and-demand interests in a particular area agree on bilateral
tariff “concessions” that are then generalized
to all other members on a most-favored-nation basis. As noted by Baldwin (1987), thisapproach was successful in achieving substantial reductions in protection under the GATT
only in the initial Geneva Round of negotiations in 1947. The request-and-offer approach
made disappointingly slow progress in thefour following rounds of negotiations.12 Only
with the introduction of a comprehensive formula approach during the Kennedy Round(1963–67) was it again possible to cut protection substantially—35 percent versus an average of 2.5 percent in the previous four negotiations. The next round, the Tokyo Round(1974–79), used a more sophisticated formula, the so-called Swiss formula. It achieved
a 30 percent reduction in average tariffs andbrought down the higher tariffs by much morethan the lower ones. Unfortunately, however,many products of particular interest to devel-

90

oping countries were excluded, partly because
developing countries were not active demandeurs in these negotiations.
The Uruguay Round (1986–94) used a simpler approach for nonagricultural tariffs thatinvolved setting broad tariff-reduction goals,
such as a 30 percent reduction on industrial
products, but left the distribution of the cut
across sectors up to negotiations between trading partners. This approach was successful inachieving substantial tariff reductions. It wasnot, however, successful in achieving higher
proportional cuts in higher tariff rates andthereby in reducing tariff escalation. Abreu(1996) observes that manufactured goods withhigher tariff rates typically had smaller proportional tariff cuts.
In the Doha negotiations, there appears to
be a broad consensus that some sort of formula will be required to obtain reductions inprotection sufficiently broad-based to achieve
increases in market access. The increase in thenumber of active participants seeking to use
the WTO to achieve increases in market
access—and to lock in reductions in tariffs—
would make the one-on-one, request-and-offer
procedures even less likely to succeed than they
have in past GATT negotiations.

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :Some formulas are more prodevelopment
than others
Even with a broad agreement to employ a formula, much needs to be done to bridge the gap
among alternative approaches. Many different
approaches have been proposed, and not all
can be considered in this study, but examination of a few key proposals is instructive. In
agriculture, the United States and the Cairns
Group have proposed a Swiss-formula approach that would reduce all tariffs below 25
percent, regardless of their initial level. At theother end of the spectrum, Europe and Japan
have proposed an approach involving a “headline” reduction of 36 percent that could easily
be evaded, and only a 15 percent required reduction in individual tariffs. This would allow
protection for Japanese rice, for example, toremain at close to 600 percent.
In nonagricultural market access, China,
India, and Korea all have made proposals forformulas that would sharply reduce tariffs andreduce high tariffs relative to average tariffs.
The European Union has advocated an approach involving different tiers for tariffs, anapproach that would facilitate larger reductions in high tariffs relative to lower rates.
Japan has proposed a formula that would givecountries flexibility with individual tariffs butthat would require larger reductions in average tariffs on high-tariff goods.
Adopting a formula that limits tariff peaks
relative to average tariffs is important for developing countries. Some countries have proposed “flexible” approaches allowing retention of peak tariffs, while others have proposed
approaches that sharply reduce peaks relative
to other tariffs. Politically, it is frequently attractive to retain high tariffs on sensitive products where political support for protection isstrong. This political convenience needs to beweighed against the adverse implications forthe country itself, and for its trading partners,
if high protection is retained in some sectors.
Retaining high levels of protection in some sectors is likely to be costly to the importing economy because high rates of protection mean

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

large distortions in production and consumption patterns. The economic costs of these distortions rise with the square of the tariff, so thecosts of a tariff twice as high as the average are
four times those of an average tariff. Further,high tariffs are inefficient in raising tariff revenues because the volume of imports acrossthese tariff barriers is likely to be small.
From the point of view of developing-country exporters, approaches that allow countries
to retain tariff peaks—and especially approaches
that would allow the industrial countries to retain high peaks—are likely to be problematicfor another reason. The tariff structures of mostindustrial countries involve quite low average
tariffs as a result of the eight previous rounds of
GATT/WTO negotiations. But they continue tocontain many high peaks on products of particular interest to developing countries (Hoekman
and Olarreaga 2002). The coefficient variationof industrial country tariffs—the variation relative to the average level—is now much higher inthese countries than it is in developing countries, where the wave of tariff reductions during
the 1980s and 1990s cut higher tariffs in linewith average tariffs.
There is a particular concern with approaches that allow the retention of highpeaks—such as the average-cut approach proposed by a number of high-protection countries in the negotiations on agricultural market
access.13 Such an approach, based on a meaningless measure, provides scope for evasion ofcountries’ commitments in the Doha Development Agenda to reduce protection and to provide special and differential treatment in favorof developing countries.
A wide range of formulas is available, theeffects of which depend upon a combination offactors, including the extent to which the formulas would reduce average rates of protection, as well as the variability of tariffs aroundthat average (see box 2.4). An important issue
to understand is the extent to which changing
the dispersion of overall protection, for a given
average cut in tariffs, affects the average reduction in protection facing developing coun-91

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 2.4 “Average cuts,” the cut you have when
you’re not having a cut

Years ago, as concern grew about the impacts ofdrunk driving, the venerable Clayton’s Nonalcoholic Tonic repositioned its advertising with the slogan “Clayton’s, the drink you have when you’re nothaving a drink.” Macho individuals could still exhibit
the bravado of having one or two “for the road”
while avoiding the sharply increased penalties associated with drunk driving. Today, as concern builds
about the adverse impacts of agricultural policy distortions for world trade, and particularly for developing country farmers, the notion of an average cut intariffs takes on a similar tone. With this device, policymakers can commit to sharp cuts in agriculturalprotection without actually doing anything at all.
To see how this paradox arises, consider a putative agreement to cut agricultural protection by 50
percent in a country with just two agricultural tariffs—one of 1 percent and one of 100 percent. A cutof 100 percent in the 1 percent tariff, and of zero in
the 100 percent tariff, yields the necessary 50 percent
average cut in tariffs—great for the headlines.
But in reality, virtually nothing has been done.
The average tariff has fallen by half of 1 percent,from 50.5 percent to 50 percent. Of course, policymakers could load the cuts onto the high tariff, taking the average tariff from 50.5 percent to 0.5 percent. It is unlikely that they would do this, however.
The 100 percent tariff is high because it is supported
by strong interest groups, which would surely oppose their industry being “sacrificed.” The fundamental problem with the average-cut approach isthat it provides no reward for cutting a high tariff
rather than a low one, and hence allows policymakers to avoid the agreed goal of achieving substantial
improvements in market access.
As we have seen, the “average-cut” approachprovides little or no guidance on the effects of liber-alization. It can be totally deceptive in its suggestionthat sizable reductions in protection are required.
Even when it is built into a tiered reduction in protection, such as the three-band system of tariff
cuts with higher cuts in higher tariffs proposed in
the Harbinson draft (WTO 2003c), the use of theaverage-cut approach makes the average cuts specified in each group almost meaningless, by providing
an incentive to reduce the highest tariffs in each bandby the smallest possible amount.
The proponents of the average-cut approachargue that more specific formulas are not acceptablebecause they do not provide the flexibility needed toreduce their agricultural tariffs. But, as we have seen,
the average-cut approach provides complete flexibility to do nothing (or anything), and none of thediscipline that is the sine qua non of world trade
rules. To provide some discipline, proponents of theaverage-cut approach allow for a minimum cut ineach tariff line. But this approach is extremely rigid
unless the minimum cut is very low, in which casethere is no discipline.
If the desire for flexibility made by the proponents of average cuts were accepted, what could bedone to provide some discipline? Fortunately, there isa simple and nondeceptive alternative. A rule thatspecifies a “cut in average tariffs” would allow for
flexibility while ensuring that protection was reducedon average, while providing some reward for cuttinghigh tariffs, rather than low tariffs. The simple, but
not purely semantic, move to a requirement for a cut
in the average—rather than an average-cut—would
preserve flexibility, while introducing some discipline.

Source: World Bank staff.

tries. Approaches that attack tariff peaks moreaggressively will be more beneficial to developing countries, since developing countries facedisproportionately high tariffs. Francois andMartin (2003) derive a flexible Swiss formulathat allows higher tariffs to be addressed moreor less aggressively for any given reduction in92

average tariffs. Francois, Martin, and Manole(2003) show that approaches that are more aggressive in reducing high rates of protection
will result in larger cuts in average rates of protection faced by developing countries. Such approaches also reduce variation in tariffs, which
is a major source of cost to the importingT R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Box 2.5 The implications of five tariff-cutting
proposalsA

s is evident from the table, the proposal by
China uses a Swiss-formula approach, but witha ceiling for each country based on the average levelof its own tariffs (see Annex table 2A.1). After theapplication of the formula, all tariffs will be below
the original average, and countries with higher average tariffs have tariff reductions that are, in percentage points, larger than those in countries with lower
tariffs. Countries with more variable tariffs will, in
general, face larger percentage reductions in tariffs,
because the tariff peaks that give rise to variability
are reduced very sharply. In industrial countries, theformula is applied to countries’ applied tariff rates.
In developing countries, the formula is generally applied to the average of applied and bound tariffs.
The proposal by the European Union seeks tocompress the distribution of tariffs by dividing tariffs
up into bands and applying higher proportional cutson tariffs in higher bands. Tariffs below some threshold to be negotiated, such as 2 percent, are to be set
to zero. A specific proposal to set the bands is offered in an addendum to the proposal, and it is thatspecific proposal that we analyzed.
The proposal by India involves making a proportional cut, of a magnitude to be negotiated, in all
tariffs. The proportional cut in developing-country
tariffs would be two-thirds of that in developed
countries. After application of the formula, tariffs
above three times the average would be reduced tothree times the average after application of the for-country (Martin, Van der Mensbrugghe, andManole 2003).
A much wider range of approaches has beenoffered in the negotiations on nonagricultural
market access than in agriculture (see chapter
3). We examine five proposals on market access for nonagricultural products that are sufficiently specific to allow analysis of their implications for tariffs—those from China, theEuropean Union, India, the United States, andfrom the chair of the WTO’s Market AccessCommittee. The implications of any of theseformulas (box 2.5) depend heavily upon themula. Bound tariff rates are to be used as the baserates, with unbound tariffs for each product to be replaced initially with the higher of the highest boundrate in its schedule, or the applied rate for that product. For illustrative purposes, we set the proportional
cut at 50 percent.
The U.S. approach involves reducing to zero all
tariffs of 5 percent or less. Then, a Swiss formulawith a ceiling parameter of 0.08 is applied to allother tariffs. Applied rates, rather than bound rates,
are generally used as the base. This approach is to be
implemented by 2010, with all tariffs being reduced
to zero by 2015.
The proposal by the chair of the Market AccessCommittee involves use of a Swiss formula with theceiling parameter equal to each country’s average
tariff, scaled up or down by a parameter, B, to benegotiated. The base rate is to be the bound rate, unless the tariff line is unbound, in which case it is to
be twice the applied rate. In addition, the proposal
calls for reductions of tariffs to zero in a range ofsectors, including electronics, fish, footwear, leather
goods, motor vehicle parts, and textiles and clothing.
In this initial assessment of the effects of the proposals, these elements—whose inclusion is still to benegotiated—have not been included.

Source: World Bank staff.

base tariff rates to be cut, the approach taken
to cutting, the treatment of tariffs that are initially unbound, and whether any supplementary provisions call for eliminating tariffs onparticular groups of products. To gain someidea of the consequences of these measures, we
examine their implications for tariffs facing
low-income countries in four major markets—
Brazil, the European Union, India, and theUnited States.
One key issue in any of the formulas is theselection of the base tariff rates. Traditionally,
the GATT/WTO system has used bound rates

93

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4as the basis for subsequent negotiations. As
well as having the advantage of familiarity,
this approach has an important dynamic advantage. If countries believe that bound rates
will be the basis for future negotiations, they
will feel free to reduce applied rates when they
are convinced that this is in their economic interests. Negotiations based on bound rates
embody a pure, one-for-one form of credit forsuch autonomous liberalization.14 If a country
chooses to reduce its applied rates below thebound level, then reductions in applied rates
flowing from any future agreements to cut
bound rates by a particular percentage will besmaller since any given cut in bound rates will
require a correspondingly smaller reduction inapplied rates. Use of applied rates as the basefor tariff reductions creates potential incentives to increase applied rates and is certainly
likely to have a chilling effect on future autonomous liberalization.
In examining the implications of the different formulas, we build on the analysis of WTO(2003b), which examines the implications oftariff reduction formulas for a hypotheticalschedule of tariff bindings. We apply the tariff
reduction formulas to the specified base tariffs(bound, applied, or a combination), and thenexamine the implications for applied rates bycomparing the resulting tariff bindings withapplied rates prior to the analysis. If the newbinding is below the prior applied rate, then
the new applied rate is reduced to the newbound rate. Table 2.11 presents weighted average tariffs for each of the four focus economies under each of the five proposals.
A striking feature of the results is just how
sharply all five formula approaches reduce
tariffs in the industrial-country markets considered. Average tariffs facing the low-income
countries in the United States, for example,
are reduced from 4.3 percent to 1.4 percent by
the Chinese formula and 1.3 percent by the
U.S. formula. All of the formulas also would
substantially reduce the standard deviation oftariffs in the industrial countries—indicatingthat they would reduce tariff peaks sharply.

94

The situation in developing-country markets
is considerably different, however. There, tariff
reductions are much smaller as a proportion of
the initial tariff rates—although not necessarily
in percentage points of tariff, since the initial
tariff rates are much higher. The smaller reductions as a percentage of initial tariffs are a reflection in large measure of the “tariff binding
overhang”—the situation where tariff bindings
are substantially above applied rates. They also
reflect the smaller percentage reductions for developing countries inherent in India’s formula,as well as India’s proposal to allow unboundtariffs to be set at the highest binding in theschedule, or at the applied rate for the commodity being liberalized, whichever is higher.
The U.S. formula would lead to substantial reductions in applied tariffs in India and Brazil,
with tariffs facing low-income exporters fallingto 6 percent in India and 5 percent in Brazil.
The EU formula also would result in large cuts
in applied rates in developing countries, withtariffs facing low-income exporters falling to10.8 in India and just over 8 percent in Brazil,
a striking finding given that this approach isbased on bound tariff rates.
A key issue is whether the reductions in tariffs are to be measured using percentage cutsin tariffs or alternative measures, such as thepercentage-point reduction in tariffs or thepercentage-point reduction in the price of imports brought about by the tariff reduction.15
As noted above, only the U.S. formula and, toa lesser extent, the European formula, bringabout large percentage-point reductions intariffs in India or Brazil. If however, progressis measured in terms of the percentage-point
cut in tariffs or the percentage-point cut in import prices, then the reductions in India andBrazil look much more substantial, even underthe Indian formula or the Chinese formula,where the percentage cut in tariffs is relatively
small. Clearly, much patient analysis will be
required to assess the consequences of the proposed reforms for individual countries—and a
lot of hard bargaining before WTO members
are likely to agree on a specific package of re-T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Table 2.11 Competing formulas make a big difference for tariffs
Weighted average on tariffs (percent) for Brazil, European Union, India, and the United States under various proposed formulas
Tariffs facing exporters

Applied tariff,average

Applied tariffs,
weighted average,
low-income
countries

Applied tariffs,
weighted average,
middle-income
countries

Standard
deviation

Affected area

FormulaBrazilInitial tariff
Chinese formula
European formula
Indian formula
U.S. formula
Chairman’s formula B=2
Chairman’s formula B=1

15.95
12.34
10.11
15.50
5.04
15.60
13.33

14.55
11.47
9.66
14.20
4.71
14.20
12.17

14.00
10.17
8.14
12.28
4.00
12.37
10.64

5.96
3.49
2.51
5.83
1.20
5.68
4.08

European Union

Initial tariff
Chinese formula
European formula
Indian formula
U.S. formula
Chairman’s formula B=2
Chairman’s formula B=1

4.18
1.85
2.06
1.94
1.29
2.18
1.56

5.28
1.99
2.67
2.49
1.73
2.52
1.74

3.76
1.45
1.87
1.78
1.23
1.80
1.25

3.72
1.14
2.02
1.77
1.87
1.64
1.08

India

Initial tariff
Chinese formula
European formula
Indian formula
U.S. formula
Chairman’s formula B=2
Chairman’s formula B=1

32.99
28.19
11.98
28.30
6.31
29.40
23.78

28.12
24.09
11.24
24.23
5.93
25.15
20.99

26.71
21.98
10.82
21.96
5.71
22.96
19.36

8.57
8.48
1.90
8.67
0.73
8.14
5.82

United States

Initial tariff
Chinese formula
European formula
Indian formula
U.S. formula
Chairman’s formula B=2
Chairman’s formula B=1

3.70
1.40
1.76
1.50
1.00
1.63
1.13

4.26
1.35
2.10
1.69
1.31
1.75
1.17

3.23
1.11
1.56
1.25
0.82
1.37
0.95

4.53
1.14
2.20
1.67
1.80
1.59
1.03

Source: World Bank staff.

forms. We hope that the analysis presented
here will make an important contribution toclarifying the issues and tradeoffs involved inthese choices.

Putting development into the Doha
Development Agenda requires serious
liberalization
Although trade policy reform has contributed
to an unprecedented shift in export composition and trade growth, the next steps will bedifficult. Today’s protection remains heavily
concentrated in the most politically sensitive

areas—textiles, clothing, and other laborintensive manufactures, as well as agriculture—in both rich and poor countries. In nonagricultural goods, three efforts are particularly
crucial:• First, the progressive phase-out of quotas
under the Agreement on Textiles andClothing, now lagging, is critical to providing market access for developing
countries. Reforms in current quotaholding countries may be necessary toensure a smooth adjustment.

95

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

• Second, efforts to cut back antidumping
measures that create a patchwork of ad
hoc protection are essential if market access granted by the right hand, throughquota elimination and tariff reductions, is
not to be withdrawn by the left hand of
new access-restricting antidumping suits.
• Third, moving forward in nonfarm traderequires a Swiss-formula, or related topdown approach, that will require disproportionately greater reductions inhigh tariffs so as to mitigate antidevelopment policy embedded in trade regimes
around the world. The choice of the for-96

mula, and of its coefficients of reduction,is important.
Much must be done behind the border toensure that countries that have missed out during the current wave of international integration will be able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a more streamlined
and development-friendly trading system. If
these measures are adopted—along with others associated with agricultural trade, labormobility, and the special treatment some developing countries enjoy—then the promise of the
Doha Development Agenda may be realized.

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Table 2A.1 The various liberalization proposals have very different features
Features of trade liberalization proposals advanced by China, the European Union, India, the United States, and the Chair of the
WTO Market Access Committee
ProposalBase rate (T0)China

Developed:
applied rate
Developing:
simple averageof applied andbound rate

European
Union

Bound rate

Unbound tariff

Sectoral tariff elimination

Formula (A + B × P) × T 
0
T1 = 
2
 (A + P ) + T0 
A: Simple average of T0
P=T0/A
B=3 for 2010, B=1 for 2015
 BU − BL 1
T1 = B1L + (T0 − B0L ) ×  1
L BU
0 − B0 Applied duty,
November 14,
2001

BL0 and BU0 are lower andupper limits in the basebracketBL1 and BU1 in the new bracket
India

Bound rate

Step 1.
T1 = (1 − (A × Y / 100)) × T0

Higher of
maximum boundrate and applied
rate on cut-off date

A=1 for developed countries
A=0.67 for developing
countries
Step 2. Minimum of T1 andthree times the average ofresults from Step 1

United States

Chair, WTO
Market AccessCommittee

Wood products;
non-ferrous metals;
bicycle parts; soda ash;photographic film;
electronics; fish andfishery products; scientificequipment; environmental
goods; Information
Technology Agreement(ITA) products and goods
covered by the Agreement
on Trade in Civil Aircraft,
Uruguay Round zerofor-zero sectors

Lesser of applied
rate and boundrateBound rate

Two times the
MFN applied
rate (2001).
If MFN applied
rate is zero, then
5 percent.

Electronics and electrical
goods; fish and fish
products; footwear; leather
goods; motor vehicle partsand components; stones,
gems, and precious metals;
and textiles and clothing

Step 1. Period to 2010.
T1 = 0
8 × T0T1 =8 + T0

if T0 ≤ 5%
if T0 > 5%

Step 2. From 2015, all tariffs
go to zero.

T1 =B × Ta × T0
B × Ta + T0

Ta is the initial average tariff
B is a coefficient to be
determined

Source: WTO.

97

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Notes
1. One potential concern with any measure of theshare of particular exports is the impact of pricechanges. If, for instance, changes in the observed sharesof exports reflect primarily changes in prices over the
sample, then they might be reversed by subsequent pricechanges. It is difficult to fully adjust for price changes,
but at least a crude indication was obtained by deflating each component of exports by a suitable deflator
and comparing the result with undeflated export shares.
It appears that the changes in shares have primarily
been the result of changes in the volume of exports.
This implies that they are much more likely to be sustained than changes resulting only from changes in theprices of particular export goods. Increases in the pricesof resources—and particularly oil—have caused increases in the importance of exports of these goods inthe past, but these have been reversed by subsequent
price declines.
2. The use of categories defined by income status at
the beginning of the sample period makes an enormous
difference. If we define our low-income sample by income status at the end of the period, the trade growthrate of the low-income group is below average.
3. This analysis was undertaken using the 1997
input-output data from the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), input-output information for 1997, and
the GTAP time series database of trade and trade patterns. See Hummels, Ishii, and Yi (2001) for precise definitions of these measures.
4. While the resistances to integration graphically
captured in the book “Why the Emperor’s New Clothes
Are Not Made in Colombia” (Morawetz 1981) havecertainly abated, the continuing low level of integrationsuggests the continued existence of considerable resistance to the level of integration associated with global
production sharing.
5. The growth performance of this region is biased
upward because of large-scale under-reporting of tradeprior to 1990.
6. The rise in the price of factor inputs and theprices of nontraded goods is frequently identified as thereal exchange rate appreciation associated with protection policies.
7. This is an underestimate of the costs imposed byprotection on exporters. In addition, tariffs raise costsby raising the costs of nontraded goods and nontradedfactors of protection. This adverse impact, the so-called
real exchange rate effect, should also be taken into
account.
8. Baldwin (1987) estimates that the average tariff
reductions by the industrial countries were 35 percent
in the Kennedy Round and 30 percent in the Tokyo
Round.

98

9. Details on the barriers faced by individual countries on individual products in particular markets canbe obtained using the WITS software (see www.wits.
worldbank.org).
10. Another justification might be that such rules
guide members toward good policy actions—actions
that advance the national economic interest of themembers that apply them. This historically is not therationale for their inclusion in the GATT/WTO. Empirically, extensive research has shown that antidumping actions are not “good” protection, they are ordinary protection with a good public relations program.
11. The average of rates actually applied is thus atleast as high as the lower figure, no higher than thehigher figure.
12. A simple formula was first tried out in the Dillon Round (Ernest Preeg, personal communication).
13. This approach focuses on achieving specified
average tariff cuts, rather than cuts in the average. Unfortunately, a given average cut can likely be achieved
with minimum political impact by imposing large cutsin the lowest tariffs, rather than the large cuts in thehighest tariffs that are economically desirable.
14. Approaches that use historical applied rates,
such as applied rates at the end of the Uruguay Round,would also have this feature of providing credit for
subsequent, autonomous liberalization.
15. This measure, which involves measuring thechange in the tariff rate divided by one plus the tariff
rate, is widely used in analytical work, and reported
extensively in Finger, Ingco, and Reincke (1996).

References
Abreu, M. 1996. “Trade in Manufactures, the Outcome of the Uruguay Round, and Developing
Country Interests.” In Will Martin and L. Alan
Winters, eds., The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amiti, M. 2003. “How the Sequence of Trade Liberalization Affects Industrial Location.” Mimeo, January 17. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Baldwin, R. E. 1987. “Multilateral Liberalization.” In
J. Michael Finger and A. Olechowski, eds., The
Uruguay Round: a Handbook for the Multilateral
Trade Negotiations. World Bank, Washington
D.C.
Bhardwaj, A., S. Kathuria, and Will Martin. 2001.
“Implications for South Asian Countries of Abolishing the Multifibre Arrangement.” Policy Research Working Paper 2721. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Bloch, H., and D. Sapsford. 2000. “Whither the Termsof Trade: an Elaboration of the Prebisch/Singer

T R A D E

P A T T E R N S

A N D

P O L I C I E S :Hypothesis.” Cambridge Journal of Economics
24: 461–81.
Brenton, Paul. 2003. “Integrating the Least Developed
Countries into the World Trading System: The
Current Impact of EU Preferences under Everything But Arms.” Policy Research Working Paper
3018. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Cadot, O., J. de Melo, and Marcelo Olarreaga. 2002.
“The Protectionist Bias of Duty Drawbacks: Evidence from Mercosur.” Journal of Development
Economics 59 (1): 161–82.
Corden, M. 1997. Trade Policy and Economic Welfare,
2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deardorff, A. 2001. “International Provision of Trade
Services, Trade and Fragmentation.” Review ofInternational Economics 9 (2): 233–48.
de Ferranti, D., G. Perry, D. Lederman, and W. Maloney. 2002. From Natural Resources to the
Knowledge Economy: Trade and Job Quality.
Latin America and Caribbean Studies, World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
Dollar, D., M. Hallward-Driemeier, and T. Mengistae.
2003. “Investment Climate and Firm Performance in Developing Economies.” Mimeo,
March 5. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Elbehri, A., T. Hertel, and Will Martin. 2003. “Estimating the Impact of WTO and Domestic Reforms on the Indian Cotton Industry.” Review ofDevelopment Economics 7 (3):343–59.
Evenett, Simon J., and A. Venables. 2003. “Export
Growth by Developing Countries: Market Entry
and Bilateral Trade.” Mimeo. World Trade Institute, Berne, Switzerland.
Finger, J. Michael, Ingco M.D., and U. Reincke. 1996.
“The Uruguay Round: Statistics on Tariff Concessions Given and Received.” World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
François, J., and Will Martin. 2003. “Formula Approaches for Market Access Negotiations.”
World Economy 26 (1):1–28.
François, J., Will Martin, and V. Manole. 2003.
“Choosing Formulas for Market Access Negotiations.” Revised version of paper prepared forFestschrift conference for Professor Peter Lloyd,
Melbourne.
François, J., and D. Spinanger. 2002. “China Accession, ATC Phaseout, and Market Access in Textiles and Clothing.” Mimeo. Erasmus University,
Rotterdam.
Hoekman, B. and M. Olarreaga. 2002. “Une proposition pour l’OMC: La « Super » clause de Nation
Plus Favorisée.” Reflets et Perspectives de la Vie
Economique, XLI, 2.
Hummels, D. 2001. “Time as a Trade Barrier.” Mimeo.
Krannert School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.

D O H AO P T I O N S

T O

P R O M O T E

D E V E L O P M E N T

Hummels, D., and P. Klenow. 2002. “The Variety andQuality of a Nation’s Trade.” Working Paper
8712. National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, Mass.
Hummels, D., J. Ishii, and K.M. Yi. 2001. “The Natureand Growth of Vertical Specialization in World
Trade.” Journal of International Economics
54:75–96.
Ianchovichina, E. 2003. “GTAP-DD: A Model for Analyzing Trade Reforms in the Presence of Duty
Drawbacks.” GTAP Technical Paper 21, Center
for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, Layfayette, Ind. [www.gtap.org.]
Ianchovichina, E., and Will Martin. 2001. “Trade Liberalization in China’s Accession to the WTO.”
Journal of Economic Integration 16 (4): 421–45.
_______. 2003. “Economic Impacts of China’s Accession to the WTO.” World Bank, Washington,
D.C. [www.worldbank.org/trade]
Kehoe, T., and K. Ruhl. 2002. “How Important is the
New Goods Margin in International Trade?”
Mimeo. University of Minnesota, Minn.
Madani, D. 1999. “A Review of the Role and Impact
of Export Processing Zones.” Policy ResearchWorking Paper 2238. World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
Martin, Will. 1993. “The Fallacy of Composition andDeveloping Country Exports of Manufactures.”
World Economy 16 (2): 159–72.
Martin, W., van der Mensbrugghe D., and V. Manole.
2003. “Is the devil in the details?: Assessing the
Welfare Implications of Agricultural and Nonagricultural Trade Reform.” World Bank Working Paper forthcoming, World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
Morawetz, D. 1981. Why the Emperor’s New Clothes
are not Made in Colombia: a Case Study in Latin
American and East Asian Exports. Washington,
D.C.: Oxford University Press for the WorldBank.
Nehru, V., and A. Dhareshwar. 1993. “A New Database on Physical Capital Stock: Sources, Methodology, and Results.” Revisita de Análisís Económico 8 (1): 37–59.
Nehru, V., E. Swanson, and A. Dubey. 1995. “A New
Database on Human Capital Stock in Developing
and Industrial Countries: Sources, Methodology,
and Results.” Journal of Development Economics
46: 379–401.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment). 2002. Monitoring and Outlook
Report. Paris.
Pritchett, L. 1997. “Divergence, Big Time.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives 11 (3): 3–17.

99

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4_____. 2000. “The Tyranny of Concepts: CUDIE (Cumulated, Depreciated Investment Effort) Is Not
Capital.” Journal of Economic Growth 5: 361–84.
______. 2001. “Where Has All the Education Gone?”World Bank Economic Review 15 (3): 367–91.
Redding, Stephen, and Anthony Venables. 2001. “Economic Geography and International Inequality.”
CEP Working Paper 495. London School of Economics, London.
Schott, P. 2001. “Do Rich and Poor Countries Specialize in a Different Mix of Goods? Evidence from
Product-Level U.S. Trade Data.” Working Paper
8492. National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, Mass.
_____. 2002. “Across-Product Versions Within-ProductSpecialization in International Trade.” Mimeo.
Yale School of Management, New Haven, Conn.
_____. 2003. “One Size Fits All? Heckscher-Ohlin Specialization in Global Production.” American Economic Review 93(3): 686–708.
Stawowy, Wojciech. 2001. “Calculation of Ad Valorem
Equivalents of Non-Ad Valorem Tariffs.” Mimeo,
UNCTAD, October.
Todaro, M. 1994. Economic Development. New York:
Longman.

100

World Bank. 2000. Global Economic Prospects 2001.
Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 2002. Global Economic Prospects 2003.
Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 2003. World Development Indicators.
Washington, D.C.
WTO. 2001. “Ministerial Declaration.” Document WT/
MIN(01)/DEC/1, November 20.
WTO. 2003a. “Draft Elements of Modalities for Negotiations on Non-Agricultural Products.” World
Trade Organization, Negotiating Group on Market Access, TN/MA/W/35, Geneva.
WTO. 2003b. Formula Approaches to Tariff Negotiations: Note by the Secretariat.” Document TN/
MA/S/Rev 2, April 11.
WTO. 2003c. “Negotiations on Agriculture: First
Draft of Modalities for the Further Comments.”
Document TN/AG/W/1/Rev. 1, March 18.
Yang, Y., W. Martin, and K. Yanagishima. 1997.
“Evaluating the Benefits of Abolishing the MFA
in the Uruguay Round Package.” In T. Herteb,ed., Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University
Press.

3
Agricultural Policies
and Trade

Trade in agriculture is important to theworld’s poor—
Agriculture is the largest employer in lowincome countries, accounting for about 60 percent of the labor force and producing about 25
percent of GDP. Even in middle-income countries, where agriculture’s share of GDP is only
about 15 percent, the sector still accounts formore than 25 percent of employment. Whencoupled with agro-related industries and foodrelated services, its share, even among middleincome countries, is typically 25 to 40 percent
of GDP. About 73 percent of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas. Rural
development, therefore, is central to alleviating
poverty.
Government policy has heavily distorted
agricultural performance in both developing
and developed countries. Until the 1990s, industrial countries generally protected agriculture, whereas developing countries generally
taxed it (Schiff and Valdes 1992). Industrial
countries supported their agricultural sectors
through subsidies to producers, high tariffs,
and other nontariff measures such as import
restrictions and quotas.

—but agricultural policies have often
worked to the detriment of the poor
Most of the developing countries generated
the bulk of their agricultural GDP in lowerefficiency production for the domestic market,
supplying the world market with tropical commodities that could not easily be produced in

the industrial countries. In products for which
they competed with industrial countries, suchas sugar and beef, some countries could export
limited amounts under preferential-access programs. In an effort to generate public revenues
from commercialized export activities, governments levied export taxes on agricultural products while protecting manufacturing throughhigh import tariffs and other import restrictions. Even for agricultural products that were
not exported, price controls, exchange rate
policies, and other restrictions kept prices low
for urban consumption.
In the last decade, developing countries
shifted from taxing agriculture to protecting it.
Import restrictions on manufactured products
have declined dramatically, exchange rates havebeen devalued, multiple-exchange-rate systems
penalizing agriculture have been abandoned,
and export taxes have effectively disappeared(World Bank 2000; Jansen, Robinson, and Tarp
2002; Quiroz and Opazo 2000). Meanwhile,reforms in most industrial countries, including
many of the successful middle-income countries, have been modest—despite the inclusionof agriculture under the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the Uruguay Round of international trade negotiations. The result of thesepolicies has been overproduction and price declines in many commodities, reducing opportunities for many developing countries to expand
exports and penalizing the world’s poor.
Consequently, although developing countries have almost doubled their share of world103

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

trade in manufactures over the last two
decades, their share in agricultural trade has
been stuck at around 30 percent. During the
1990s, the growth of developing-country agricultural exports to industrial countries slowed
as exports to other developing countries accelerated. During this period, 56 percent of
the growth of developing-country agricultural
trade was accounted for by sales to other developing countries and 44 percent by sales toindustrial countries. The middle-income countries have managed to increase global market
share, principally by entering into other developing countries’ markets and by aggressively
diversifying into nontraditional exports, suchas seafood products, fruits, vegetables, cut
flowers, and processed foods. Growth of these
nontraditional exports has outpaced growthof traditional commodities by three to one.
Meanwhile, many low-income countries, except for China, have had less success—theirshare of world agricultural trade has declined.

High border protection in rich countries
frustrates development
These patterns reflect—among other things—
the structure of global protection. Border protection in rich countries continues to be high,nontransparent, and antidevelopment. Average
agricultural tariffs in industrial countries,
when they can be measured, are two to fourtimes higher than manufacturing tariffs. In addition, about 28 percent of domestic production in countries belonging to the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) is protected by tariff rate quotas(TRQs). More than 40 percent of the tariff
lines in the European Union (EU) and UnitedStates contain specific duties, which make it
difficult to calculate average tariffs and obscure actual levels of protection. Tariff peaks
as high as 500 percent confront imports fromdeveloping countries. Tariffs also increase bydegree of processing, creating a highly escalating tariff structure that limits access forprocessed foods. Preferences do not compensate for these high levels. In the United States,
only 34 percent of agricultural imports from104

countries covered by the Generalized System ofPreferences (GSP) were eligible for preferences,and 26 percent of imports received them. Developing countries, too, have maintained highborder protection and, on average, have higher
agricultural tariffs than industrial countries.
However, direct comparisons are difficult because of the complex nature of protection inindustrial countries.
Within OECD countries, budget subsidies
and transfers from consumers (from high tariffs and quantitative restrictions on domestic
production of selected commodities) amounted
to about $250 billion in 1999–2001. This protection decreased from 62 percent of farm
revenues in 1986–88 to 49 percent in 1999–
2001—still a very high percentage. Of this support, 70 percent came from consumers via
higher prices associated with border protection
and 30 percent from direct subsidies. In developing countries, almost all support is generated by border barriers. A silver lining to thisdark cloud is that some developed-country
subsidies have been at least partially delinked
from levels of production, lowering the incentive to overproduce. These partially decoupledsubsidies increased from 9 percent of total subsidies in 1996–98 to more than 20 percent in
1999–01.
Although official export subsidies may besmall and shrinking, effective export subsidies
created by domestic support are increasing,lending unfair advantage to industrial country producers. Currently, cotton is not classified as receiving export subsidies. Its domestic and export prices in the United States andthe European Union are the same—and thoseprices are less than half the cost of production.
Similar differences exist in many other products, a gap that will increase as industrial
countries move from protection through border barriers to support through coupled or
partially decoupled subsidies.

Success in the Doha Round requires
reductions in agricultural protection
To be meaningful for the world’s poor, theDoha Round must bring reductions in agricul-

A G R I C U L T U R A L

tural protection around the world. The benefitsof global liberalization in agriculture—elimination of all border barriers and subsidies—are
estimated to be very large for industrial and developing countries alike, topping $350 billion
for the world. With liberalization, agricultural
production would marginally shift from North
to South, and the highly depressed world prices
for many commodities would increase: 10–20
percent for cotton, 20–40 percent for dairy
products, 10–20 percent for groundnuts, 33–90
percent for rice, and 20–40 percent for sugar(Beghin and Aksoy 2003). The impact of theseprice changes on low-income net importers
would be small and manageable. To date, however, many of the proposals designed to elicit
consensus on agricultural reform are modest.
The average applied tariffs in the Quad countries would be halved at best under such proposals. Tariff peaks would remain above 100
percent for many countries. The outcomes fordeveloping countries are even less significant.
For most of them, the cuts required by one
prominent proposal would leave their boundtariffs above their current applied rates, and tariff escalation and peaks would still be very high.
A serious agreement to reduce border protections would produce benefits for theworld’s poor that far exceed those that can be
anticipated from present levels of development assistance. A first order of business is tocreate a more transparent and simpler trade
regime in all countries by converting specifictariffs to ad valorem tariffs, eliminating minimum price regulations, cutting peak tariffs,
changing the structure of TRQs so they increase over time, and introducing a transparent system of reallocation to more efficient
producers. Rich countries should phase out
export subsidies and subsidies that encourage
overproduction, both of which are directly
prejudicial to poor farmers around the world.
These reforms would also make the agriculture in industrial countries more efficient,environmentally sustainable, and more supportive of the small family farms. The experience of New Zealand, the only OECD country
to reform fully, clearly demonstrates that agri-

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

culture without support can be more dynamic
and efficient.
Finally, along with greater market access,low-income countries need help in eliminating
behind-the-border barriers, especially the segmentation of their rural markets. Those markets should be linked to wider markets athome and abroad (box 3.1).

Poverty, rural households,
and trade in agriculture
Agriculture is the livelihood of theworld’s poor
Growth in agriculture has a disproportionate
effect on poverty because more than half ofthe population in developing countries resides
in rural areas.1 Some 57 percent of the developing world’s rural population live in lowermiddle-income countries; 15 percent in theleast developed countries (LDCs).2 Althoughmost of the world’s poor countries are in SubSaharan Africa, they account for about only
12 percent of developing world’s rural population, whereas Asia accounts for 65 percent.
Using the $1-a-day measure of poverty,
most of the world’s poor live in India, China,
and other lower-middle-income countries(table 3.1). National poverty data—whichallow separation of rural and urban household
information but are not available for all countries—yield results that are very similar to
those obtained using the $1-a-day measure.
They show that four countries—India, Bangladesh, China, and Indonesia—account for 75
percent of the world’s rural poor. It is in Asia,
therefore, that rural income growth will havethe greatest impact on rural poverty.

Poverty is more common in rural areas
In countries for which separate rural andurban income data are available, 63 percentof the population, and 73 percent of the poor,
live in rural areas. This is true for all regions.
A high incidence of rural poverty is found in
all developing countries, whatever their level ofincome. More of the population is poor in low-105

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 3.1 The impact of national trade integration andreform on povertyP

overty in rural areas of low-income countries isclosely correlated with distance to local and national markets. In addition to geographic distance,
the concept of distance to market includes various
costs of moving goods to and from markets.
Case studies in Armenia, Malawi, and Nepal
show that reductions in transportation costs bringstrong gains in household welfare for individual
farmers. Among these households, the poorer ones
benefit disproportionately because transportation
costs make up a larger percentage of their household
expenditures.
Case studies in Ethiopia and Guinea reveal thatmany of the poor will be left behind by trade reform
if no improvements are made in domestic markets.
In Ethiopia, for example, 80 percent of the poor
would benefit from freer trade under conditions offull market participation and price transmission, but

only 55 percent would benefit without these conditions. Without improvements in the functioning of
local and national markets, economic gains for thepoor may reach only one-fourth of their potential.
A case study in Madagascar illustrates that
improvements in trade policies may not be sufficient
to restore sustained growth in the agricultural sector
without better transport infrastructure and other reforms. In Madagascar, where poverty is closely related
to remoteness, defined to include lack of infrastructure
and access to basic services, integrating the poor into
regional markets and the national economy will makea real contribution to increasing their incomes. In theabsence of integration, economic growth will tend tobenefit those who are already favored.

Source: Kudat, Ajwad, and Sivri (2003).

income countries, however, and in the LDCs
the poverty rate for rural households reaches
almost 82 percent (table 3.2). The rural shareof the total number of poor households is declining with urbanization. Still, with current
trends, the rural share of the global number ofpoor will not fall below 50 percent before
2035 (Ravallion 2000).
Table 3.1

Most poor countries are very dependent
on agriculture for household income. In Ethiopia and Malawi, for example, about threequarters of household income is derived fromagricultural activities, mainly subsistence farming. But cash income is also crucial (table 3.3).
Whether derived from cash (export) crops orother sources, cash income allows farmers to

Most of the world’s poor live in rural areas outside the least developed countries

Distribution of poor in developing countries (1999)

National

Rural

Urban

Percent
rural

Percentageof world’s
rural
population

596
839
1,435
1,272
1,032
5,175

443
501
478
805
745
2,972

153
338
957
467
288
2,203

74
60
33
63
72
57

15
17
16
27
25
100

Population in millions (2001)

Least developed
countries
Other low income
Middle income a
China
India
Total

a. Excluding China and India.
Source: World Bank data.

106

Poverty headcount,under $1/day in 1999
(percent)(millions)

49
26
8
18
35
23

292
218
114
226
358
1,209

A G R I C U L T U R A L

Table 3.2 Rural poverty is higher in poorer
countries
Share of national population and of poor living in rural areas(percent)
SampleaUpper middle
incomeLower middle
incomeLow income
Least developed
All developing
countries

All developing
countries

Rural
dwellers

Share of rural
dwellers whoare poor

Rural
dwellers

19

37

22

64
65
76

72
74
82

61
60
68

63

73

56

a. Sample consists of 52 countries for which separate ruraland urban income data are available.
Source: World Bank data.

Table 3.3 Even in subsistence economies,
cash is important
Percentage of total household income derived from various
sources in rural areas, 1990s

Total agricultural income
Agricultural cash income
Subsistence farming
Transfers
Wages
Other
Total

Ethiopia

Malawi

Mexico

77
18
59
16
3
4
100

76
16
60
7
8
9
100

24
21
3
13
42
21
100

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

sources of income include salaries and wages
from other activities; investment income suchas interest, dividends, and rents; and socialtransfers from health, pension, unemployment,
and child-allowance schemes.

Farmers in industrial countries earn
above-average incomes
In many industrial countries, the average incomes of farmers are higher than the national
average, reaching almost 250 percent of average income for the Netherlands, 175 percent
for Denmark, 160 percent for France, and 110
percent for the United States and Japan. In
most other countries, the level of income iseither equal to or marginally lower than the
average income (OECD 2002d). In lower income OECD countries such as Greece, Korea,
and Turkey, rural incomes are lower—around75–80 percent of urban incomes.
As countries become wealthier, the share ofrural household income from nonfarm sources
rises. Off-farm income for major field crops in
the United States, for example, is more than ten
times greater than farm income and eight times
greater than government payments (table 3.4)
Government payments exceed what U.S. farmers make from the market in farming. In fact,
most farms lose money from farming alone.3

Source: World Bank household data.

Of agricultural subsidies, only half reaches
farmers, and most goes to the richest

buy inputs—such as fertilizers—that increase
food-crop yields, lowering the incidence ofpoverty and malnutrition.
The share of nonfarm income in rural
households increases with a country’s levelof development. In Mexico, for example, theshare of farm income in total rural income ismuch lower than in Ethiopia and Malawi. Incomes from farming are complemented byother sources, so that the direct impact of agricultural price and output variations have amuch smaller impact on rural households. In
industrial countries, when a broad definitionof farm households is adopted, the share offarm income declines even further. Other

Agricultural protection in industrial countries
helps the relatively better-off rural households—and it does so very inefficiently.4 Ac-

Table 3.4 U.S. farmers earn less fromfarming than from other sources
Shares of U.S. farmers’ income from various sources(billions of dollars)
Income source

Value

Farming
Government payments
Off-farm activities

11.6
14.7
122.7

Source: USDA, “Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook,”
September 26, 2002.

107

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

cording to OECD estimates, agricultural support policies deliver additional income to farmhouseholds at a rate of 50 percent or less of theamounts transferred from consumers and taxpayers for support purposes (OECD 2002e).
In the case of market price support and deficiency payments, the share is one-fourth or
less; for input subsidies, less than one-fifth.
Only one-quarter of every dollar of producer
support actually finds its way into the producer’s pocket—the rest goes to input suppliers
and owners of other factors of production(OECD 1999, De Gorter 2003). The most important outcome of these programs is that theylead to much higher land prices.
The largest farm operations, which generally are also the most profitable and thewealthiest, receive most of the benefits of support systems. In the United States, the largest
25 percent of farms have average gross farm receipts of more than $275,000 and average farm
net worth of more than $780,000. They receive
89 percent of all support—in part because they
produce a similar share of output. The remaining 1.6 million U.S. farms on average receive
little support. Through the lens of householdincome surveys, the story is similar: At one extreme, farm households with an average income of $275,000 received payments averaging$32,000. At the other end of the spectrum,
farm households with incomes averaging$13,000 received $2,200 in program payments.
In the European Union, where farm numbers and structures differ somewhat, the distribution of support is not markedly different.
The largest 25 percent of farms have averagegross farm receipts of more than €180,000 andaverage farm net worth of almost €500,000.
They produce 73 percent of farm output andreceive 70 percent of support. Farms of thenext largest size have much smaller gross farm
receipts, averaging just over €43,000, and average farm net worth of about €230,000. They
produce 17 percent of output and receive 19
percent of support payments. The remaining 2
million EU farms produce little, receive little
support, but have a sizeable average farm net

108

worth. In Japan and Canada, the largest 25
percent of farms receive 68 percent and 70 percent of support payments, respectively.
In short, the subsidy programs prominent incurrent food and agriculture policy are not targeted to keeping small, struggling family farms
in business but instead provide hefty rents
to large farmers. Nor are current productionbased policies effective in achieving their various other objectives (such as environmental
sustainability and rural development). By increasing land prices they also lead to thecreation of larger farms and the elimination ofsmall family farms. Meanwhile, their unintended spillover effects on global markets, andon other countries, are large and negative.
At the most general level, it is probable that
agricultural protection in rich countries worsens global income distribution. First, farmers
in the North earn more on average than theirown national averages. Second, the lion’s shareof farm aid goes to the largest and wealthiest
farmers. At the other end of the global distribution spectrum, more of the poor tend to live inrural areas, and protection in rich countries
tends to depress prices and demand for theirgoods.

International markets are important tosustained income growth in developing
countries
When subsidies depress prices the impacts inpoor countries can be severe. To illustrate theimpact of commodity price changes, Minot
and Daniels (2002) used household income
data to estimate the potential impact of cotton
price declines in Benin and tobacco price declines in Malawi, the major export crops of
those two countries. Cotton prices have declined by almost 40 percent over the last few
years. In Benin, a poor country, the impact of
this decline in world cotton prices, if it were
fully passed on to farmers, would reduce overall welfare in rural areas by 6–7 percent andthat of cotton farmers by about 19 percent.
The richest quintile of households, meanwhile,would experience a decline in income of 4 per-

A G R I C U L T U R A L

cent. Thus this price change alone would increase the poverty rate in Benin by up to 8 percentage points (depending on the simulations),from 40 percent to 48 percent.
Tobacco constitutes about 80 percent ofMalawi’s exports. A 30 percent decrease inworld tobacco prices over the last few years
has reduced the income of small growers by anaverage of 8 percent. The poorest quintile has
lost about 13 percent, the richest 7 percent.
For a typical farmer, the annual net returns
from tobacco, the country’s most profitable
crop, declined from $108 to $26 (Integrated
Framework 2003). These rough estimates understate the overall impact of the price declines, however, because cash incomes allow
farmers to purchase inputs, such as fertilizer
and pesticides, that increase the yields for theirsubsistence crops and have a significant impact
on their levels of poverty and malnutrition.
The importance of the global market goesbeyond price changes. For countries with a relatively small urban population, agricultural exports can produce faster growth than can domestic market demand—however fast domestic
demand might be growing. In such cases, theinternational market provides growth opportunities without the constraint of sharply lower
prices, which often accompany an increase inagricultural production. Although food production for home consumption and the domestic market accounts for most agricultural production in the developing world, agricultural
exports and domestic food production areclosely related. Export growth contributes significantly to the growth of nonexport agriculture by providing cash income that can be used
to modernize farming practices. For those leaving the farm, growth and modernization ofagriculture create jobs in agricultural processing and marketing.
On balance, cash-crop income complements
and enhances food production, particularly inpoorer countries where opportunities to earn
nonfarm income are more limited (figure 3.1)
(Watkins 2003; Von Braun and Kennedy 1994;
Minot and others 2000).

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Figure 3.1 Countries that produce morecash crops also produce more food
Annual growth rates of food and cash crop production in
25 countries having agricultural output equal to at least
15 percent of GNP, 1980–2001 (percent)
.06

nga
gha

ben

pak
bfa

.04
civ chd
ida
ind

npl
car

sen
cam mlw
bng myr
kny

tgo
ngr
mli

zmb

.02
mdg

tnz
zmb

gmb

0
–.05

0

.05

.1

.15

Cash crop production growth rate

Trade and export growthin agricultureT

he last two decades were periods of very
rapid growth in exports from developing
countries to other developing countries and to
the industrialized world (table 3.5). Growth in
the world economy accounts for some of thisexport growth, but lower trade barriers, improved supply capabilities, and increases in
specialization are more important. The rapid
growth in exports was true both in manufacturing, where levels of protection have been
reduced significantly, and in agriculture,
where significant protection remains. Nevertheless, manufacturing export growth rates
were much higher.

Agricultural trade makes up a growing
share of trade among developing
countries, but agricultural export sharesto rich countries are stable
Although developing countries’ exports accelerated during the 1990s, agricultural exports

109

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 3.5

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Manufacturing exports grew much faster than agricultural exports

Export growth rates (percent)Developing countries’ export growth rates
World export growth rates

Total

Developing to developing

Developing to industrialized

1980–81 to
1990–91

1990–91 to
2000–01

1980–81 to
1990–91

1990–91 to
2000–01

1980–81 to
1990–91

1990–91 to
2000–01

1980–81 to
1990–91

1990–91 to
2000–01

4.3
5.9

3.6
4.8

3.4
7.6

4.8
8.9

3.6
7.3

7.8
10.0

3.4
7.8

3.3
8.3

Agriculture
Manufacturing

Note: Manufacturing exports are deflated by the U.S. purchasing parity index (PPI) for finished goods less food and energy. Agriculture exports are deflated by the U.S. PPI for farm products.
Source: COMTRADE.

Table 3.6

South-South exports in agriculture are rising as South-North export shares fall

Share of global agricultural and manufacturing exports by source and destination, 1980–2001 (percent)Developing countries

Industrialized countries

1980–81

1990–91

2000–01

1980–81

1990–91

2000–01

Agriculture exports
To developing
To industrialized

35.9
9.9
26.0

32.9
9.2
23.7

36.9
13.7
23.2

64.1
15.3
48.8

67.1
11.9
55.3

63.1
14.7
48.4

Manufacturing exports
To developing
To industrialized

19.3
6.6
12.7

22.7
7.5
15.2

33.4
12.3
21.1

80.7
21.7
59.0

77.3
15.2
62.1

66.6
19.0
47.6

Source: COMTRADE.

did not keep pace with manufactured exports,
largely because agricultural export growth accelerated only to the other developing countries (table 3.6).5
Developing countries increased their shareof global manufacturing exports from 19 percent in 1980–81 to 33 percent in 2000–01. Expanding trade among developing countries
contributed to the gain in share, but higher
exports to industrial countries also played asignificant part. In agriculture, by contrast, thedeveloping countries maintained, but did not
expand, their one-third share of world agricultural trade over the last two decades. The
steady decline in the developing countries’ shareof agricultural exports to industrial countries
over the period was counterbalanced by an increase in their share of exports to other developing countries. In other words, the significant
deceleration of nominal import growth in in-

110

dustrial countries, from 5.4 percent annuallyduring the 1980s to 1.9 percent in the 1990s,
was offset by the increase in import growth indeveloping countries, which increased from 3
percent annually to 6 percent.

Product trends differ
What accounts for the shift in markets for the
agricultural exports of developing countries?
Price changes alone do not appear to explainit (box 3.2). Static markets in industrial countries for traditional developing-country products such as coffee and tea probably contributed to declining import growth rates, as did
the decline in GDP growth rates, combinedwith low elasticity of demand.6
To explore the phenomenon further, we separated agricultural exports into four subgroups. The first consists of mostly tropical,
developing-country products such as coffee,

A G R I C U L T U R A L

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Box 3.2 Did agricultural exports slow down solely
because of falling prices?

I

n nominal terms, export growth in agricultural
products decelerated significantly during the
1990s. Can the slowdown be attributed to the pricedeclines observed in the late 1990s? The existing
price series for agricultural commodities have certain
limitations. Most of the standard series are based on
raw commodities that constitute a much smaller percentage of the global trade flows. In most cases theyexclude seafood, fruits, and vegetables—now thelargest trade items. For the purposes of this chapter

U.S. farm products PPI
Raw commodities (world trade weights)
Raw commodities (developing countries’ weights)

If the U.S. PPI is used, a small fraction of thenominal changes in trade flows in the 1990s can be
attributed to price declines in the 1990s. Raw commodity indices show that the price declines werecocoa, tea, nuts, spices, textile fibers, and sugar
and confectionary products. The second ismade up of temperate products highly protected in industrial countries—meats, milk andproducts, grains, animal feed, and edible oiland oilseeds. The third category is the dynamic
nontraditional products: seafood, fruits, vegetables, and cut flowers. The last category includes other processed agricultural products,
such as tobacco and cigarettes, beverages, andother processed foods.
Import growth rates in industrial countries
declined across all groups, while the opposite occurred in developing countries (figure 3.2). Butchanges in demand are only part of the picture.
In attributing causes to differential growth
rates, it is important to consider the relativeroles of demand growth and market-share

the authors tried several alternatives to compensate
for these limitations. The unit-value indices fromtrade data gave inconsistent results and were eliminated, leaving three series, one from the U.S. purchasing parity index (PPI) series for farm products,
which includes all products, and two from raw commodity indices. One of the latter uses world trade
weights; the other, developing-country export
weights. The behavior of the three indices over thelast two decades is shown in the table below.

1980–81 to 1990–91

1990–91 to 2000–01

4.7
–8.3
–22.7

–6.8
–6.6
–15.2

greater in the 1980s, and if they are used to deflate
the nominal exports, the deceleration would be accentuated. For that reason, the U.S. food products
PPI was used to deflate aggregate exports.

gains in export growth. When growth in exports of manufactures (including processedfood) to industrial countries is decomposed between demand and market share, only 21 percent of developing countries’ export growthappears to have been caused by demand increases. The other 79 percent was caused bychanges in market share (box 3.3). Limited
raw-commodity information collected by
OECD does not show any significant change inimport-penetration ratios in OECD countries
over the last decade (OECD 2001). Meanwhile, the developing countries gained market
share in every manufacturing subsector—except food processing. The protection rates forfood processing in industrial countries are extremely high—far above those of any othermanufacturing subsector.

111

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 3.2 Import growth rates of nontraditional export commodities decreased in industrial
countries but increased in developing countries
a. Industrial countries

b. Developing countries

Import growth rates (nominal USD, percent per annum)

Import growth rates (nominal USD, percent per annum)

10

10

9

9

8

8



7
1991–2001

1981–1991

6

7
1981–1991

5



4

5


6

1991–2001

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

0
Tropicalproducts

Temperate
products

Seafood,
Otherfruits,processed
vegetables, products
and flowers

Total

Tropicalproducts

Temperate
products

Seafood,
Otherfruits,processed
vegetables, products
and flowers

Total

Source: COMTRADE.

The evolving structure of trade: toward
nontraditional products with lower rates
of protection
World trade has moved away from traditional
export commodities to other categories ofgoods. This is true of both developing and industrial countries. The product groups thatgained significantly between 1980–81 and
2000–01 are fruits, vegetables, and cut flowers(19 percent); fish and seafood (12.4 percent);
and alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks (8.7
percent). Although products in these categories
tend to have high income elasticities, they also
enjoy lower rates of protection in industrial
and large developing countries. Product groups
that showed significant declines during the period were grains (14.3 to 9.5 percent); coffee,cocoa, and tea; sugar and sugar products; andtextile fibers—all of which are among the traditional exports of developing countries. The
declines were caused by a combination of pricedeclines, low demand elasticities, and—in thecase of sugar, grains, meats, and milk—highrates of protection and expanded production
in industrial countries.
While moving away from traditional exports and into expanding subsectors, develop-

112

ing countries also have marginally expanded
their exports of temperate products (grains,meats, and milk)—but mostly to other developing rather than industrial countries. These
important developments will require changes
in how developing countries’ agricultural trade
is conceived and analyzed (figure 3.3).
Their trade gains have brought more developing countries up against rising food safety
standards in the developed world. Meetingsuch standards has a cost—not just in compliance, but also in documenting that compliance.
This cost can be repaid in the form of higher
trade. Various mechanisms exist to help developing countries rise to the standards (box 3.4).
Industrial-country export structures also
have changed. Exports of protected products
have declined, whereas those of beverages,
fruits, and vegetables have grown. Thesechanges are discernible despite the fact that
intra-EU trade is included in the global export
data. One cause of the change is that greater
domestic production of protected products
has made many industrial countries more selfsufficient in those products, reducing trade.
As a group, developing countries lost export market share during the 1980s, but

A G R I C U L T U R A L

Box 3.3

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Decomposing export growth in manufacturingM

ost market-share analysis has not looked into
the shares of exports from developing countries in the consumption of industrial countries.
Below are estimates of developing-country exports inthe domestic consumption and production of
Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United States,
which together absorb about 70 percent of developing countries’ manufactured exports to industrial
countries.
The table below shows the shares of exports
from developing countries in the four countries’
total absorption (demand) and the growth of exports
from developing countries. Absorption is estimatedas gross production minus exports, plus imports.

Gross production data in the three non-U.S. countries have been converted to U.S. dollars at current
exchange rates. Because the U.S. dollar appreciatedsignificantly against the currencies of the other three
countries in the late 1990s, this conversion underestimates domestic production and demand growth. It
also overestimates the share of imports, which aredenominated in U.S. dollars.
Demand change is estimated assuming a constantshare of exports in domestic demand between the twotime periods; that is, market shares do not change.
The market share changes are then estimated as thedifference between the actual export growth and theexport growth under a constant market share.

Developing countries increased their share of industrial countries’ manufacturing imports—
largely by increasing their market share, 1991–99 (percent)Share of developing countries’
exports in domestic demand

CanadaJapan
United States
Germany
Total

Export growth due to

1991

1999

Growth in exports
from developing countries

4.51
2.24
5.10
7.44
4.46

7.64
4.38
9.04
8.91
7.63

117.2595.04
169.4218.31
110.90Change indemandChange inmarket share

28.16
–0.25
51.99
–1.22
23.38

89.08
95.29
117.4319.53
87.52

Sources: UNIDO, COMTRADE. Using UNIDO and COMTRADE data, UNCTAD estimated these ratios until
1995. UNIDO’s coverage in terms of gross production has become more limited since 1995.

The relationship between domestic demand
growth in industrial countries and export growthfrom developing countries is relatively weak. Market
share gains caused by the restructuring of global
production are a much more powerful factor.
Between 1991 and 1999, exports of manufactures from developing countries to these four countries increased by about 139 percent, compared toabout 60 percent for world trade, while the total
increase in domestic demand was only 29 percent.
The rest of the export growth was a result of theincreases in market shares of developing country
exports in industrial-country markets. A change of
one percentage point in absorption shares during
the decade would increase exports from developing
countries by approximately 28 percentage points,
equal to the total absorption growth over the decade.

The same conclusion holds true for the 15
three-digit ISIC subsectors that range from very capital intensive (rubber and glass) to very labor intensive (garments and footwear).
The only subsector in which demand growth
was greater than the market share gains, and inwhich the developing countries lost market share,
was food processing. In that subsector, the market
share of developing countries declined from 2.42
percent in 1991 to 2.40 percent in 1999. Why?
Food processing enjoyed the greatest protection of
any subsector, and protection did not decline overthe last decade. Because a large portion of agricultural exports are classified under food processing,protection of the subsector explains part of the deceleration of agricultural exports from developing toindustrial countries during the 1990s.

Source: Aksoy, Ersel, and Sivri (2003).

113

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 3.3 Developing countries’ exports of nontraditional products have surged, but
industrial countries’ exports have changed little
a. Developing countries

b. Industrial countries

Percent of developing country exports

Percent of developing country exports

60

60

50

50

40



1981

40
1991

30



30

2001

1991



20

20

10

10

1981


0



2001


0
Tropicalproducts

Temperate
products

Seafood,fruits,vegetables,and flowers

Other
processed
products

Tropicalproducts

Temperate
products

Seafood,fruits,vegetables,and flowers

Other
processed
products

Source: COMTRADE.

reversed that trend in the 1990s (table 3.7).
Modest expansion in the 1990s brought themback to where they had been in the early
1980s. Global gains were made by middle- andlow-income countries, mostly to other developing countries. China is an exception to thistrend, having increased its export shares in all
markets. Even in the 1990s low-income countries continued to lose market share in theirexports to industrial countries, making up
the loss by expanding their export shares indeveloping-country markets. In tropical products, where global shares declined, low-income
countries increased their shares to the otherdeveloping countries.
The LDCs lost export market share in bothmarkets during both decades. Unlike other developing countries, they have not been able to
make up their market-share losses in tropical
products by expanding their shares in thegrowing subsectors: seafood and fruits andvegetables. Their only gains have come in seafood, and much of the expansion has comefrom industrial-country vessels fishing in theirwaters. In highly protected products, SouthSouth trade has expanded, possibly as a resultof regional trading arrangements.

114

Global agricultural protection:
The bias against development
Progress in the Uruguay Round was moreformal than real
Since the 1980s, two important developments
have occurred in agricultural trade policy.
First, most developing and a few industrial
countries have made major reforms in theirprotection regimes involving unilateral and regional reductions in tariffs and quotas. For
example, unilateral reforms in the 1990s effectively eliminated export taxation in mostdeveloping countries. Average tariffs havedeclined rapidly, while other import restrictions, such as foreign exchange allocations forimports, have effectively disappeared (WorldBank 2001). Manufacturing tariffs dropped
more than agricultural tariffs. In at least one
way, agricultural protection expanded: Many
middle-income countries began subsidizing
their agricultural products.
Second, the Uruguay Round Agreement
on Agriculture brought agricultural trade into
WTO disciplines. Before Uruguay, agricultural
products had no bound tariffs, and tariffs often
were supplemented by nontariff measures such

A G R I C U L T U R A L

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Box 3.4 Food safety standards: From barriers
to opportunities

A

gricultural trade is shifting toward high-value,
perishable commodities such as fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and fish. With this change have comeconsumer concerns over food safety. In response,
governments and private companies have developed
a growing array of rules, regulations, and standards.
Some fear that these standards will be used by highincome countries as a tool of trade protection.
Some developing countries have risen to thehigher standards. Kenya’s exporters send fresh vegetables and salad greens by air freight to major
European supermarket chains. In that industry, foodsafety standards have accelerated the adoption ofmodern supply-management techniques and stimulated public-private collaboration (Jaffee 2003).
Many developing-country suppliers, however, will
not be able to meet the more stringent standards
without technical advice, upgraded production andprocessing facilities, better enforcement of standards,
and closer working relationships with importers inhigh-income countries.

Nearly all of the cases of allegedly protectionist
use of food safety measures brought before the WTO
have involved trade between developed countries
over issues such as hormone residues in meat and genetically modified foods. Although some food-importbans have been heavily publicized, their application
against developing countries is quite rare and typically has involved complementary rather than competitive products. However, some evidence suggeststhat developing countries employ safety regulations
as a protectionist measure against other developing
countries.
The available evidence suggests that most foodsafety-related problems that developing-country exporters encounter are well within their capacities toresolve. According to data from the U.S. Food andDrug Administration, most detentions of developingcountry food products involve labeling violations orvery basic problems of food hygiene—and thus ofquality assurance (see table). No firm can operate
long without addressing such problems.

Detentions by U.S. Food and Drug Administration of imports from developing
countries 1997 and 2001 (percent)Reasons for contravention

Food additives
Pesticide residues
Heavy metals
Mold
Microbiological contamination
Decomposition
Filth
Low acid canned foodLabeling
Other
Total
Total number

Latin America andthe Caribbean 1996–97

Asia
1996–97

India
2001

1.4
20.6
10.7
11.9
6.2
5.2
31.4
3.6
5.0
1.7
100.0
3,985

7.4
0.4
1.5
0.8
15.5
11.5
35.2
14.3
10.8
2.6
100.0
5,784

7.4
1.9
0.6
0.4
15.3
0.3
26.4
4.1
15.7
27.8
100.0
2,148

Source: USFDA.

Even for more complex food safety issues, developing countries have room to maneuver. An arrayof strategies exists to help them meet product andprocess standards for international markets. Especially in middle-income countries, the good manufacturing practices and good agricultural practices

long demanded by overseas customers and consumers are now being demanded by discerning
domestic consumers as well. They are well within
producers’ reach.
The European Union lays down harmonizedhygiene requirements governing the catching, pro(Continues on next page)115

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 3.4

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

cessing, transportation, and storage of fish and fishery products. Processing facilities must be inspected
and approved by a specified authority in the countryof origin. Countries whose local requirements havebeen found by the Commission to be at least as stringent as those in the European Union and for which
specific import requirements have been establishedare placed on “List I” and enjoy reduced physical inspection at the border.
Between 1997 and October 2002, the number ofcountries achieving List 1 status increased from 27 to
72. More than half are low-income or lower middleincome countries; half of these are low-income
African countries. Another 35 countries are on List
II, including the United States (Henson and Mitullah2003).
Food safety compliance costs can include thecost of adjusting production and processing facilities;
the recurrent costs to implement food safety management systems; and the costs of certification, monitoring, and enforcement. Relatively few estimates areavailable on the magnitude of these costs. When acountry is already exporting high-valued foods, compliance may require only incremental productionchanges and public-sector oversight. However, forother suppliers the costs of reaching internationallycompetitive levels may be high. The Bangladeshi
shrimp industry invested an estimated $18 million
in the latter half of the 1990s to upgrade fishprocessing facilities and product-testing laboratories,
and to make other changes in response to repeatedquality and safety detentions on exports to the European Union and the United States. However, these
expenditures have been rewarded with rapidly increasing (and better priced) shrimp exports—which
totaled $296 million in 2000 (Cato and others
2000).
Standards can also be a barrier to trade. Consider the case of camel milk cheese exports to the EU.
Tiviski SARL, a dairy processor in Nouakchott, Mauritania, developed a technology to produce “patemolle” cheese from camel milk. It obtained the milk
from nomad milk producers who were very poor. In
return, Tiviski provided the producers with cheap ac-

116

cess to credit and vaccinated their animals to ensure a
supply of healthy milk. The camel cheese, after transport and production costs, was priced at $10 per
kilogram in the EU. After winning a prize at a tradefair, the cheese soon found its way into elite storeslike Harrods in London and Fauchon in Paris. However, it proved to be difficult to find the correct tariff line for the product, and grouping it with “otherdairy, cheese” exposed it to a much higher tariff thanregular cheese. To make matters worse, the EU soon
decided to abolish imports of camel cheese from
Mauritania, arguing that the presence of “hoof andmouth” disease in Mauritania could be transmitted
from camels to other livestock, even though there is
no real evidence that camels are capable of spreading
the disease. The EU then imposed another restriction:
camel cheese could indeed be imported—but only ifmechanical methods were used to obtain milk usedin its production—an unworkable proposal for the
low-income milk producers who were located miles
away from major ports. Mauritania did not dispute
this case at the WTO because of the sheer costs involved—costs that were not justified for exports of$3 million to $5 million worth of cheese per year.
Catfish producers in Vietnam have had similardifficulties accessing the American market, initiallybecause of labeling rulings (and then later becauseof anti-dumping judgments; see box in Chapter 2).
The emerging set of international and developedcountry food safety standards present challenges formany exporters in developing countries. Concerted efforts to address basic hygiene and quality-assurance
requirements and to provide relatively simple training for farmers could go a long way in ensuring compliance with most official food safety standards. In
circumstances where compliance requires greater investment—both by the public and private sectors—
partnerships between developed and developing countries and among developing countries may fill the bill.
Beyond this, the public has to remain vigilant thatstandards do not become misused as instruments ofprotection.
Source: World Bank staff.

A G R I C U L T U R A L

Table 3.7

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Developing countries have shared unequally in export market gains

Export shares of food and agricultural products by income level (as percentage of total world trade)
Exports to industrial countries
Income level

Industrial
Middle-income*Low-incomeof which LDCs
China
India
Total

Exports to developing countries

Total exports

1980–81

1990–91

2000–01

1980–81

1990–91

2000–01

1980–81

1990–91

2000–01

48.8
19.6
5.2
1.6
0.7
0.5
74.9

55.3
18.4
3.4
0.8
1.3
0.5
78.9

48.4
17.0
3.4
0.7
2.1
0.6
71.6

15.3
7.3
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.3
25.1

11.9
6.4
1.3
0.4
1.2
0.3
21.1

14.7
9.8
2.0
0.5
1.4
0.5
28.4

64.1
26.9
6.5
2.3
1.7
0.8
100.0

67.1
24.8
4.8
1.3
2.5
0.8
100.0

63.1
26.8
5.4
1.1
3.5
1.1
100.0

* Excluding India and China.
Source: COMTRADE.

as import quotas or bans, quantitative restrictions, variable levies, and monopoly purchasing by state-owned or other companies. Importbarriers were coupled with the widespread useof production-related subsidies, such as pricesupports, which often led (and still leads) toincreases in production above the level of market equilibrium. Excess production had to be
stockpiled or exported, sometimes with thehelp of further subsidies. With the intention ofaligning agricultural trade rules with those applying to trade in other goods, the Uruguay
Round negotiators agreed that all import barriers, other than those in place for health andsafety reasons, should take the form of transparent tariffs. Before agreeing on tariff reductions,
all border measures had to be converted into
their tariff equivalents—a process known as“tariffication.”
The conversion of nontariff measures into
tariffs was generally done using the price-gap
method—the gap being the difference between
domestic and world market prices. After establishing the tariff equivalent of an import restriction, reductions were applied from boundtariffs. Developed countries reduced their tariffs by an average of 36 percent and a minimum of 15 percent over six years; developing
countries by an average of 20 percent and aminimum of 10 percent over ten years. The
agreed reductions were simple averages, notweighted for the volume of trade, so somecountries made large reductions in tariffs thatwere already low—for example, achieving a

50 percent reduction by dropping a tariff from
2 percent to 1 percent—or in areas of low sensitivity, while making only the minimum reduction in sensitive product areas. The Roundoffered limited opportunities to make minimum import commitments for certain products instead of adopting tariffs on them. The
minimum import option was taken by Japan,
Korea, and the Philippines for rice, and by Israel for certain sheep and dairy products. (Japan has since tariffied rice imports.)
Once a tariff was established, bindings andreductions were negotiated. In cases where
tariffs were high, or where quotas had been allowed in some imports, minimum and current
market-access opportunities were also negotiated. The typical result was the establishmentof a minimal tariff rate for a limited volume ofimports—called a tariff rate quota (TRQ).
With the removal of nontariff measures,some countries worried that they would not beable to prevent surges in import volumes or
falling import prices. To allay these concerns,
negotiators agreed that a special agriculturalsafeguard could be applied to certain products.
The Uruguay Round yielded no meaningful
reduction in protection in industrial countries.
In many cases, in fact, protection may have increased as a result of so-called dirty tariffication (Nogues 2002, Ingco 1997). Continued
protection has led to greater import substitution, while the geographical restructuring ofproduction that occurred in manufacturing
did not occur—at least not to the same de-117

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4gree—in agriculture. Review of the experience
to date with the new rules on market access,export subsidies, and domestic support indicates that the effects of implementation of the
Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement havebeen modest. The reasons include weaknessesin specific aspects of the agreement, such as
high baseline support levels from which reductions were made. In some countries, including the United States, reforms undertaken
before the negotiations were adequate to fulfill the new rules on reducing domestic support (OECD 2001).
Today, protection in agriculture takes different forms—tariff protection, subsidies, tariff peaks, TRQs, tariff escalation, and opaquetariffs. In reviewing these forms, the following
section makes two fundamental points:• First, the various forms of protection areoften linked. For example, goods produced behind high tariff walls and withproduction subsidies often require export
subsidies to be sold in the world market.
That said, border barriers are more important than subsidies.
• Second, virtually the entire interlinked
system of protection, even when used byother developing countries, is heavily bi-

ased against developing countries—andagainst the world’s poor.

Import barriers are the most important
instrument of protection
Although the conversion of nontariff barriers to tariffs during the Uruguay Round wasan important step forward, average agricultural tariffs in most industrial and developing
countries were and remain much higher thantariffs for nonagricultural products.
This section evaluates the agricultural trade
regimes of the Quad countries (Canada, European Union, Japan, United States) and 25
developing countries in light of the Uruguay
Round’s objectives. Eight of the developing
countries in the sample are large middleincome countries with significant agricultural
sectors. Eight more middle-income countries
are included to ensure regional balance. Eightlower-income countries round out the sample.
Emphasis has been placed on the nature oftariffs because a key objective of the Uruguay
Round was to lower tariffs and make themmore transparent.
The tariff data in table 3.8 underestimate
actual border protection. First, specific duties,
which generally are higher than ad valorem
rates, are not fully reflected in the simple av-

Table 3.8 Agricultural tariffs are higher than manufacturing tariffs in both rich and poor
countries
Most-favored-nation, applied, ad valorem, out-of-quota duties (percent)Quad countries
Canada (2001)
European Union (1999)
Japan (2001)
United States (2001)
Large middle-income countries a
Other middle-income countries b
Lower-income countries cAgriculture

Manufacturing

Percentage of lines
covered in agriculture

10.7
3.8
19.0
10.3
9.5
26.6
35.4
16.6

4.0
3.6
4.2
3.7
4.6
13.1
12.7
13.2

86.7
76.0
85.9
85.5
99.3
91.3
97.7
99.8

a. Brazil (2001), China (2001), India (2000), Korea (2001), Mexico (2001), Russian Federation (2001), South Africa (2001), andTurkey (2001).
b. Bulgaria (2001), Costa Rica (2001), Hungary (2001), Jordan (2000), Malaysia (2001), Morocco (1997), Philippines (2001),
and Romania (1999).
c. Bangladesh (1999), Guatemala (1999), Indonesia (1999), Kenya (2001), Malawi (2000), Togo (2001), Uganda (2001), andZimbabwe (2001).
Source: WTO Integrated Database.

118

A G R I C U L T U R A L

CanadaEuropean UnionJapan
United States
Korea, Rep. of
Brazil
Costa Rica
Indonesia
Malawi
MoroccoTogo
UgandaAveragetariffMaximum
tariffStandard
deviation

Percentage
of lines
covered

3.8
19.0
10.3
9.5
42.2
12.4
13.2
8.5
15.3
63.9
14.7
12.9

238.0
506.3
50.0
350.0
917.0
55.0
154.0
170.0
25.0
376.5
20.0
15.0

12.9
27.3
10.0
26.2
119.2
5.9
17.4
24.1
9.1
68.2
6.5
3.7

76.0
85.9
85.5
99.3
98.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0

Source: WTO Integrated Database.

Average applied tariffs for agricultural and manufacturing
products in developing countries, 1990, 1995, and 2000
(percent)
35
1990

30
25

1995

20
15

2000


Tariff peaks and variance in selected countries; MFN, out of
quota, applied duties (percent and standard deviation)

T R A D E

Figure 3.4 Developing countries lowered
tariffs on manufactured products morethan on agricultural products

Table 3.9 Agricultural tariffs: High peaks
and deep valleys

A N D



erages. Second, many products are subject tonontariff restrictions.
Because ad valorem equivalents of specificand other duties, where available, are muchhigher than the ad valorem rates, and assuming that the same tariff structure applies to
Canada and Japan, which use non–ad valorem(NAV) rates on 25 percent and 15 percent of
their tariff lines, the average tariffs for the twocountries are seriously underestimated, lowering the Quad average. To show the degree ofbias, the third column in tables 3.8 and 3.9
shows the proportion of tariff lines to which
the averages apply.7
Excluding Canada, which has a large proportion of agricultural NAV tariffs withoutequivalents, average tariffs in agriculture aremuch higher than in manufacturing. The difference is especially pronounced in the European
Union—19 percent in agriculture versus only
4.2 percent in manufacturing. Among the developing countries, the results are very similar, witha few exceptions, such as Brazil and Malaysia,
where manufacturing tariffs are higher.
The developing countries in the sample havehigher tariffs than the industrial countries, thehighest being Morocco (64 percent), Korea (42percent), and Turkey (49.5 percent). Indonesia(8.5 percent) and Malaysia (2.8 percent) have

P O L I C I E S

1050Agricultural
products

Manufacturing
products

Source: TRAINS.

the lowest. Again, the average tariffs of countries that have a high percentage of NAV lines(Bulgaria, Russian Federation, South Africa,
and Turkey) are seriously underestimated.
Tariffs are widely dispersed and have very
high peaks. Industrial-country tariffs, although
lower on average than those of developing
countries, show significant tariff peaks, indicating high protection for specific products.
The peaks reach almost 1,000 percent in the
Republic of Korea, 506 percent in the European Union, and 350 percent in the UnitedStates.8 Tariffs in many low-income countries
have lower peaks and show less variance thanthose in many of the middle-income countries.
Compared to the slow reform in OECD
countries, the changes in protection in developing countries were significant in the 1990s(figure 3.4). The average agricultural tariff
declined from almost 30 percent in 1990 toabout 18 percent in 2000, a decline of 35 percent. (The rates shown in the figure are simple
averages of the average tariffs of about 50
developing countries.) Those reductions werecomplemented by the elimination of most ex-

119

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4port taxes as well as import licensing andmany other quantitative restrictions (WorldBank 2001). Average tariffs in agriculture remain much higher than those in manufacturing, however, indicating that the general tendency in the 1980s—to protect the industrial
sector—no longer holds. In their study of 15
developing countries, Jensen, Robinson, andTarp (2002) concluded that the bias against
agriculture in the 1980s no longer exists. The
economy-wide system of indirect taxes, including tariffs and export taxes, significantly
discriminated against agriculture in only one
country. It was largely neutral in five, provided a moderate subsidy to agriculture in
four, and strongly favored agriculture in five.

Subsidies underpin the systemof border protection
An extensive network of subsidies has evolved
to support agriculture, particularly in the richcountries. Protection takes three major forms.
• Border barriers such as tariffs and quantitative restrictions, designed to support
Table 3.10

prices in domestic markets, account for
about 70 percent of total protection in
the OECD countries.
• Production-related subsidies given tofarmers under different schemes, called“direct support,” usually take the formof direct budget transfers.
• General support for agriculture—throughresearch, training, marketing, and infrastructure programs—usually is not includedin the estimates of producer supports.
In addition, many countries have subsidies
for their consumers, but generally these do notaffect production and thus are not included in
producer-support estimates.
The support accorded to OECD-country
producers through higher domestic prices anddirect production subsidies was $248 billion in
1999–2001 (table 3.10). Some two-thirds ofthe total—$160 billion—came from the border barriers described above or from market
price support mechanisms. The remaindercame in the form of direct subsidies to farmers.
Another $80 billion in subsidies came from

Most subsidies go to producers—and come from border protection

Agricultural support in the OECD countries, 1999–2001 (billions of dollars)

Where total support goes
Consumers
General services
Producers
Total
Where producer support goes
Corn
Meat c
Milk
Rice
Wheat
Other
Where producer support comes from
Domestic measures d
Border measures e

Other
OECD
countries

Total
OECD

UnitedStatesEuropean
Union

Japan

Emerging
supportersa

21.4
22.8
51.3
95.5

3.8
9.6
99.3
112.7

0.1
12.7
52.0
64.8

0.7
7.1
30.4
38.2

0.0
0.6
3.0
3.6

0.2
2.3
12.3
14.9

26.2
55.1
248.3
329.6

8.3
2.6
12.4
0.7
4.9
22.3

2.7
34.0
16.7
0.2
9.5
36.2

Nc
4.1
4.9
18.0
0.8
24.1

1.7
3.4
2.7
7.6
0.9
14.1

–0.1
0.5
0.7
Nc
0.3
1.9

0.2
2.8
4.7
–0.2
0.9
3.6

12.9
47.3
42.1
26.4
17.3
102.2

32.6
18.7

38.5
60.9

5.0
47.0

4.4
26.0

1.4
2.0

6.3
5.7

88.2
160.1

a. Includes Korea, Turkey, and Mexico.
b. Includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovak Republic.
c. Beef and pork.
d. Direct payments to producers.
e. Tariffs and tariff equivalents of other border measures.
Sources: OECD (2002) and authors’ calculations.

120

European
Union
accessioncountriesb

A G R I C U L T U R A L

Table 3.11

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Subsidies account for a large share of farmers’ revenues

Percentage of farm-gate prices attributable to border protection and direct subsidies, 1986–2001
Market price support(border protection)a

Direct subsidiesa

Total producer support (estimate)aArea

1986–88

1995–97

1999–2001

1986–88

1995–97

1999–2001

1986–88

1995–97

1999–2001

OECD
European UnionJapan
United States
Eastern Europe
Australia and
New Zealand
Other countries
Other industrial b
Other developing c

48.2
65.3
145.4
16.0
45.2

28.2
28.3
131.7
7.5
8.7

31.3
34.3
138.1
10.8
10.4

14.3
10.5
16.8
18.3
18.3

13.3
20.4
13.0
7.4
4.8

17.2
21.7
14.7
18.8
7.5

62.5
75.8
162.1
34.3
63.6

41.5
48.8
144.7
14.9
13.5

48.5
56.0
152.9
29.6
17.9

4.2
53.1
165.9
31.4

2.8
42.6
108.1
38.1

0.6
46.3
113.0
42.9

6.4
11.1
72.2
6.4

3.9
12.8
81.9
8.0

3.4
12.2
106.7
7.3

10.6
64.2
238.1
37.8

6.8
55.4
190.0
46.1

4.0
58.5
219.7
50.2

a. The denominator is total value of production at farm gate less market price support (both estimated at world prices).
b. Includes Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland.
c. Includes Korea, Turkey, and Mexico.
Source: OECD.

programs (such as food stamps) that directly
benefit consumers ($26 billion) and from general services to agriculture ($55 billion), suchas public investments in agricultural researchand extension.
Of the subsidies, the share linked to income
rather than production (known as “partiallydecoupled subsidies”) increased from approximately 9 percent of total protection in 1986–88
to 21 percent in 2001. Major products that account for the bulk of support are grains, meats,
milk, and sugar.
Protection rates for producers in the OECDdecreased from 62.5 percent in 1986–88 to 49
percent in 1999–01, measured as a percentage
of gross agricultural output at world prices. The
contribution of border barriers to total protection fell from 77 percent in 1986–88 to about
65 percent in 1999–01. After decreasing rapidly
from 1986, overall protection rose again after
1997 in response to declines in world agricultural prices. Support to agricultural producers
from border protection and direct subsidies increased farm-gate revenues in the OECD countries by almost 50 percent in 1999–2001 (table3.11). But the persistence of high tariffs reduces
the incentives to eliminate production subsidies
and various inefficiencies globally.
Agricultural support tends to be countercyclical in rich countries, pushing price adjust-ments into the global market and accentuating
price drops. The countercyclical movementof protection reflects the specific duties andTRQs that are triggered when prices fall.
The European Union and United States
have reduced their overall levels of agricultural
support. For example, in the European Union
farmers’ prices were 65 percent higher thaninternational prices in 1986–88; this ratio
decreased to 34 percent in 1999–01. During
the same period, however, direct productionrelated payments to farmers increased from10.5 percent to 21.7 percent, partially compensating for the decline in border barriers.
Similarly, in the United States, domestic prices,
relative to international prices, declined from
16 percent to 10.8 percent.
Aggregate support levels vary significantly
among the OECD countries. Some (Iceland,
Norway, and Switzerland) have very high levels of support. Australia and New Zealandhave very low support levels. The European
Union (on the high end) and Canada (on the
low end) fall between these extremes.
The Eastern European countries made themost significant reductions in protection between 1986 and 2001—from 63.6 percent to17.9 percent. Korea’s protection levels have remained very high, with small variations. Mexico and Turkey, which started with low pro-

121

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4tection, increased it over this period, mainly
through higher border protection.
The high domestic price differentials intable 3.11 indicate that domestic production isprotected much more significantly than the unweighted average tariff rates shown in table
3.8 would imply. In Japan, for example, borderprotection raises market prices by some 138
percent, whereas the average tariff is just 10
percent and the maximum ad valorem tariff isonly 50 percent. The difference can only be attributed to specific duties and TRQs, which are
not included in the data set. For the European
Union, the situation is similar. Border protection raises prices by more than 34 percent, well
above the average tariff of 19 percent. In bothareas, tariffs on many local specialties are veryhigh. For example, in the European Union the
average tariffs for grains, meats, and milk andmilk products are 34.6 percent, 32.5 percent,and 54.6 percent respectively.

Figure 3.5 Rich countries use non–advalorem tariffs more often than dodeveloping countries
Tariff lines containing specific, compound, or mixed duties,
for agriculture and manufacturing by class of country(as percentage of all lines)
35
30
25
20
15

Agriculture

10

Manufacturing

E C O N O M I CG L O B A L

5
0
Quad

Large
middleincomeOther
middleincomeLower
incomeSource: WTO IDB.

Specific duties produce hidden tariffincreases in downturns
The Uruguay Round objective of providing
greater transparency of protection levels
through tariffication has not been fully realized,
especially in the key industrial and somemiddle-income countries. First, many agricultural tariffs are still specific, compound, or
mixed. In such cases it is almost impossible toestimate the real level of protection because it
may change over time and with the relative
price of imports. Even more important are thecyclical implications of such tariff structures:protection from specific duties rises as prices decline in the world markets; protection will behigher for lower-priced products from the developing countries.9
The proportion of agricultural tariff linesthat carry specific, compound, and mixed duties
is much higher in rich countries than in developing countries (figure 3.5).10 This means,among other things, that the transparency ofagricultural tariffs in developing countries ishigher than in industrial countries—and significantly higher than in manufacturing. Of the 24
developing countries included in this sample, 11have no NAV rates, 5 have them in fewer than122

1 percent of their tariff lines, and 4 in fewer
than 5 percent of tariff lines. Only 4 countries,
all middle income, have a higher proportion oftariff lines with NAV rates. Within the Quad,Japan has specific, compound, or mixed rates in
15 percent of its tariff lines; Canada in 24 percent; the United States in 40 percent; and the European Union in 44 percent. The United Statesand European Union also have duties that vary
according to the content of the products in 1
percent and 4 percent, respectively, of their tariff lines. Thus the difference in the transparencyof tariff rates is consistent for most developing
and industrial countries, and the biggest problem with nontransparency lies with the industrial and a few middle-income countries.11
Within the Quad, tariff structures show
some differences. In the United States, almost all
categories of products have NAV rates between
30 and 60 percent. In the European Union, certain product groups—such as beverages, grains,
milk and milk products, and sugar and sugar
products—have more than 90 percent of tariff
lines under NAV. In many developing countries,
NAV rates are clustered within a few productA G R I C U L T U R A L

Table 3.12

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Specific tariffs are higher than ad valorem rates

Average applied, out-of quota, ad valorem and ad valorem equivalents of non–ad valorem tariffs in areas for which equivalents
are reported (percent)
Average ad valorem tariff

Average ad valorem
equivalent of NAV rates

Percentage of lines
containing NAV rates

1.2
10.6
21.6
8.1

5.0
35.2
58.0
11.7

0.9
43.6
0.8
40.4

Australia
European Union
JordanUnited States

Source: WTO Integrated Database (IDB).

groups. For example, in Malaysia NAV rates
apply to tobacco and alcohol products; in Mexico on chocolate and confectionary products;
and in Korea on nuts, spices, and sugar.
Only four countries in the sample report
the ad valorem equivalents of their NAV rates(table 3.12). For those four, the average equivalents are much higher than the average advalorem rates, suggesting that average duties
for countries with a large proportion of NAV
duties are seriously underestimated.
The specific duties are being used primarily
as an instrument of disguised protection. First,

as shown in table 3.12, the ad valorem equivalents of specific duties, where known, are higher
than the ad valorem rates. Second, the proportion of specific duties increases with the degreeof processing (figure 3.6). They are found mostfrequently in lines covering final products—
those classified under food processing.

Tariff escalation is particularly harmful
to development
Tariff codes that apply higher tariffs to semiprocessed and fully processed raw materials
are strikingly antidevelopment. By hindering

Figure 3.6 Throughout the world, tariff rates escalate with degree of processing
Tariff rates by area and stage of processing (percent)
60

50

40

30
Final

Intermediate

20





Raw
10


0
Quad

CanadaJapan

United States

European
Union

Lower
incomea

Large middle
incomeb

Other middle
incomec

Note: a. Bangladesh (1999), Guatemala (1999), Indonesia (1999), Kenya (2001), Malawi (2000), Togo (2001), Uganda (2001), andZimbabwe (2001).
b. Brazil (2001), China (2001), India (2000), Korea (2001), Mexico (2001), Russian Federation (2001), South Africa (2001),
and Turkey (2001).
c. Bulgaria (2001), Costa Rica (2001), Hungary (2001), Jordan (2000), Malaysia (2001), Morocco (1997), Philippines (2001),
and Romania (1999).
Source: WTO Integrated Database (IDB).

123

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 3.13

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Tariffs rise with level of processing

Tariff escalations in selected product groups (percent)Tropical products
Coffee
Raw
Final
Cocoa
Raw
Intermediate
Final
Sugar
Raw
Intermediate
Final
Expanding commodities
FruitsRaw
Intermediate
Final
Vegetables
Raw
Intermediate
Final
Seafood
Raw
Intermediate
Final

European Union

United States

Korea

Japan

7.3
12.1

0.1
10.1

5.2
8.0

6.0
18.8

0.5
9.7
30.6

0.0
0.2
15.3

5.0
5.0
12.3

0.0
7.0
21.7

18.9
30.4
36.4

2.0
13.8
20.1

a
19.3
50.0

25.5
11.6b
a

9.2
13.3
22.5

4.6
5.5
10.2

49.6
30.0
41.9

8.7
13.2
16.7

9.9
18.5
18.0

4.4
4.4
6.5

135.4
52.2
34.1

5.0
10.6
11.6

11.5
5.1
16.2

0.6
3.2
3.5

15.6
5.8
20.0

4.9
4.3
9.1

a. All lines are specific.
b. 56 percent of lines are specific.
Source: WTO Integrated Database.

diversification into value-added and processed
products, areas in which trade is expanding
rapidly, such escalation directly penalizes investors in developing countries who seek to
add value to production for export.
Tariff escalation has long been a feature of
agricultural and food-processing trade and continues to be so (Golub and Finger 1979, Lindland 1997, and Gallezot 2003). Protection escalates with the level of processing in almost all
countries and across all products (table 3.13).
Almost all groups of countries have highly escalating tariffs (see figure 3.6), and the manufacturing component of agriculture and foodprocessing has very high protection, explaining
the developing countries’ lack of penetration infood processing in industrial countries. Developing economies also apply systematic tariff escalation and high tariffs to the final stage of124

processing, suggesting potentially large gains if
escalation were removed by developing economies (Rae and Josling 2003).
Tariff escalation is common in both traditional and new products. For traditional products (except sugar), raw stages are accorded
extremely low tariffs, whereas extremely hightariffs apply to the final stages. A similar pattern appears in fruits and vegetables, for which
the developing countries have found expanding
markets and trade barriers are generally lower.
The averages reported in table 3.13 mask very
high peaks on individual products. In the
United States, for example, the maximum tariff
on final fruit products is 136 percent; on cocoa
products it is 186 percent. In the European
Union the maximum rates on processed fruits
and vegetables are 98 percent and 146 percent;on cocoa products, 63 percent.

A G R I C U L T U R A L

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Figure 3.7 The proportion of tariff lines containing non–ad valorem duties increases with
degree of processing
Tariff lines containing specific, compound, or mixed duties, by stage of processing (as percentage of all lines)
70
60

Intermediate

50

Final

Raw






40
30
20
10

[zero]

0
NorwayEuropean Union

United States

CanadaRussiaTurkeySource: WTO IDB.

Specific duties are applied more frequently
to goods with higher degrees of processing. For
example, in Canada and the European Union,
the share of specific duties is 17 percent and 22
percent for raw materials but 30 percent and 58
percent, respectively, for final products. Amongdeveloping countries, the Russian Federation
applies specific duties in 12 percent of its tariff
lines for raw materials versus 53 percent oflines covering final products (figure 3.7).

Tariff rate quotas allow a little in—and then add a tariff bite
TRQs, designed to maintain some market access, have resulted in more complex tariff
regimes. Although the number of tariff lines
under TRQs is small, TRQs cover some of
the main commodities produced in the OECD
countries (figure 3.8). According to OECD data,almost 28 percent of domestic agricultural
production is protected by TRQs. Rates range
from a high of 68 percent in Hungary to 0
percent in Australia and New Zealand. The
European Union and United States have 38
percent and 26 percent of their production
protected by the TRQs.

Export subsidies directly depress
global prices
International trade rules have prohibited export subsidies on nonagricultural products
since 1955. Export subsidies are still allowedin agricultural products, although these subsidies were capped and subjected to reduction
commitments in the Uruguay Round. During
1995–98, WTO members used 42 percent of
the budgetary expenditure and 64 percent of
the volume allowed for export subsidies, with
the European Union accounting for 90 percent
of all OECD export subsidies.
Although their use has been reduced, export subsidies continue to distort world markets.12 The Uruguay Round placed limits onexport subsidies for individual commodities,
but allowed some flexibility. Early in the implementation period, when world prices werehigh, usage was low and several countries
carried forward their unused export subsidy
credits to be used at a later date. At the sametime, lower tariffs and the move toward direct production subsidies has and will continue to reduce the need for official export
subsidies.

125

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 3.8 Tariff rate quotas protect a substantial portion of output in many industrial countries
Commodities covered by tariff rate quotas, expressed as a percentage of output
60

50

40

30

20

10
[zero]

0OECD
average

European
Union

UnitedStatesJapan

EasternEuropeAustralia,
New ZealandOther
industrial

Other
developing

Source: OECD, Agriculture Market Access Database (AMAD).

Even if tariffs were eliminated altogether,current production subsidies for agriculture
would cause the domestic and export price ofmany commodities to remain lower than theircosts of production in industrial countries. Bylowering production costs, production subsidies favor industrial-country farmers overdeveloping-country producers, who do not receive direct subsidies. Cotton subsidies in theEuropean Union and the United States are aclear case in point. Tariffs are zero, and domestic prices are the same as world or export
prices (Baffes 2003, Watkins 2003). Yet in the
United States in 2001 production subsidies effectively increased the prices farmers received(or reduced their costs of production) by 51
percent, leading to increased production anddepressing the global price. At the same time,
export prices for U.S. wheat, corn, and rice
were 58, 67, and 77 percent of their costs ofproduction (Watkins 2003).
Decoupling subsidies from production
would reduce such distortions. To fully decouple subsidy payments, the definition of decoupling must make it clear that the payments are
independent of production decisions (box 3.5).

126

The development tale of five commodities:
sugar, wheat, cotton, peanuts, and rice
The development consequences of high protection in industrial countries can be traced
through the story of key commodities. Although
the stories are different, they share common
plots: high protection, regressive subsidies, andlow prices that hurt poor producers all over
the world (Beghin and Aksoy 2003).
Sugar is one of the most policy-distorted
commodities in the world. The European
Union, Japan, and the United States accountfor the bulk of OECD-zone support to sugar
producers, which, at $6.4 billion, is approximately equal to developing-country exports.
But other countries (Mexico, Turkey, Poland,
and all almost all temperate-zone sugar beetproducers) also provide significant support totheir producers. High border barriers in combination with the subsidies keep domestic
prices in the United States and the European
Union about twice as high as the world market price.
High domestic sugar prices in the European
Union, Japan, and the United States have encouraged high-cost, inefficient domestic pro-A G R I C U L T U R A L

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Box 3.5 Decoupling agricultural support fromproduction decisions

D

ecoupling subsidies from production is designed
to support producers not on the basis of current
output, input use, or prices, but on historical measures, thereby limiting distortion to production andtrade. Debated since 1945, decoupling became a serious option with the passage of the U.S. Food Security Act of 1985, which reduced set-asides of farmland, public stockholding, and yield payments. The
European Union restructured its Common Agricultural Policy in 1992, replacing some price supports
with direct payments. Mexico reformed its pricesupport policies along similar lines with the introduction of the Programa de Apoyos Directos al
Campo (PROCAMPO) in 1994. The United Statesthen went a step further in the 1996 Farm Bill, replacing “deficiency payments” with decoupled support based on historical data. Turkey introduced a
direct income-support program in 2001, aided inpart by a World Bank adjustment lending operation.
Following a sharp decline in commodity prices
in the late 1990s, the United States reintroduced
deficiency payments in 1999—initially as emergency
assistance and subsequently as countercyclical payments legitimized in the 2002 Farm Bill. Responding
to the U.S. reversal, Mexico reintroduced price supports in 2002 by setting target prices similar to thosein the United States.
The move to decoupled support is a step in theright direction. However, if governments wish to
help farmers adjust to free markets—the avowedpurpose of decoupling—a simple and minimally distorting way to do that would be to make a one-time
unconditional payment to everyone engaged in farming or deemed in need of compensation. Short ofthat, decoupling mechanisms should exhibit the following characteristics:

duction of sugar and sugar substitutes. At thesame time, they have reduced overall consumption and gradually transformed these countries
from net buyers of about half of the world’s exports during the 1970s into net sellers in international markets in the 1990s. Meanwhile, theproduction and consumption of sugar substitutes (such as high-fructose corn syrups) in-

No constraints on input use. Support to specificsectors should be in the form of taxpayer-funded
payments and should not require production. Neitherland, labor, nor any other input should be required
to be in “agricultural use.”
Government credibility. Eligibility rules should
be clearly defined and not allowed to change. The
time period on which payments are based should notchange. Payments should not be increased. New sectors should not be added to the program. Updatingbaselines and adding crops results in a government
credibility problem, making the decoupling policy inconsistent over time. As market conditions change,
governments have discretion to change eligibility
criteria and payment levels, leaving them unable to
make and hold to a binding commitment. As farmers
change their production decisions and apply pressure
for changes in supposedly decoupled support programs, decoupling is in effect preempted.
Other programs. Every decoupling program instituted to date has left other support programs inplace. Coupled programs tend to interact with the decoupled program, adding incentives to overproduce.
Time limit. Payments must not extend beyond amaximum number of years. The European Union
and Turkey have no limit; the United States had one(at least implicitly) but violated it; Mexico’s remains
in effect. A time limit ensures that payments are transitory and for adjustment purposes only.
Reform within WTO. The level of payments inaggregate and per farm, and the terms describedabove, should be bound in the WTO so that governments can make credible commitments withoutbacksliding.
Source: Baffes and de Gorter (2003).

creased to displace 10 million tons of sugar
consumption—equivalent to one-third of world
exports—since 1970 (Mitchell 2003). Consequently, the world prices of sugar today are
below the costs of production of some of themost efficient producers. Many producers manage to keep exporting, either because they enjoy
limited preferential access at high prices in127

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 3.9 High protection of sugar and wheat has increased domestic production andreduced net imports
a. Production and net imports of sugar in the European
Union, Japan, and the United Statesb. Production and net imports of wheat in the European
Union

Millions of tons

Millions of tons

35

120
100

Production

80



25

Production

60

20

40

15
Net imports



19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01

—40

19
97
20
01

—20

19
93

0
—5
19
85
19
89

0

19
77
19
81

5

19
69
19
73

Net imports

20



10

19
65



30

Source: FAO.

industrial-country markets or because they subsidize their exports by selling at higher prices intheir domestic markets. The world market has
shrunk to a trade residual, with an estimated 80
percent of world production being sold in highpriced, protected markets (figure 3.9).
The benefits of sugar policy reform are substantial—particularly with multilateral reform.
Presently, developed countries are protecting
their sugar producers at great cost to themselves and to developing countries with export
potential. A recent study of the global sugar
and sweetener markets estimated that removing all trade protection and support would
bring annual global welfare gains of $4.7 billion. In countries with the highest protection—
Europe, Indonesia, Japan, and the UnitedStates—net imports would increase by 15 million tons per year. World sugar prices would
rise about 40 percent, while prices in heavily
protected countries would decline: in Japan by
65 percent, in Western Europe by 40 percent,and in the United States by 25 percent. Brazilian producers would gain the most from liberalization—about $2.6 billion per year—but
this gain would be partially offset by higher
consumer prices. Japan’s net gain from lower

128

consumer prices would more than offset lower
producer prices on the 40 percent of sugar thatis domestically produced. In the United States,
producer losses would be some $200 million
greater than consumer gains. Western Europe
would show a net gain of $1.5 billion, with
consumer gains of $4.3 billion exceeding producer losses of $3.3 billion. Exporting countries that presently enjoy preferential access to
the European Union and the United States now
collect some $800 million by selling into protected markets at high prices. However, thevalue of this preferential access is less than it
appears, because many of these producers havehigh production costs and would not produce
at all at world-market prices. The rise of world
sugar prices following full liberalization would
partially offset the loss of preferences andallow some preferred producers to compete.
The net loss to preferred producers from full
liberalization is estimated to total about $450
million per year (Borrell and Pearce 1999,
Sheales and others 1999).
A similar situation occurred in EU wheatmarkets as high domestic prices encouraged
production and reduced net imports fromabout 5 million tons in the 1970s to net exports

A G R I C U L T U R A L

of 20 million tons in the early 1990s, before
policy reforms reduced net exports. Subsidized
wheat exports from the European Union continue to depress world prices. Wheat is one of
the most protected products in the European
Union; total production support averaged almost $10 billion annually during 1999–2001,
corresponding to a protection rate of almost
50 percent.
World trade in cotton shows severe policy
distortions, but, unlike sugar, the distortions
come through producer support rather thanfrom border measures such as tariffs and quotas (Baffes 2003). The United States provides
the greatest support to its producers—$3 billion annually. The European Union provides
about $0.6 billion each year to its producers.
Producer prices in the United States were 91
percent higher than the world-market pricein 2001–02. In Greece they were 144 percent
higher; in Spain, 184 percent higher. Highproducer support encouraged U.S. cotton production to grow about 25 percent faster thanworld production after 1970, and EU production accelerated once Greece and Spain joinedthe (then) European Community in 1981 and1986. While the United States and European
Union were maintaining high support, several cotton-producing developing countries(especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa) undertook substantial policy reform to increase
the efficiency of their cotton sectors. Priceand export prospects of developing-country
exporters—especially in Sub-Saharan Africa—
would be greatly improved if support in developed countries were reduced or eliminated.
Removal of protection and support would
cause a drop in production in the United Statesand European Union and thus boost prices.
Simulations show that with full liberalizationin the cotton sector—removal of trade barriers
and production support, along with liberalization in all other commodity sectors—cotton
prices would increase over the next 10 years byan average of 13 percent over the price thatwould have prevailed in the absence of reforms. World cotton trade would increase by 6
percent. Africa’s cotton exports would increase

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

by 13 percent. Uzbekistan would increase its
exports by 5.8 percent and Australia by 2.7
percent, while exports from the United States
would decline by 3.5 percent. Cotton production in the United States would decline by 6.7
percent; in the European Union, by 70.5 percent. In effect, cotton production in the European Union would fall back to levels that existed prior to the Common Agricultural Policy.
Groundnuts (peanuts) are one of theworld’s main oilseed crops. Widely cultivatedin developed and developing countries, they
provide livelihood and cash income to manypoor farmers in the developing world, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. In Senegal, for example, an estimated one million
people (one-tenth of the population) are involved in groundnut production and processing. Groundnuts account for about 2 percent
of GDP and 9 percent of exports. China is theworld’s largest exporter of groundnuts, followed by the United States and Argentina.
Sub-Saharan Africa (where the major producers are The Gambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Sudan) has lost groundin world edible groundnut markets, accounting for only 5 percent of the world market in
2001, compared to 17 percent in 1976. In theoil segment of the market, Senegal is the world’s
largest exporter. Governments in Sub-SaharanAfrica taxed production until the early 1990s.
These taxes, borne by domestic groundnut
users and taxpayers, had an important domestic cost (Diop and others 2003).
Historically, world groundnut markets havebeen distorted by heavy government intervention designed to stimulate production throughsubsidies and price supports or to protect producers by controlling imports. China and India
have price-control schemes and impose very
high tariffs on imports. Since the mid-1990s,
all major exporters have gradually liberalized
their groundnut sectors, in part to fulfill theircommitments under WTO agreements. Results
are mixed, however, and trade in groundnuts
remains heavily distorted. Both China andIndia have removed some import restrictions
and allowed wider private-sector participation

129

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4in importing groundnuts. But tariffs on
groundnut products remain very high in bothcountries; the removal of trade distortions by
China and India is essential to successful reform of groundnut markets.
The U.S. groundnut policy, highly distorted
by large subsidies and prohibitive tariffs between 1930 and 2001, was recently reformed,
but with high and redundant tariffs still inplace. The 2002 Farm Bill eliminated someunsustainable features of previous legislation(high support prices and production quotas)
but introduced new distortions that have thepotential to depress world market prices andsubsidize producers (for example, throughcountercyclical payments and a price floor
mechanism that becomes effective when world
prices are low). Prohibitive tariffs of almost
150 percent remain.
Full trade liberalization would raise market
prices by about 19 percent for groundnuts, 18
percent for meal, and 17 percent for oil. Because the current U.S. peanut program ismostly a domestic affair, liberalization of the
U.S. market would not have a far-reaching effect on world prices or on exports of the poorest developing countries. As a bloc, the OECD
countries would experience welfare losses after
trade liberalization—moderate gains in the
United States offset by losses in Canada, theEuropean Union, and Mexico, which would
lose from trade liberalization because, withfew policy distortions in these markets, theywould be penalized by higher world prices
after liberalization.
Although the net world welfare gains ofliberalizing groundnut markets are moderate,they are still significant for small agrarian
economies such as Malawi and other West
African countries. In China and India, gains
to consumers would be partially offset bylosses to producers under full trade liberalization. Specifically, buyers in India and southern
China, where groundnuts and groundnut oil
are heavily used in food, would reap significant gains from liberalization.
Liberalization of the value-added markets—
oil and meal—would result in even larger welfare gains in African countries. The African

130

countries modeled in our analysis (The Gambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, and South
Africa) would experience aggregate net welfare
gains of $72 million, with Senegal and Nigeria
gaining most. The increase in world prices
after trade liberalization would lead to a total
gain for African groundnut producers of some$124 million in profits. These figures are sizable for small African economies. The rest of
the world would experience a net welfare loss
because consumers would face higher prices
for groundnut oil.
Rice is the most important food grain in theworld. Production and consumption are concentrated in China, India, and Indonesia. Consumers in low-income, food-deficit countries
get 28 percent of their calorie intake from rice.
The rice market is a mature market, with static demand in the North and demand in developing economies growing with demographics
rather than income. Prospects for growth intrade therefore rely on policy reforms.
Tariff and related border protection is very
high, averaging about 40 percent globally andrising to 200 percent in some markets. Total
OECD-zone support is more than $26 billion,
and in Japan support is a staggering 700 percent of production cost (at world prices). Tariff escalation is prevalent (from paddy tomilled rice) in many countries, including theEuropean Union, where the tariff on milled
rice is prohibitive, except for small preferential
import quotas granted to a few countries. For
example, the tariff on milled rice imports into
the European Union is 80 percent, comparedto 46 percent for brown rice. In Mexico, paddy
rice enters with a 10 percent tariff, whereasbrown and milled rice enter with a 20 percent
tariff. This pattern of protection depresses
world prices for high-quality, milled long-grain
rice and discriminates against the milling sectors of exporting nations such as Thailand, theUnited States, and Vietnam (Wailes 2003).
Global reforms—elimination of all borderbarriers and support—would lead to average
price increases of about 33 percent, rising to
90 percent for medium- and short-grain rice.
Producers in Cambodia, China, and Vietnam
would be the main beneficiaries, along with

A G R I C U L T U R A L

consumers in most of high-income Asia. Since
most production is by small farmers in thesecountries, the gains would be very pro-poor as
well. Following trade liberalization, net riceimporters could be negatively affected by the
resulting world price increase wherever the
consumer prices rise following reform; that is,wherever the current ad valorem tariffs arelower than the potential world price increase.
Estimates show that in Indonesia, Nigeria,
and the Philippines, three large rice importers,
consumer prices would fall after the reforms.
The tale of these five commodities has animportant moral for those who would promote development. Cutting back on subsidies
and other protection that primarily benefit relatively wealthy farmers in rich-country markets (and in some cases middle-income country markets) can open up opportunities forpoor farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The effects on incomes in poor countries
would be strong and immediate. In many cases
the gains would be a substantial order of magnitude greater than development assistance tothese same countries.

Proposals for reforms in the
Doha RoundThe potential gains for developing
countries are large
One way to evaluate reform proposals is tocompare their likely results with the potential
gains from full removal of all barriers, which
would yield global welfare gains of $400–900
billion, more than half of which would go todeveloping countries. If all trade barriers weredismantled, agriculture and food would account for 70 percent of these gains. A major
share—60 percent—would derive from reforms
in developing countries. The largest gains are to
be had from tariff reforms in agriculture undertaken in a context of a global reform program.
Can agriculture adjust to new prices? The experience of New Zealand, which implemented
the most far-reaching reforms of any industrial
country, suggest that the answer is yes. New
Zealand has almost no tariffs or subsidies in

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

agriculture. Its reforms have led to higher productivity and growth rates, no changes in rural
population, and a much more dynamic and environmentally sustainable agricultural sector(box 3.6). Particularly noteworthy is the factthat New Zealand farmers are able to compete
effectively on world markets, expanding theirshare of world trade in dairy products from 6.7
percent in 1985 to 9.5 percent in 2001.

Harbinson splits the difference
Despite the large potential gains from liberalization, many of the proposals for the Doha
Round are modest. Proposals range from theJapanese suggestion to impose an “averagecut,” which can be predicted to have little effect, to the more ambitious proposal of the
Cairns Group.
The Harbinson proposal, named for Stuart
Harbinson, the chairman of the WTO negotiating group on agriculture, takes the middle
ground (DRIFE 2003).13 For industrial countries, it proposes average tariff cuts of 60 percent on bound tariffs above 90 percent, a 50
percent cut on bound tariffs between 15 and90 percent, and a 40 percent cut on boundtariffs below 15 percent.14 For the developing
countries and for products not consideredstrategic, it proposes average tariff cuts frombound rates of 40 percent for tariffs above 120
percent, a cut of 35 percent for tariffs between
60 percent and 120 percent, a cut of 30 percent for tariffs between 20 percent and 60 percent, and an average reduction of 25 percent
in tariffs below 20 percent. These cuts would
be implemented by industrial countries inequal installments over five years and over ten
years for developing ones (WTO 2003). The
Harbinson cuts look significant—some groups
have called them radical—but their impact, depending on how they are interpreted, would
not be as significant as first appears.
For the industrial world, the results would
depend on whether countries achieve the average cuts by reducing lower tariffs by greater
percentages (which would have relatively little
effect) or cut all tariffs at the average rate. The“average cuts” called for under the Uruguay
Round were interpreted loosely, with many131

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 3.6

TP R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Fewer subsidies, stronger agricultural sector

here is a strong belief among policymakers inOECD countries that trade reform in agriculture
would destroy their rural communities and the agricultural sector. Yet, as the experience of one OECD
country shows, protection and subsidies are not a necessary condition for the continued growth of the farm
sector. Indeed, the removal of protection can be accompanied by faster agricultural growth and increases
in productivity, achieved without a significant decline
in the farming population or its standard of living.
Today, New Zealand has the lowest level offarm support among OECD countries—its producer
support, estimated to be around 1 percent of thevalue of agricultural production, is primarily dedicated to research funding. This was not always thecase. Producer support reached 33 percent of output
in 1983, when almost 40 percent of the income ofan average sheep or cattle farmer came from government subsidies. Yet, these policies were clearly unsustainable, as the loss of preferential access to the
British market and an escalating inflation spiral led
the government to abandon most payments to agricultural producers.
Government deregulation was quick and substantial. Nearly all subsidies were removed in 1984.
The sectors involved included wheat, egg, milk, potatoes, honey, raspberries, hops, tobacco, apples, poultry, pork, and other meats. Altogether, almost 30 different production subsidies and export incentives
were abolished (Bell and Elliott 1993). The government made only limited efforts to soften the impact
on farmers; those who decided to exit the agricultural sector received a one-time “exit grant” of approximately two-thirds of annual income.
At the time, estimates pointed to 8,000 farms(10 percent of total) going out of business, prompting widespread opposition to the government’s plan.
However, only 800 farms exited the market, andthose that remained became more dynamic. Since

1986–87, output of the agricultural sector has
grown by more than 40 percent in constant terms.
The share of farming in GDP rose from 14.2 percent
in 1986–87 to 16.6 percent in 1999–2000, andgrowth in the farming sector has outpaced economic
growth of New Zealand as a whole. The reform also
prompted greater competition and lower input costs
among suppliers, and brought environmental benefits
through reduced waste. Although land values fellduring late 1980s and early 1990s, they recovered
during the later part of the decade. The share ofrural population has remained constant since theabolition of subsidies.
Some of the most impressive effects of subsidy
removal have been the changes in agricultural productivity. Since 1986, the annual average rate ofproductivity growth in agriculture has reached 5.9
percent, compared with 1 percent prior to subsidy
abolition. The fact that total lamb production has increased while the number of sheep has declined by 29
percent attests to the increased efficiency of the sector. However, some studies, such as Morrison Paul,Johnston, and Frengley (2000), have questioned thepositive effects of the reforms on productivity. The
latter, using an unbalanced panel of 32 farms between 1969 and 1991, found that agricultural reform
caused changes in the composition of output—a shift
out of wool and lamb and into beef and deer—but
did not affect technical efficiency. On the other hand,
work using aggregate data, such as Kalaitzandonakes
and Bredahl (1994), has confirmed improvements intechnical efficiency following the reforms.
Overall, the removal of support did not have agrave effect on New Zealand’s farmers. Instead, thepolicy of liberalization created a more vibrant, diversified, and sustainable rural economy in New Zealand.

Source: World Bank staff.

countries reducing already-low tariffs by highpercentages to avoid cutting higher tariffs significantly (see chapter 2, box 2.2).
For the developing countries, the key issue
is reductions from the bound, not the applied,
rates. Most developing countries have boundtheir tariffs at relatively high rates, but re-132

duced applied rates to much lower levels.15 If
cuts were applied to the bound rates, suchcountries would get credit for past unilateralreforms, but the reductions would not lead tosignificant tariff reductions.
The Harbinson proposals would imply substantial tariff cuts in the United States and Eu-

A G R I C U L T U R A L

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

Table 3.14 The Harbinson proposals could greatly reduce applied tariffs in the European
Union and the United States
Tariffs in the European Union and United States before and after average reduction from applied tariffs (percent)
United States
Before Harbinson

Raw
Intermediate
Final
Overall

European Union
After Harbinson

Before Harbinson

After Harbinson

Average

Peaks

Average

Peaks

Average

Peaks

Average

Peaks

5.5
7.1
11.7
8.8

350.0
159.3
180.8
350.0

2.7
3.8
6.2
4.6

140.0
63.8
72.3
140.0

13.2
16.6
26.8
19.7

131.8
284.8
506.3
506.3

6.9
8.3
13.1
9.9

52.7
113.9
202.5
202.5

Note: The analysis excludes cigarettes and alcoholic drinks.
Source: WTO Integrated Database.

Table 3.15 The Harbinson proposals would not significantly reduce protection in thedeveloping world—if reductions were taken from bound rates
Tariffs in selected areas before and after average reductions from bound rates (percent)Costa Rica

India

Jordan

Korea

Bound rates

AveragePeak

AveragePeak

AveragePeak

AveragePeak

Before Harbinson
After Harbinson
Current applied rates

49.0
33.8
13.1

245.0
147.0
154.0

115.3
72.3
36.7

300.0
180.0
115.0

21.5
14.9
18.5

180.0
108.0
120.0

50.8
33.2
42.7

917.0
550.2
917.0

Note: The analysis excludes cigarettes and alcoholic drinks.
Source: WTO Integrated Database.

ropean Union at the end of the program underan optimistic scenario in which all tariffs were
cut by the average rate from the applied rates(table 3.14).16
Under this optimistic scenario, the average
effective tariffs in the European Union and theUnited States would be halved by the end of thereform process. EU tariffs would come down toabout 10 percent from 20 percent, while U.S.
tariffs would fall below 5 percent from 9 percent. Even so, the average agricultural tariffs inboth areas would remain significantly higher
than manufacturing tariffs—which stand at 4.2
and 4.6 percent respectively. Tariff peaks would
remain above 140 percent in the United States
and above 200 percent in the European Union.
For the developing countries, the optimistic
scenario reduced the bound rates by the average cut. Four country examples are given intable 3.15 above. Cuts from bound rates do
not significantly lower protection in most developing countries. In India and Costa Rica, atthe end of 10 years, the Harbinson reform
would leave bound tariffs significantly above
applied rates. For Jordan and Korea, boundrates after 10 years would be marginally below
the current applied rates. Because these results
would hold for most developing countries, existing levels of protection in the developingworld would not be significantly reduced underthe Harbinson proposals.

Cushioning adjustment: The impactof reforms on net food importers
Serious reforms in global trade policies would
lead to price increases for many products
now protected. These price changes could leadto balance-of-payments problems for lowincome developing countries that are net agricultural importers. Currently, the developing
countries as a group—low- and middleincome alike—enjoy a trade surplus in agriculture. But many countries are net importers,
and they could be negatively affected. Of 58

133

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 3.7

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The potential impact of real preferencesG

iven the high level of agricultural protection in
many industrial countries, the value of preferences should be very high and should lead to highrates of export expansion in the countries that receive them. After Spain and Portugal joined theEuropean Union, and after Mexico joined NAFTA,
exports rose dramatically, especially in highly protected milk products (see figures below).
Milk and milk products are the most protectedof all commodities, and, at $42 billion, they have thehighest level of OECD support. However, this highly
protected subsector responds similarly to other pro-tected sectors such as grains and meat products. Joining NAFTA or the European Union implies more thansimple preferential access—for example, membershipin a trade bloc offers a more secure and predictableenvironment for investment than is usually provided
by unilateral preferences—but the experiences of
Mexico, Portugal, and Spain illustrate the potential
response of many developing countries if they were
given free access with few other restrictions.

Source: COMTRADE.

Exports of milk products shot up after Mexico, Spain, and Portugal joined regional trade blocs
Exports of milk products from Mexico, 1961–2001(millions of dollars)

Exports of milk products from Spain, 1961–2001(millions of dollars)

50

400
350

40

300

1994 Mexico joins NAFTA

250

30

1986 Spain joins EU

200
20

150


10

100
50



0

0
1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001

1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001

Exports of milk products from Portugal, 1961–2001(millions of dollars)

1986 Portugal joins EU



120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001

countries classified as low income in 2000–01,
29 were net importers; of 89 classified as
middle-income, 51 were net importers.
Among the middle-income countries, thetotal net imports of the net importers were almost $56 billion; 46 percent of the imports
went to high-income, industrialized developing countries such as Hong Kong (China),
Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan

134(China). Another 35 percent went to the oil
exporting countries—Algeria, Saudi Arabia,
and the United Arab Emirates. Excludingthese and small island states, Egypt and Oman
account for 57 percent of remaining imports.
Thus the impact of agricultural price increaseson the middle-income countries would be
limited, particularly as a proportion of theirtrade.

A G R I C U L T U R A L

Among low-income countries, oil-producing
Angola, Nigeria, and Yemen account for almost
32 percent of the total deficit. Twelve countries
in conflict account for another 21 percent. Only
14 low-income countries are real net food importers; their total net imports were only $2.8
billion in 2000–01. In this group, three countries account for 80 percent of the net imports:
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of Korea. The rest of the low-income
countries have a deficit of just $565 million, asmall percentage of their trade. These countries
would gain from price increases, because theirexports are also predominantly agricultural,
as well as from other aspects of a multilateral
trade negotiation. Nonetheless, the international
community should be prepared to provide assistance to countries to help them adjust to andtake advantage of new trade opportunities.

Can tariff preferences substitutefor reform?
Some have argued that the poor are not harmed
by the protection practices of rich countries because the Quad countries are generous in granting trade preferences. To be sure, the levels ofprotection in industrial countries are moderated by tariff and quota preferences. However,as we saw earlier in this chapter, most of thepoor live not in the least developed countries,
which get deep preferences, but in Asia, whichgets fewer preferences, if any. Thus deep preferences do not reach the majority of the world’s
poor living on less than $1 day. Aside from theLDCs, many of the countries that enjoy preferences are not among the world’s poorest. For
example, a significant portion of the EU’s lowtariff sugar quota benefits Mauritius, the richest country in Sub-Saharan Africa. Half of thecountries that benefit from U.S. sugar quotas
are net sugar importers. Rules governing preferences are typically complex and cumbersome,preventing many producers from taking advantage of them (see chapter 6).
The United States is the only country thatcollects data on the effect and degree of use ofpreferences. Agricultural exports from all developing countries total about $25 billion; ofthat total, approximately $15 billion, repre-

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

senting mainly tropical products not producedin the United States, enters the country dutyfree—here preferences have no effect. Of products in the GSP, most agricultural productswith nonzero tariffs are not eligible for preferences—only 34 percent of imports covered by
the GSP were eligible for preferences; only 26
percent received them.
Preferences are more generous in other,mainly regional, programs. U.S. preferencesfor Mexico and the LDCs are much more extensive than for the rest of the world, and theeligibility ratio is almost 100 percent. However, this measure reveals little about the actual
coverage of these schemes because it records
only products actually exported and not thosethat would have been exported if granted preferences or lower tariffs. For example, the totalexports of agricultural products with nonzero
rates from the 64 GSP countries come to no
more than the exports of Mexico, which receives almost full preferences (table 3.16).
Tighter rules of origin also complicate preferences. For example, seafood imports underEurope’s Everything But Arms preference
scheme for least developed countries havestricter rules of origin than do its other preference programs, the GSP and Cotonou agreements. Similarly, the NAFTA agreement, theworld’s most extensive preferential trade
regime, is associated with very detailed andproduct-specific rules of origin (box 3.8).
Although preferences may help some very
poor countries, they are no substitute formultilateral reform that will benefit all theworld’s poor.

Summary: A pro-poor agenda
for policy change
Realizing the development promise of the Doha
Agenda will require the international community to tackle some of the most difficult problems of agricultural trade. Agriculture remains
one of the most distorted areas of international
trade, and those distortions impede development. A pro-poor program of trade reform
would contain several important elements:
A reduction in the use of specific duties
and greater transparency is necessary to bring135

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 3.16

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

U.S. trade preferences—a plethora of programs

U.S. trade preferences for agricultural products, 2002 (millions of dollars)Country group (numberof countries in group)

ATPA (Andean) (4)U.S. LDCs (40)
Non-LDC AGOA (15)Non-LDC CBI (19)JordanMexicoOther GSP countries (64)
Non-GSP developing
Total developing

Total value (a)Share of (a)for which duty
is greater thanzero (b)Share of (b)for which no
preference isavailable (c)Share of (b)eligible forpreference(d=b–c)Eligible but
not requesting
preference (e)Preference
received(f=d–e)2,242.6369.0
600.5
3,005.3
1.2
6,319.6
9,769.6
2,906.5
25,214.3

870.2
65.6
168.9
1,391.3
1.0
3,866.9
3,662.0
939.9
10,965.7

106.7
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.0
2,408.5855.8
3,372.1

763.4
65.6
168.5
1,390.6
0.9
3,866.9
1,253.6
84.1
7,593.5

256.4
12.2
20.0
10.8
0.1
13.8
300.6
0.7
614.6

507.0
53.3
148.5
1379.80.8
3,853.1
952.9
83.5
6,979.0

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

Box 3.8 Rules of origin in preferential schemes arecomplicated—and often contradictoryRules of origin are a key element in determining
the extent to which countries are able to use thepreferences available to them. EU rules of origin are
product-specific and sometimes complex. For someproducts a change of tariff heading is required.
Others must meet a value-added requirement. Stillothers are subject to a specific manufacturing-process
requirement. In some cases these requirements are
combined. For certain industrial products, alternative
methods of conferring origin are specified—for example, change of tariff heading or satisfaction of avalue-added requirement. Although clearly more
flexible, such an approach is not available for any
agricultural products. For many products the EU
rules require a change of chapter, which is even more
restrictive than a change of heading. In certain cases
the EU rules provide for a negative application of thechange of tariff classification by proscribing the useof certain imported inputs. For example, the rule oforigin for bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits, and so on
requires a change of tariff heading except from any
heading in chapter 11 (products of the milling industry). Hence, bakery products cannot use imported
flour and still qualify for the preferential rates.
Although the European Union has sought toharmonize the processing requirements for eachproduct, some of the general rules vary substantially,

136

particularly with regard to the nature and extent
of “cumulation” and the “tolerance rule.” In thisregard the rules of origin for the Everything But
Arms scheme differ from those of the Cotonou
Agreement—and also from those of other free-trade
agreements. The Cotonou Agreement, for example,
provides for full cumulation—inputs from other
Cotonou countries can be freely used. The GSP
allows more limited diagonal cumulation, which
may occur only within four regional groupings:
ASEAN, CACM, the Andean Community, and
SAARC. The EU agreement with South Africa contains a general tolerance rule of 15 percent, whereas
those with Mexico and Chile allow only 10 percent.
The rules of origin for the U.S. GSP scheme define a 35 percent value-added criterion that is common across all included products. In later bilateral
trade agreements, such as the NAFTA and the recently signed free-trade agreement with Singapore,
the United States has stipulated extensive and oftenvery complicated product-by-product rules of origin
which run to several hundred pages. In any event,the common rule applied in the GSP is that sensitive
products are excluded from preferences.

Source: World Bank staff.

A G R I C U L T U R A L

agricultural protection regimes closer to thetariff structures used for manufacturing. All
specific, mixed, composite, and seasonal tariffs should be replaced with transparent advalorem duties. Not only will this make theprotection clear, but also it will eliminate discrimination against lower-priced exports fromdeveloping countries. Since tariff peaks arevery high—and will stay high under the existing reform proposal—the peaks must be capped,

Box 3.9F

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

with some arrangement for reducing tariff
escalation on agricultural products.
The combination of tariff walls and domestic subsidies that annually channel some $248
billion to producers in the industrial countries
must be dismantled, as must the high levelsof protection in developing countries. Export
subsidies must be further reduced and ideallyeliminated. Discipline should also extend tofood aid (see box 3.9). Finally, border barriers

Food aid principles

ood aid recipients constitute a special group of lowincome, food-importing countries with urgent needs
arising from natural disasters, disease, and civil conflict. In June 2003, FAO identified 37 countries requiring food assistance, most of them in Sub-SaharanAfrica, but others in Asia, the Middle East, Europe andCentral Asia, and Central America and the Caribbean.17 Overall, food aid accounts for a relatively small
proportion of world trade, around 2 to 4 percent oftraded cereal volumes during the period 1995– 2000.18
Though needed and effective immediately after
disasters, food aid raises development and trade concerns when extended for longer periods or driven
by supply. From a commercial standpoint, food aid
may disguise export subsidies, or it may be used fordeveloping commercial export markets or promoting strategic objectives. Furthermore, it may alleviatepressure on governments to reform policies and promote self-sufficiency.
When given in kind, food aid may be detrimental
to local producers by lowering prices and by altering
traditional dietary preferences. When distributed outside of normal indigenous commercial channels, as is
usually the case, in-kind food aid also undermines thedevelopment of those channels and disrupts movement of food to the deficit areas from surplus regionsin the country and neighboring countries. These events
can then increase the likelihood and severity of futurefamine situations.
The trade aspects of food aid are regulated bymany agreements and conventions. The Uruguay
Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA, Section
10.4) requires that food aid not be tied to commercial
exports of agricultural products, that it accord with
the FAO Principles of Surplus Disposal and Consultative Obligations, and that it be given under genuinely
concessional terms. Nevertheless, the distinction be-

tween legitimate food aid and commercial interests isdifficult to make. Thus, although the actual food aid
budgets of the five largest donors in 1998 were $2.9
billion, Trueblood and Shapouri (2002) estimate theannual cost of an insurance scheme to provide foodsecurity for 67 needy countries would have cost lessthan $450 million per year from 1988 to 1999.19
Any WTO agreement should tighten the URAA
provisions to facilitate genuine food aid while preventing the abuse of aid to circumvent export subsidy
restrictions. Proposals include limiting food aid togrants only or to in-kind provision only in response
to appeals from the United Nations or other appropriate international bodies. Donations in cash orchanneled through international agencies would be
most desirable.20 Several principles, some beyond
the purview of the WTO, should govern the provisionof food aid:
• Food aid should be in the form of full grants andprovided only for needs of well-defined vulnerable
groups or in response to an emergency as determined by the United Nations.
• Cash aid should be provided unless in-kind food aid
is a more appropriate response to the crisis (for example, because marketing channels are not functioning, in-kind aid can be better targeted).
• Food aid should never be used as surplus disposal
by industrial countries.
• An impact assessment on marketing and local incentives should be undertaken when food aid isprovided, and designs should be altered or mitigation should be undertaken if significant negative impacts are observed.

Source: World Bank staff.

137

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

against processed foods, which constitute theexpanding part of agricultural and food trade,must be brought explicitly into the negotiations. Policies governing such products shouldbe aligned with those governing other manufactured products. Reform of these policies
will yield immense global benefits, especiallyin developing countries.
Decoupling subsidies can be positive. Reducing subsidies without lowering border barriers will have only marginal effects. Similarly,
decoupling subsidies from direct production
will have no effect if border barriers are notslashed. However, if border protection is reduced and subsidies decoupled from production requirements, the effects would be positive. To succeed, the decoupling programsmust have characteristics that most past efforts have lacked (see box 3.5).
A global effort should be made on particular commodities with large development consequences. Certain individual commodities canhave important effects on both developing andindustrial countries. Sugar, cotton, wheat, andgroundnuts all illustrate ways in which policy
regimes—particularly in the OECD countries—can adversely affect developing countries when allowed to operate over long periods of time.
A program of development assistance tomanage the adjustment to reform—particularly in food-importing countries—is a priority. The effects of tariff and subsidy reform areunlikely to affect most countries adversely, but
the risk that a handful of countries may experience a net terms-of-trade loss cannot betreated lightly. Adjustment is not likely to be
costly. Careful analysis shows that most net
food importers are either high-income industrialized countries or major oil exporters.
Many of the remaining net food importers
have high tariff walls, so that reducing the tariffs could offset all or most of the increase in
the global price. Nonetheless, such countries
would lose the revenues associated with thehigh tariffs and so would experience some dislocation. Development assistance can also help

138

countries take advantage of new trading opportunities that arise with trade liberalization.

Notes
1. Global poverty rates have been estimated on aconsistent basis at $1 a day. Unfortunately, the poverty
data are not separated for rural and urban populations.
The only source of data where the poverty rates can beseparated between rural and urban households is basedon the national poverty rates that vary across countries,
and the country coverage of these surveys is limited.
Data used here cover the surveys for 52 country household surveys conducted between 1990 and 2001. The
sample has a higher share of rural population than theoverall average and both ratios are given in the tables
for reference.
2. A comprehensive analysis of (a) protection indicators (tariff protection, nontariff barriers, and tradedistorting domestic policies such as market pricesupports and export subsidies), and (b) performanceindicators (export structure and output) requires consistent information that is available only for the OECD
countries and then only for some product groups.
Even for the OECD, the focus of data is more theprotection of selected commodities than the overall
trade regime. Thus, the measures covered by OECDdata systems and the tariff data from the WTO are notfully consistent. Definitions of the agricultural sector
also vary. The OECD database focuses on key raw
commodities that have high protection; others exclude
fisheries, which have become the biggest food trade
item. Many agricultural items are covered under foodprocessing and thus are classified under manufacturing
rather than agriculture. Because processed foods constitute a growing share of consumption and trade, theirabsence from the data seriously understates trade in
agricultural products. Finally, trade regimes in agriculture include complicated duty structures, extensive useof quotas and other restrictions, and complicated andchanging subsidy schemes, all of which make it impossible to devise simple measures of protection anddistortions.
Information for the developing countries is more
limited and is only partially consistent. In the analysis
presented in this chapter, partial data will be patched
together to give a picture of agricultural trade regimes
and export performance in industrial and developing
countries.
For the purposes of this study, the agricultural sector is defined broadly to include fisheries and processedfood products in all subgroups. For example, theseafood and seafood products subgroup includes raw,
frozen, and processed seafood. This classification al-

A G R I C U L T U R A L

lows us to include all stages of processing and to construct data series that are economically consistent. See
annex I for the details of the coverage and definition ofsubgroups.
3. Of 20 categories of farms tracked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 12 lose money from farming
alone. Most of the money-losing categories consist ofsmaller farms. USDA, Agricultural Income and FinanceOutlook, September 26, 2002.
4. OECD (2002) The Incidence and Income Transfer Efficiency of Farm Support Measures.
5. From the trade data, it is very difficult to separateout food processing from raw agricultural trade. The
definition used here treats food processing within agriculture and manufacturing excludes food processing.
6. Annual GDP growth in industrial countries
slowed from 3.0 percent in the 1980s to 2.3 percent in
the 1990s. In the developing countries, during the same
period, annual GDP growth accelerated from 3.1 percent to 3.7 percent. Unless there was a significant
change in income elasticities between the 1980s and1990s, the changes in GDP growth rates are not large
enough to cause the shift in import growth rates. But
faster liberalization in developing countries can explainsome of the shift.
7. Annex 2 Table 4 shows the ad valorem and nonad valorem rates separately, as well as the proportionof the tariff lines to which the average applies.
8. In the European Union and United States, very
high tariffs are all specific. The variance and peaks for
Canada and Japan probably do not reflect the real
peaks because specific duties are excluded.
9. For example, in the European Union the duties
on wine are 13 Euros per hectoliter, which corresponds
to about 12 cents per bottle. For wines that come fromdeveloping countries such as Bulgaria and Moldova,
CIF prices per bottle are less than $1, which gives a tariff rate of about 12 percent, a high rate. For a $10 dollar bottle from California, the tariff rate would be just
1.2 percent, a very low one.
10. Individual country details are given in annex 2.
11. A recent OECD publication argues that the administration of ad valorem rates could cause difficulties for the customs administration; the developing
countries have been administering such rates with much
lower administrative capacity (OECD 2002a).
12. Additional distortion is produced by circumvention, possibly through the subsidy elements in export credits, export restrictions, and revenue-poolingarrangements in major products.
13. The Harbinson proposal presents the current
status of agricultural negotiations on establishing numeric targets, formulas, and other ‘modalities’ forcountries’ commitments to increase market access, decrease export subsidies, and reduce distorting domestic
support as mandated by the Uruguay Round Agree-

P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

ment on Agriculture. The proposal also spells out
propositions on special and differential treatment andthe role of nontrade-concerns.
14. These are average cuts, so the actual cuts ineach line could be lower.
15. This is also true of many industrial countries
but the difference between the bound, and applied
rates is much smaller.
16. The European Union and United States were selected because there are tariff equivalents for the specific duties. The data for the European Union is for
1999, the last year for which the tariff equivalents wereavailable.
17. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y9643e/y9643
e04.htm
18. http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca/downloads/fjfa_
foodaid.pdf
19. Trueblood, Michael, and Shahla Shapouri.
2002. “Safety Nets: An Issue in Global Agricultural
Trade Liberalization.” Agricultural Outlook (Economic Research Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture). March. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
agoutlook/Mar2002/ao289f.pdf
20. WTO, Committee on Agriculture Special Session. 2002. “Negotiations on Agriculture: Overview.”
TN/AG/6. Pages 58–61. December 18, 2002. http:// www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_ modoverview_e.
pdf

References
Aksoy, M. Ataman, Z. Ersel, and B. Sivri. 2003. “Demand Growth versus Market Share Gains: Decomposing Export Growth in the 1990s.”
Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Baffes, John. 2003. “Cotton Market Setting Policies, Issues, and Facts.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C. March.
Baffes, John, and Harry de Gorter. 2003. “Decoupling
Support to Agriculture: An Economic Analysis andRecent Experience.” Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Paris, May
15–16.
Beghin, John, and M. Ataman Aksoy. 2003. “Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round. Lessons from
Commodities Studies.” Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Paris, May
15–16.
Bell, B., and R. Elliott. 1993. “Aspects of New Zealand’s Experience in Agricultural Reform Since
1984,” Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Borrell, Brent, and David Pearce. 1999. “Sugar: theTaste Test of Trade Liberalization.” Center for In-

139

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

ternational Economics, Canberra and Sydney,
Australia, September.
Cato, James C., and C. A. L. Dos Santos. 2000. “Costs
to Upgrade the Bangladesh Frozen Shrimp Processing Sector to Adequate Technical and SanitaryStandards.” In L. J. Unnevehr, ed., The Economics of HACCP. Saint Paul, Minn.: Eagan Press.
DRIFE (Danish Research Institute of Food Economics).
2003. “Note on the Harbinson Draft on Modalities in the WTO Agriculture Negotiations.” Agricultural Policy Research Division, Frederiksberg,
Denmark.
De Gorter, H. 2003. “Agricultural Support Programs
and Farm Household Incomes.” Mimeo. World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
Diop, Ndiame, John Beghin, and Mirvat Sewadeh.
2003. “Groundnut Policies, Global Trade Dynamics, and the Impact of Trade Liberalization.”
Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C. March.
Federated Farmers of New Zealand. 2002. “Life after
Subsidies: The New Zealand Farming Experience
15 Years Later.” Wellington, New Zealand.
Gallezot, J. 2003. “La progressivité tarifaire de l’UE vis
à vis des produits agricoles et agroalimentaires.”
Mimeo. Institut National de Recherche Agronomique, Unité Mixte de Recherche Économie
Publique, Paris-Grignon. January.
Golub, S., and J. Michael Finger. 1979. “The Processing of Primary Commodities: Effects of Developed-country Tariff Escalation and Developing
Country Export Taxes.” Journal of Political
Economy 83 (3): 559–77.
Henson, Spencer, Ann-Marie Brouder, and Winnie Mitullah. 2000. “Food Safety Requirements andFood Exports from Developing Countries: The
Case of Fish Exports from Kenya to the European
Union.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, No. 5.
Hoekman, Bernard, Francis Ng, and Marcelo Olarreaga. 2002. “Reducing Agricultural Tariffs versus Domestic Support: What’s More Importantfor Developing Countries?” Mimeo. World Bank,
Washington, D.C. September.
Ingco, M. 1997. “Has Agricultural Trade Liberalization Improved Welfare in the Least-Developed
Countries? Yes.” Policy Research Working Paper
1748. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Integrated Framework. 2003. “Malawi Diagnostic Integration Study, Integrated Framework Diagnostic.” Trade Integration Studies, Washington,
D.C., May.
Jaffee, Steven. 2003. “From Challenge to Opportunity:
The Transformation of Kenyan Vegetable Tradein the Context of Emerging Food Safety and140

Other Standards.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Jansen, H. Tarp, Sherman Robinson, and Finn Tarp.
2002. “General Equilibrium Measures of Agricultural Policy Bias in Fifteen Developing Countries.” TMD Discussion Paper 105. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kalaitzandonakes, N. G., and M. E. Bredahl. 1994.
“Protectionism, Efficiency, and Productivity
Growth.” In M. Hartmann, P. M. Schmitz, andH. von Witzke, eds., Agricultural Trade andEconomic Integration in Europe and in North
America. Kiel, Germany: Wissenschaftsverlag
Vauk Kiel KG.
Kudat A., M. I. Ajwad, and B. Sivri. 2003. “A Synthesis of Trade and Poverty Country Studies in Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies.” Mimeo. World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
Lindland, J. 1997. “The Impact of the Uruguay Roundon Tariff Escalation in Agricultural Products.”
Food Policy 22: 487–500.
Minot, Nicholas, and Lisa Daniels. 2002. “Impact ofGlobal Cotton Markets on Rural Poverty in
Benin.” International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. November.
Minot, Nicholas, M. Kherallah, and P. Berry. 2000.
“Fertilizer Market Reform and the Determinantsof Fertilizer Use in Benin and Malawi.” MSSD
Discussion Paper 40. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, D.C. October.
Mitchell, Donald. 2003. “Sugar Policies: Opportunity
for Change.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington,
D.C. March.
Morrison Paul, Catherine J., Warren Johnston, andGerald Frengley. 2000. “Efficiency in New
Zealand Sheep and Beef Farming: The Impacts ofRegulatory Reform.” Review of Economics andStatistics 82 (2): 325–37.
Nogues, Julio J. 2002. “Comment to ‘Trade, Growth,and Poverty—A Selective Survey,’ by Andrew
Berg and Anne Krueger, and ‘Doha and the World
Poverty Target,’ by L. Alan Winters.” Commentary presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, May.
Nogues, Julio J. 2003. “Agricultural Exports in a Protectionist World: Assessing Trade Strategies for
MERCOSUR.” Paper prepared for the Trade andIntegration Division of the Inter-American Development Bank.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment). 1999. “Distributional Effect ofAgricultural Support in Selected OECD Countries.” Directorate for Food, Agriculture, andFisheries, Committee for Agriculture, Paris.

A G R I C U L T U R A L_____. 2001. “The Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture: an Evaluation of Its Implementationin OECD Countries.” Paris.
_____. 2002a. “A Positive Agenda.” Directorate for
Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Committee for
Agriculture. Paris.
_____. 2002b. “Methodology for the Measurement ofSupport and Use in Policy Evaluation.” Paris.
_____. 2002c. “Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation.” Paris.
_____. 2002d. “Farm Household Income Issues inOECD Countries: A Synthesis Report.” Directorate for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Committee for Agriculture. Paris.
_____. 2002e. “The Incidence and Income Transfer Efficiency of Farm Support Measures.” Directorate
for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Committee
for Agriculture. Paris.
Quiroz, J., and L. Opazo. 2000. “The Krueger-SchiffValdés Study 10 Years Later: A Latin American
Perspective.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 49 (1): 181–96.
Rae, A., and T. Josling. 2003. “Processed Food Tradeand Developing Countries: Protection and Trade
Liberalization.” Food Policy 28: 147–66.
Ravallion, Martin. 2000. “On the Urbanization of
Poverty.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Rosengrant, M. W., and S. Meijer. 2002. “Agricultural
Trade Liberalization to 2020: Impact on Trade,Price, and Economics Benefits.” International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
September.
Schiff, Maurice, and Alberto Valdés. 1992. The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing Policy. Vol-P O L I C I E S

A N D

T R A D E

ume 4 of A Synthesis of the Economics in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Sheales, T., S. Gordon, A. Hafi, and C. Toyne. 1999.
“Sugar International Policies Affecting Market
Expansion.” ABARE Research Report 99.14.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Canberra, Australia. November.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. “Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook.” Washington, D.C. September 26.
Von Braun J., and E. Kennedy. 1994. Agricultural
Commercialization, Economic Development, andNutrition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Wailes, Eric. J. 2003. “Global Trade and Protection
Regimes in Rice Trade.” Mimeo. University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville. April.
Watkins, Kevin. 2003. “Northern Agricultural Policies
and World Poverty: Will the Doha ‘Development
Round’ Make a Difference?” Annual World Bank
Conference on Development Economics. Paris,
May 15–16.
World Bank. 2000. Global Economic Prospects andthe Developing Countries 2001. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
_____. 2001. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002. Washington, D.C.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 2003. “Negotiations on Agriculture First Draft of Modalities for
the Further Commitments.” WTO Document No:
TN/AG/W/1/Rev.1. Geneva.

141

4
Labor Mobility and the WTO:
Liberalizing Temporary Movement

Globalization is driving the movementof people across borders
With globalization—the dramatic expansion ofcross-border trade and investment—has comean upsurge in international labor mobility.
Falling costs of transportation and communication have reduced the distances between peoples, and the drive for better lives has motivatedworkers to move to areas where jobs are more
plentiful and pay is better. Foreign-born persons
now account for 10 percent of the total population in the United States, 5 percent in Europe,and 1 percent in Japan. In Canada and Australia, foreign-born persons represent 17 and 24
percent of the total population, respectively.1
Even so, today’s movement of people is still
well below levels experienced in the late nineteenth century, and migration rates, now hampered by restrictive policies, are well below
cross-border flow of goods and investment. By
2000, according to the United Nations, 175
million persons were living outside their country of birth—about 3 percent of the world’s
population. By contrast, global exports ofgoods reached almost a third of GDP, and financial flows were well above 10 percent(OECD 2001c; World Bank 2003; United Nations 2000).
While long term and settlement migration
are still predominant in most developed countries, migrant flows are now more diverse andcomplex, with migrants moving back and forth

more readily and rapidly. Temporary movement, in particular by highly skilled workers,
has seen the largest growth in the past decade.

Both rich and poor countries can benefit
Both developed and developing countries havemuch to gain from an increased flow of workers. Rich countries benefit because they gain
workers whose skills are in short supply. Also,
as demographics drive up the average age inrich countries, migration allows an influx ofyounger workers who contribute to pension
systems that would otherwise be actuarially
unviable. Poor countries gain from higher
wages as well as from the remittances that
accrue from migration. In 2001, worker remittances alone provided some $70 billion todeveloping countries, nearly 40 percent morethan all development assistance and significantly more than net debt flows to developing
countries. Returning workers also often bringnew skills back to the sending country. To be
sure, there are costs to both receiving and sending countries: labor markets and social services
may be strained in the rich countries, and developing countries may lose skilled workers
who have been educated with public resources.
Nonetheless, if a temporary visa system wereintroduced in rich countries permitting movement of labor up to 3 percent of the total labor
force, world incomes would rise by nearly$160 billion (Walmsley and Winters 2002).

143

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The GATS could facilitate temporary
movements
Temporary movement of certain types of workers—service suppliers—is included under theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) General
Agreement on Trade in Services. This is designed to facilitate the movement of people in a
way analogous to the movement of goods andcapital. This type of temporary movement—
called Mode 4 in the GATS—is treated as otherservices in the global negotiations. They allow
countries to negotiate fixed limits accorded to
all foreign workers on a most-favored-nation(MFN) basis. Some developing countries see
temporary movement under GATS Mode 4 astheir key interest in services trade and are expecting real progress in the context of the Doha
Development Agenda negotiations.

However, progress has been minimal
because of policy restrictions
To date, however, even judging by the relatively
limited liberalization of trade in services during
the Uruguay Round, little has been done toloosen conditions governing the temporary
movement of natural persons supplying services(Mode 4). Mode 4 today accounts for less than
2 percent of the total value of services trade.
Present commitments refer almost exclusively
to higher level personnel. More than 40 percent
of Mode 4 commitments are for intracorporatetransferees whose mobility is intimately related
to foreign direct investment; another 50 percentof commitments cover executives, managers
and specialists, and business visitors. All thismeans that the Mode 4 liberalization achieved
to date has been of limited significance for developing countries whose comparative advantage lies in the export of medium- and lowskilled, labor-intensive services.
Two fundamental tensions hamper progress
on Mode 4 labor mobility. The first is that governments are reluctant to undertake permanent commitments when employment demandvaries with cyclical conditions, and when several OECD countries are facing difficulties in
integrating existing immigrant communities
into their labor market and societies. Wanting

144

to maintain immigration and labor market
policy flexibility, countries have made GATS
commitments far below the degree of TMNP
access already afforded under domestic laws
and regulations. An important corollary of thistension is that the extent of TMNP liberalization for some sectors and categories ofworkers where labor demand routinely exceeds
supply (for example, in tourism, information
technology, and medical-related services) may
be significantly greater than in other categories
of labor, particularly unskilled labor.
A second tension stems from the fact thatthe strong regional character of migration patterns creates domestic political support for
programs that favor neighboring countries,
while Mode 4 commitments necessarily areopen to all countries on an MFN basis. Preferential migration schemes are commonly negotiated at the bilateral and regional levels,and MFN-based liberalization would undermine these. Because the many bilateral labor
agreements are usually untied to trade policy
or other agreements, they afford governments
a greater degree of flexibility to adjust programs to evolving migration trends and labormarket needs.
While the potential gains from increasing
temporary labor mobility, including for service suppliers under GATS Mode 4, could be
sizeable, the analysis presented in this chapter
cautions that expectations of far-reaching forward movement need to be tempered becauseof the political sensitivity of such trade in receiving countries. That sensitivity has become
more pronounced in the context of decelerating worldwide economic growth and heightened security concerns.

Expanding Mode 4 requires changes
to realize its modest potential
Tensions notwithstanding, present levels ofMode 4 access fall far short of even its relatively modest potential. One possible response
is for developing countries to actively expand
their requests and offers in the Doha Round.
Also, WTO members could adopt rules thatwould provide greater clarity and predictabil-L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

ity. And to help regularize entry and exit while
ensuring improved security, countries could
adopt a GATS visa system that would facilitate national visas for up to one year, subject
to appropriate checks and strict rules ofadministration.

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

together have accounted until recently for up tohalf of Africa’s migratory flow. Almost everywhere, most migrants tend to stay within theirregions, reflecting the importance of culture
and language and the lower costs associatedwith geographical proximity.

Around the world, migration is on the rise

The bigger picture: Global
migration and remittance trendsAlthough on an upward trend over the lasttwo decades, migration is still far below
its historic peak. The greatest migratory flows
took place between the middle of the nineteenth century and the onset of World War I,
when an estimated 10 percent of the world’s
labor force relocated permanently across borders (World Bank 2001). Mass migration wasa major factor in equalizing incomes acrosscountries throughout this period, by someestimates exerting a greater influence than either trade or capital movements (Lindert andWilliamson 2001).
Since World War II, globalization has led
to more unrestricted movement of both goods
and capital, while international policies towardmigration have become more restrictive. As aresult, the overall scale of labor migration remains relatively smaller than that of capital ortrade flows. Only 3 percent of the world’s population—some 175 million people—live outside
their country of citizenship, and the numberof permanent legal immigrants to the UnitedStates is less today than it was in 1914, both inabsolute terms—850,000 vs. 1.2 million—andas a percentage of the total population—0.35
percent vs. 1.5 percent. By contrast, global exports of goods represent almost one-third ofworld GDP (World Bank 2003; OECD 2001c).
While South-North migratory flows receive
the most attention, much cross-border labormobility—representing roughly half of the total
number of migrants—takes place between developing countries. While poorly measured andless well understood than flows into the North,some patterns are evident: South Asians typically travel to the Middle East and East Asia,
while South Africa, Nigeria, and Côte d’Ivoire

Five forces have governed world migration
since the mid-nineteenth century:• Wage and opportunity gaps between richand poor countries• Regional conflicts and political instability in developing countries• The relative share of young adults inthe populations of sending and receiving
countries• Numbers of migrant stock residing in receiving countries• Reductions in the cost and inconvenienceof travel.
These forces are still driving South-North,and South-South, migration. Successful development and poverty eradication in the developing world almost certainly will release part ofthe poverty constraint on potential emigrants
while simultaneously reducing the motivationof many to move. In regions where development
has been slower and poverty more obstinate,rising populations, dwindling opportunities,
and lower travel costs will combine to impel
emigration. The shrinking share of young adults
in the developed countries, particularly in Japanand Western Europe, and the rising share ofyoung people in South Asia, Africa, and otherparts of the world are complementary drivers oflabor movement. Growing numbers of young
people in the developing world have acquired
the education and training needed to assume
skilled positions in developed economies. And
as the numbers of the foreign-born grow in developed countries, their presence makes it easierand more attractive for newcomers to join them
(Hutton and Williamson 2002).
Wage differentials remain high. The averagehourly wage in manufacturing is about $30 in

145

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Germany, while in some parts of China andIndia it is only 30 cents. Between the UnitedStates or France and newly emerging countries
such as Thailand or Malaysia the gap is tenfold. Meanwhile, the supply of labor is swellingin developing countries—particularly in South
Asia and Africa, where poverty is concentrated.
Each year 83 million people are added to theworld’s population, 82 million of them in thedeveloping world (World Bank 2001).
The continuing demographic transition inindustrial countries adds to these pressures.
As their populations age and average levels of
training and education rise, developed countries face a declining ratio of workers to retirees and an increasing scarcity of lower-

Box 4.1

T

Population aging and migration

he combined demographic effects of the baby
boom that marked the immediate post-war
period, the fall in fertility rates that began inOECD countries in the late 1960s, and longer life
expectancy have led to a striking acceleration in
population aging in virtually all advanced industrial
societies.
Population aging is much more marked inEurope and Japan than in North America, but all
three regions will be affected. According to demographic projections by the United Nations, thepopulations of the European Union and Japan are
expected to fall by 10 percent and 14 percent, respectively, between 2000 and 2050, representing adecline of some 55 million in all. In both Japan andthe European Union, the dependency ratio (definedas the ratio of pensioners to workers) is expected to
decline from five to one today to three to one in
2015. For the United States, projections still point toan increased total population over the same period,
but the dependency ratio also rises.
Recent research has considered the economic
and fiscal impact of these demographic trends in theOECD area (OECD 2000, 2001c, 2002; Visco
2000). Without offsetting measures, the growing dependency could place enormous strains on social security, Medicare, and pensions systems. Far-reachingdecisions are required over the medium and longterm to meet shifting labor demands and to safe-

146

skilled labor (box 4.1). In some service occupations, particularly those most directly related to population aging (medical care andassociated personal care services), where there
is no substitute for human labor, the demand
for—and benefits of—movement of lowerskilled labor are likely to continue to increase(Winters 2003).
The foreign and foreign-born make up a
growing share of the population of mostmajor industrial countries, rising over the last
decade from 4.6 to 5.4 percent in the European Economic Area, and from 7.9 to 10.4
percent in the United States (table 4.1) Because the population of developing countries
is about five times greater than that of devel-

guard balance and equity in the systems of social
protection—decisions related to the length of working life, levels of contributions and benefits, and productivity advances.
One solution receiving increased considerationin several countries is to increase levels of permanent
immigration to modify population structures andmitigate the social and economic costs of aging. Immigration has advantages. It can quickly increase theeconomically active population because new immigrants tend to be younger and more mobile. Also,
fertility rates among immigrant women are often
relatively high, which can help boost population
growth. This has only a limited impact in the shortrun, however.
Immigration alone cannot provide the answer topopulation aging, as demonstrated by simulations
produced by the United Nations (2000). The simulations show that maintaining steady dependency ratios until 2050 would require an enormous increasein migration flows—for the United States and the European Union, migration balances would have to beat least 10 times the annual averages of the 1990s.
Such scenarios seem implausible by historical standards, and in light of the likely political reactions.

Source: OECD (2001f).

L A B O R

Table 4.1

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Migration is rising in many OECD countries

Migration flows and stocks of foreign and foreign-born population in OECD countries, annual averages, 1990–2000(thousands, except where otherwise noted)
1990–94

1995–99

2000

99
104

87
154

92
224

236
64
1,614
244

204
69
1,352
251

227
86
1,426
346

1,209
1,357

747
1,893

850
2,741

4.3
..
3.1
–0.03
3.3

5.1
5.4
1.7
–0.04
3.3

5.4
5.1
2.5
0.3
3.1

Asylum seekers
Australia
CanadaCentral and Eastern Europe
European economic area
United States

9
30
3
516
136

9
26
13
326
105

12
36
26
427
57

Acquisitions of nationality
Australia
CanadaEuropean economic areaf
Japan
United States

107
130
460
12
315

102
160
690
16
680

80
205
720
18
900

1990 (percent)2000 (percent)2000 (thousands)

Stock of foreign population
European economic areag
Japan

4.6
0.9

5.4
1.3

20,381
1,686

Stock of foreign-born population
Australia
Canadah
United States

22.8
16.1
7.9

23.6
17.4
10.4

4,517
4,971
28,400

Immigration
Australia
Permanent
Temporary
CanadaPermanent
Temporary workers a
European economic area b
Japan
United States
Permanent
Temporary c
Net migration per thousand inhabitants
Australia
CanadadEuropean economic areae
Japan
United States.. negligible
a. Inflows of foreign workers entering Canada to work temporarily (excluding seasonal workers) provided by initial entry.
b. Includes Austria, Greece, Italy, and Spain. No 2000 data for Denmark available; 1999 data substituted.
c. Excluding visitors, transit migrants, foreign government officials, and students.
d. Fiscal years (July to June).
e. Data relate to 1999–2000 average instead of 2000.
f. Excluding Greece and Ireland.
g. Excluding Greece. No 2000 data available for France; 1999 data substituted.
h. Data are for 1991 instead of 1990 and for 1996 instead of 2000.
Source: OECD (2002f).

oped countries, migrants comprise a larger
share of the total population in rich countries(6 percent) than in poor countries (1 percent).
The uneven composition of immigration
flows reflects differing policy objectives andhistorical and institutional backgrounds in various countries. Some countries, such as Australia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom,
explicitly give priority to foreign workers, sothat this group accounts for around half of all147

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

immigration. Other OECD countries, because
they tend to restrict work-related migration,
implicitly give priority to nonselective migration arising from family reunification (which
accounts for approximately 80 percent of flows
into the United States and France, for example)
or requests for asylum (approximately half in
the Nordic countries) (OECD 2002f).
Because legal immigration is restricted, illegal migration has risen noticeably in recent
years, as have trafficking in human beings andexpenditures to combat both phenomena. Illegal migration into the European Union soared
tenfold in the 1990s, reaching half a million
people annually by the end of the decade. In
the United States, an estimated net inflow of
300,000 undocumented workers occurs eachyear, although this could well underestimate
the actual scale of illegal migration.
Newer factors are compounding the morefamiliar drivers of migration. The developingworld’s rising share of educated workers—those
who have completed secondary education—
has jumped from one-third to nearly one-halfover the past three decades. Increasingly, thegrowing pool of skilled developing-country
labor is meeting industrial-country shortages,
as the marketplace for skills widens to encompass the entire globe. Meanwhile, continued
declines in transportation and communication

costs and thus greater access to information
on migration opportunities via global media,
the Internet, and diaspora networks in receiving countries are breaking down barriers to migration (Nielson 2002).

Remittances by migrants are an importantsource of income for many developing
countries
Remittances from foreign workers, both permanent and temporary, are the second-largest
source of external funding for developing
countries, after foreign direct investment(FDI). In 2001, workers’ remittances to developing countries stood at $72.3 billion, considerably higher than total official development
assistance and private non-FDI flows, and42 percent of total FDI flows to developing
countries that year (table 4.2). For most of the
1990s, remittance receipts exceeded official
development assistance (World Bank 2003).
As with actual movements of people, thedata on payments are susceptible to measurement problems—not all flows, even from legal
migration, are captured in the balance of payments accounts, and in situations where substantial illegal migration occurs, the bulk of
the international resource flows also may be
missed. Such difficulties notwithstanding, initial estimates of these flows can be derived

Table 4.2 Workers’ remittances are the second-largest source of external funding fordeveloping countries
Remittance receipts and payments by developing countries in 2001 (billions of dollars)

Total remittance receipts
As percentage of GDP
As percentage of imports
As percentage of domestic investment
As percentage of FDI inflows
As percentage of total private capital inflows
As percentage of official development assistance
Other current transfers aRemittances and other current transfers
Total remittance payments
Excluding Saudi Arabia

All developing

Low income

Lower middle
incomeUpper middle
income

72.3
1.3
3.9
5.7
42.4
42.9
260.1
27.2
99.5
22.0
6.9

19.2
1.9
6.2
9.6
213.5
666.1
120.6
6.1
25.3
1.2
1.2

35.9
1.4
5.1
5.0
43.7
44.9
361.7
14.0
49.9
1.7
1.7

17.3
0.8
2.7
4.9
21.7
20.2
867.9
7.1
24.4
19.1
4.0

a. Other current transfers include gifts, donations to charities, pensions received by currently retired expatriate workers, and soon. They also may include personal transfers by migrant workers to families back home.
Source: World Bank (2003).

148

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Figure 4.1 Workers’ remittances are an important source of income for many developing
countries
Top developing-country recipients of workers’ remittances, 2001 (billions of dollars and percent of GDP)
India
MexicoPhilippines
MoroccoEgypt, Arab Rep.
TurkeyLebanonBangladesh
JordanDominican Republic
El Salvador
Colombia
Yemen, Rep.
PakistanBrazilEcuadorYugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.)
ThailandChina
Sri Lanka

LesothoJordanAlbania
Nicaragua
Yemen, Rep.
Moldova
LebanonEl Salvador
Cape Verde
JamaicaYugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.)
MoroccoDominican Republic
VanuatuPhilippines
Honduras
UgandaEcuador
Sri Lanka

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Source: World Bank (2003).

from balance of payments statistics by combining workers’ compensation (transfers relating to work abroad of less than one year)
and workers’ remittances (transfers made byworkers whose stay abroad exceeds one year)(World Bank 2003).
In nominal terms, the top recipients of remittances included several large developing
economies—India, Mexico, and the Philippines—although as a share of GDP, remittances were larger in other low-income countries in 2001 (figure 4.1). Broken down along
regional lines, countries in Latin America andthe Caribbean were the largest recipient ofremittances in nominal terms in 2001, but relative to the size of GDP, South Asia was thelargest recipient, with remittances of nearly 2.5
percent of GDP. Remittance flows to countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa also were significant, accounting for 1.3 percent of GDP (table 4.3).
Workers’ remittances are spread more
evenly among developing countries than are
capital flows—the top 10 recipient countries in2001 received 60 percent of total remittances
to developing countries as compared with a
top 10 share of 68 percent of GDP, 72 percent

Table 4.3 Remittances are a significant source of income in all regions of thedeveloping world
Workers’ remittances received by developing countries, by region, 1999–2002 (in billions of dollars and as percentage of GDP)
1999
(billions of dollars)

Total
East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

2000

2001

2002

$ billions% GDP$ billions% GDP$ billions% GDP$ billions

% GDP

67
11
8
17
12
15
4

1.2
0.7
0.9
1.0
2.2
2.6
1.3

66
10
9
19
11
13
3

1.1
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.9
2.3
0.8

72
10
9
23
14
14
3

1.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
2.3
2.3
1.0

80
11
10
25
14
16
4

1.3
0.6
1.0
1.5
2.2
2.5
1.3

Sources: IMF, Balance of Payments Yearbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (2001).

149

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4of exports, and 74 percent of FDI. Remittances
also are more stable than private capital flows,which tend to move in a pro-cyclical manner.

Temporary movement of workers

M

any people move only temporarily—
students, tourists, business visitors exploring or conducting trade and investment
activities, and people working abroad under arange of schemes. People working or conducting business are thus a subset of temporary
movement, and GATS Mode 4, temporary
movement of natural persons as service suppliers, is a further subset of this group.
Most of the developed economies experienced significant growth in certain types of
temporary migration during the 1990s (table
4.4). In the United States, for example, the average number of temporary immigrants per
year doubled between 1990–94 and 2000, at
which point the total was more than three times
larger than permanent immigrants (see table
4.1).
The absence of global figures on temporary
foreign workers and the limitations of existing
migration data2 make analysis difficult and definitive conclusions impossible. However, according to the OECD (2001), some trends
have begun to emerge.
Although available statistics are insufficient
to identify conclusively the primary traders in
Table 4.4

temporary mobility, the picture is not a simple
one. Developed countries are major exporters,
as well as importers, of labor. Similarly, somedeveloping countries are significant importers.
By some value indicators—for example, compensation of employees—developed countries
account for most of the flow in both directions. On the other hand, developing countries
are the major receivers of remittances (see figure 4.1). Temporary movement is by no means
unidirectional. Relative to the overall size oflabor markets, the number of temporary foreign workers remains small for most countries,
except for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
The areas of highest growth are short-term
movements (from three to six months) (OECD
2001b). Movements of both skilled and unskilled workers appear to be concentrated in
the service sectors of major receiving countries,
notably in construction, commerce, catering,education, health care, services to households,
and other services. In developing countries,
foreign workers tend to be concentrated in primary activities (agriculture, fishing, and mining) as well as in manufacturing, although theshare in services (particularly tourism-related)
is rising in several countries (UNCTAD 2001).
Although the volume of global trade represented by temporary foreign workers remains
small compared to overall trade in goods andservices, it is very important for some industries and for some countries. Indeed, exports

Temporary movement is rising in rich countries

Entries of temporary foreign workers in selected OECD countries, 1992–2000 (thousands)

Australia
CanadaFranceGermany
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep. of
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

40.5
70.4
18.1
332.6
—
—
8.3
—
127.8
57.6
143.0

14.9
65.4
—
69.1
—
—
12.4
—
—
25.9
112.5

14.2
67.5
—
53.9
—
—
33.6
—
—
26.3
130.7

14.3
69.5
—
61.7
—
—
47.0
—
—
32.9
147.5

55.7
71.5
13.6
271.0
—
124.1
81.4
—
63.4
78.7
191.2

81.7
75.4
12.9
267.7
—
143.5
105.0
—
47.4
89.7
—

92.9
79.5
11.8
244.0
—
151.7
75.4
—
40.3
98.8
342.7

99.7
85.4
13.4
274.1
18.7
156.0
111.0
15.0
46.1
107.9
422.5

115.7
93.7
15.4
331.6
24.52
183.9
122.5
19.4
50.3
134.1
505.1

— Not available.
Note: Definitions vary among countries and the figures are not strictly comparable.
Source: OECD (2002f).

150

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Box 4.2 Temporary labor movement and the East
Asian crisis of 1997–98

Increased labor migration, particularly the temporary movement of unskilled labor, was an important dimension of structural change and globalization within much of Northeast and Southeast Asia in
the 1980s and 1990s. Conservative estimates suggestthat the number of migrants doubled or even tripled
in most net labor importing countries from the early
1980s to the onset of the financial crisis in 1997
(Athukorala and Manning 1999). By the onset ofthe crisis, some 2 million overseas migrant workers
were employed in Northeast Asian economies outside China, and an even larger number—some 3 to
4 million—worked in Southeast Asia.
The Asian financial crisis changed the context
within which those labor movements occurred, posing a major threat to economic growth. International
capital flows reversed, many firms went bankrupt,
and unemployment rates rose steeply in the crisisaffected countries (World Bank 2000). Demand forlabor plummeted in the modern sectors of laborreceiving countries. Yet a recent examination oflabor mobility patterns before and after the financial
crisis suggests that the economic turmoil did notalter the fundamental conditions underpinning highlevels of intraregional migration, especially of unskilled contract workers (Manning 2002)—a widening wage gap and imbalances between supply anddemand for labor across East Asia.
Countries in the region—especially the net labor
importers: Hong Kong (China), Malaysia, Republicof Korea, and Thailand—have continued to rely on
inflows of migrant workers. Many such migrants are
unskilled. Indeed, the willingness of migrant workers

of labor services in many developing countries
account for a substantial share of output andtrade. In several developing countries (mainly
lower income), such flows dwarf the value of
total services exports (OECD 2001b). Moreover, migration flows are resilient—for example, they were much more stable than capital
flows in the wake of the recent Asian financial
crisis (box 4.2).
Burgeoning cross-border investment—horizontally through mergers or joint venturesto undertake so-called 3-D jobs (difficult, dirty, anddangerous) shunned by nationals in export-oriented
industries has helped economic recovery. The large
real gains to workers who migrate to more developed
countries were documented in a recent study: unskilled Indonesian workers can earn $2 or more per
day in neighboring Malaysia compared to 28 cents
per day at home (World Bank 2001).
The migration of skilled and professional workers also was an important part of the internationalization of East Asian labor markets during the
1990s. FDI and associated trade flows resulted in significant skilled migration from developed to developing countries—as well as considerable out-migrationof skilled and professional migrants from countries
in the region. Workers from the Philippines dominated the latter flows, reflecting both slower rates of
FDI and economic growth domestically, and a modern sector incapable of absorbing enough graduatesfrom the well-developed education sector.
Several countries have sought to develop a more
coherent migration policy in light of the social effectsof the cutback in labor demand and unemploymentthat accompanied the crisis. This may be good news
for many migrant workers who need protection
against exploitation. In-migration of unskilled overseas workers, meanwhile, can be expected to continue to support production in both tradable andnontradable industries in the more affluent East
Asian economies.

Source: World Bank staff.

and vertically through relocation or so-calledgreenfield investments—accounts for muchnew temporary movement, helped along byadvances in transportation, communications,logistics, and organization that have altered allphases of the business process. Today’s companies not only can but must respond quickly toemerging opportunities by forming specializedtask teams, regardless of where the personnel
are based. Business functions previously handled by expatriate staff, resident representa-151

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Table 4.5 Foreign-born workers meet skill
shortages in rich countries
Percentage of foreign workers in selected sectors, 2001

Education

Information
technology

Healthprofessions(except nurses)

3.0
3.3
2.8
2.8
0.3
1.6
4.3
13.0
5.9

28.3
6.0
4.2
5.7
0.4
2.8
4.3
19.3
6.4

6.3
4.0
1.7
4.4
1.0
1.4
5.7
16.5
7.8

8.3

18.3

13.2

Austria
Belgium
FranceGermany
Italy
Netherlands
NorwaySwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States(foreign-born)
Source: OECD (2002f).

tives, or correspondent firms now may be accomplished by expert personnel on temporary
assignments. Shorter product lifecycles, higher
customer expectations, and stiffer competition
force companies to be ready to send expert
personnel abroad on short notice—or to bringthem to the firm’s home country for specialized
tasks in engineering, production, and marketing. Companies entering new markets often
wish to bring experienced staff from other locations to assist with the establishment phase(OECD 2001b). Indeed, among those temporary foreign workers who would fall under
GATS Mode 4, the mobility of intracompany
transferees—key personnel involved in theestablishment or operation of enterprises
abroad—has shown the fastest growth.
Investment liberalization can also create ademand for exports of skilled labor from thehost country. Foreign firms in India, for example, have become aware of the skills available in India and are now meeting demand forvarious services in their home countries with
supply from India (OECD 2001b). The growing importance of South-South FDI is an
important vector of more highly skilled temporary labor movement between developing
countries (World Bank 2003).
Temporary labor is used to meet skills
shortages in developed countries, particularly
in information and communication technol-152ogy, but also in education and health-related
services, which cannot be met quickly enoughby domestic training programs and institutions(OECD 2001b) (table 4.5). Recent growth in
the movement of highly skilled workers has
been supported by specific programs designed
to address key national shortages (box 4.3).

Bilateral and regional approaches
to labor mobilityRegional trade agreements, which include
provisions on labor mobility, range from a
few that provide no-cost movement of all types
of workers and service providers—althoughwith caveats that allow exclusions from certain
public services and restrictions based on publichealth and safety—to others, the majority, thattarget only intracorporate transferees and business visitors.3 Some—such as the EU, EEA, and
CARICOM—allow a relatively high degree of
freedom of movement with few special procedures. Others, notably the North American
Free Trade Association (NAFTA), allow forsome regulated mobility and involve relatively
detailed special procedures implemented amonga few parties. Still others (such as APEC) are
aimed at facilitating existing mobility, adding
some special procedures, but retaining maximum flexibility to continue existing national
practices (OECD 2002b) (box 4.4).
The differing approaches to labor mobility
in regional trade agreements reflect a range offactors, including the degree of geographicalproximity of the parties and the extent of similarities in their levels of development, as well asother cultural and historical ties. Agreements
among countries enjoying geographic proximity and similar levels of development generally
adopt a more liberal approach to labor mobility (EU, EFTA, EEA, Trans-Tasman Travel
Arrangement) as compared to agreements
among geographically distant members of differing levels of development (APEC, U.S.Jordan). But this is not always the case (MERCOSUR, SAARC) (OECD 2002b).
The range of special provisions found in various regional trade agreements, but not in theL A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Box 4.3 Recent initiatives to facilitate temporary
movement of highly skilled workers

A

ustralia has established a number of businesssponsored temporary entry programs, supported
by business service centers for employers seeking
skilled foreign workers. Canada initiated a pilot program related to software development workers underwhich Human Resources Development Canada preidentified a general need within the labor market forsuch workers. This enabled suitably qualified applicants with a job offer from a Canadian employer
and any necessary visa (depending upon country oforigin) to be automatically validated (that is, notsubjected to labor market needs tests). Under a pilot
project, spouses of “highly skilled foreign workers”
who are admitted to Canada for at least six months
also are permitted employment authorizations without being subjected to labor market testing.
France published a decree in 1998 permitting
companies to hire foreign workers skilled in computer science if the company can demonstrate its inability to fill the post with a local candidate. Germany offered 20,000 employment permits (“green
cards”) for up to five years to computer and information technology specialists recruited outside theEuropean Union. By August 2000, 13,000 green
cards had been issued.

general GATS provisions related to the temporary movement of service suppliers, includes:• Access to the labor market (EU, EFTA,
EEA, Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement)• Full national treatment and market access for service suppliers (ANZCERTA)• Commitments on visas (NAFTA; U.S.Jordan, which extends the commitment
beyond service providers)• Special market access or facilitated access for service providers and others(APEC, Canada-Chile, CARICOM, Europe Agreements, NAFTA)• Separate chapters dealing with all temporary movement, including movement
related to investment (Japan-Singapore)

Japan announced a plan in November 2000 to
recruit 30,000 skilled IT engineers and researchers
from overseas by 2005. In the United Kingdom highvolume nonimmigrant visa employers with a proventrack record receive streamlined and fast-tracked visa
approval. Simplified fast-track procedures are now
applied for issuing work permits for certain occupations, and the list of occupations susceptible to labor
shortages has been extended. The maximum lengthof a work permit also has been extended from four
to five years. The United States raised the annual
quota of H-1B visas for professional and skilledworkers by nearly 70 percent in 2000, providing
temporary admission for 195,000 people over the
next three fiscal years. The 7 percent ceiling on the
proportion of visas going to nationals of any given
country also was dropped. Faced with adverse cyclical developments in its labor market, the UnitedStates recently set the annual quota of H-1B visas at
65,000, the level set prior to the dot com boom of
the late 1990s.

Source: OECD (2001b, 2002f).

or to trade in goods or investment(Group of Three)• Specific reference to key personnel in relation to investment (EU-Mexico, FTAA)• Extension of WTO treatment to nonWTO members (AFTA); and nondiscriminatory conditions for workers, extending beyond service suppliers (Euro-Med)(OECD 2002b).
To assess the degree of liberalization offeredin a regional trade agreement, provisions related to labor mobility should be considered inconjunction with provisions in the same agreements related to supply of services. Generally,
the right to labor mobility does not automatically entail the right to practice a certain pro-153

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 4.4 A trade facilitation approach to labormobility: NAFTA and APECF

or professionals, “Trade NAFTA” (TN) visas areavailable to citizens of Canada or Mexico forentry into the United States, provided that the profession is on the NAFTA Chapter 16 list, the candidate meets the specific criteria for that profession(typically a university degree in a relevant field ofstudy), the prospective position requires someone inthat capacity, and the candidate is going to work fora United States employer.4 TN status lasts for one
year and is renewable. The requirements for entry to
the United States differ, however, for Mexican andCanadian nationals. Canadians are not required tohave a visa or prior approval, but can receive TN
status at the port of entry. The candidate must havea letter from a U.S. employer offering a job, or requesting an intracompany transfer, with a job description. For Mexicans, the employer must file alabor condition application (I-29 Petition for NonImmigrant Workers), and the candidate must apply
for a visa at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that industry experience with TN visas has been positive, with evidenceof difficulties confined to some confusion among
border officials as to how the TN operates and theneed for a regularly updated NAFTA professions list.
The APEC Business Travel Card offers accredited business travelers visa-free travel and expedited
airport processing for travelers visiting participating
economies. After an initial pilot, the scheme wasmade permanent in March 1999. Current participants include Australia, Chile, China, Chinese
Taipei, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Republic ofKorea, Malaysia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.
Brunei Darussalam, Peru, and Thailand have signed
the Operating Framework but are yet to issue cards.
The scheme allows considerable flexibility for
individual economies. Its Operating Framework is
not binding, with members committed to implement-

ing it on a best-effort basis. Each government preclears applicants (a process that can be customized
by each country, such as requiring formal sponsorship by a business organization). Once home authorities have provided clearance, details of the candidate
are sent to all participating economies, which must
offer a response within two weeks. Economies canrefuse clearance for an individual without providing
reason, but this will only restrict travel to that particular economy rather than vetoing the entire application. Following responses from other economies, thecard is issued by the home economy authorities (whoalso have the sole right to cancel the card). Fees canbe charged for issuance of the card and can vary
among participating economies.
The card is valid for three years from the date ofissue and provides multiple short-term business entries, stays of two or three months on each arrival,
and access to special immigration processing counters on arrival and departure. The cards are the sizeof a credit card, are manual or machine-readable,
and must contain the signature and photograph ofthe cardholder as well as the list of countries forwhich entry has been approved. Cardholders are stillrequired to present their passports. Separate applications for visas and work permits are not required.
Additionally, all economies retain the right to refuse
entry to cardholders at the border.
Some 3,400 cards had been issued by mid-2002,
with initial assessments indicating that the scheme isworking effectively, with strong support from thebusiness community and only a small percentage ofapplicants refused. There is no limit on the numberof cards that can be issued.

Source: OECD (2001b).

fession. National regulations regarding licensing and recognition of qualifications are still
applied and candidates must meet all criteria
and conditions (OECD 2002c).5
Few agreements provide immigration rights
or supersede national immigration practices.

154

In most agreements, the signatories retain
broad discretion in matters of residency andvisas. Some agreements specify that the agreement cannot be invoked to challenge national
decisions to refuse entry (Euro-Med), or provide remedies only where a pattern of restric-

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

tive practice can be proved (Canada-Chile,
NAFTA) (OECD 2002c).
Overall, progress in facilitating movementof less-skilled temporary foreign workers has
not been extensive at the regional level. Indeed,regional trade agreements tend to replicate thetwo key biases found in GATS favoring highly
skilled (mostly professional) workers and theclose links between investment and the specialized skills such investments require.
Additionally, bilateral foreign worker programs, which have been designed to fill bothskilled and unskilled labor shortages, haveexisted in a number of countries for sometime. Such agreements often cover seasonal
workers in agriculture and tourism; projectworkers in construction; and various other
employment-specific workers.

Understanding the impact of
temporary foreign workers
What are the determinants of migration?
Economic models of migration tend to focus
on the economic incentives facing migrants.
In the absence of legal restrictions on immigration, cross-border labor mobility is often
assumed to depend on the size of the gap inlabor and income that existed between industrialized and developing countries (wages,
working conditions, social security arrangements), and on the extent of information onthat gap available to potential migrants. Migration would increase when the gap widened
or when more information on the gap became
available. Accordingly, it is not rare to see migration described in terms of a pent-up flood:
if the tap is opened a little bit, more immigrants will come in; if it is closed, fewer will
come. Yet there are strong reasons, rooted inobserved trends in international migration, tobelieve that such a characterization is not fully
accurate.
Labor mobility tends to be more complex
than either trade or capital mobility. Even verylarge differences in economic returns (measured by wages) are not sufficient to induce

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

migration in most people. Demographic, educational, and labor market conditions in boththe source and destination countries affect migration decisions, as well as laws and policies
in both countries, information and information flows, chain migration effects (amongfamily members or those from the same originarea), transport and transaction costs, capitalconstraints (which may influence potential
migrants’ ability or willingness to incur thesecosts), and “exogenous” factors such as civil
unrest and climate. There may well be substantial “disutility” costs associated with relocation from one’s social-cultural-linguistic
context into an alien one. These costs can infact be among the most important factors
in cross-border migration. The fact that theworld’s poorest countries supply a very small
share of internationally mobile workers lends
credence to the oft-observed notion that binding poverty constrains out-migration.
Moreover, migration decisions often are depicted as essentially on-off and unidirectionalin nature when in practice people migrate fora host of economic and non-economic reasons. They initially may intend to stay temporarily and then return or move on to a third
country, or they may intend to settle. Globalization increases the number and complexityof these flows. For this reason, some analysts
prefer to talk about migration and migrants
rather than immigration and immigrants(Home Office 2001).
Economic analysis of the temporary movement of foreign workers straddles the twoworlds of trade and migration. This is in lightof significant differences in the nature and skill
profile of worker categories concerned and by
the sharply differing lengths of time such workers can spend in foreign labor markets. Thus abusiness visitor going abroad to assess future
opportunities or to conclude contract negotiations may stay only a few days. Such a transaction is largely akin to cross-border trade in services (so-called Mode 1 trade under GATS) anddiffers little from goods trade to the extent thatit does not involve lasting factor movement.
Not so for revolving teams of contract-based155

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

workers in construction services or for intracompany transferees, who may be deployedabroad for several years (and yet may constitute a transaction for the purposes of theGATS). In the latter cases, such “trade” in services has more in common with the economics
of migration, as migrating workers reduce thesupply of labor in the sending country while
adding to it in receiving countries. Furthermore, the temporary movement of labor isoften tied to longer-term flows of capital (in theform of foreign direct investment).
The essence of international trade lies insecuring the gains from cross-country differences in costs, prices, endowments, or tastes.
The larger such differences, the greater the potential gains from removing obstacles to suchtrade. The disparity between the abundance oflabor in developing countries and its scarcity
in the developed world suggests that significant pro-development returns—potentiallygreater than those stemming from the full liberalization of trade in goods—could be had if
medium- and less-skilled workers in developing countries were allowed to provide theirservices temporarily in developed countries.

What are the gains from
temporary movement?
Although labor remains far less mobile than
goods and capital, the increasing diversity of
migrants’ nationalities and the migration
channels used, as well as the growing share of
temporary and skilled workers in total migration flows, does indicate a growing prominence for migration in the broader context of
economic globalization.6 Links between labormobility and the liberalization of trade and investment have gained in visibility, as modern
trade agreements have proliferated and broadened at both the regional and multilaterallevels. Such developments have sparked an interest within the research community in measuring the potential effects of liberalizing
labor flows.
Several recent studies have drawn attention
to the potential benefits arising from a pro-156

gressive relaxation of barriers to labor mobility (table 4.6). Winters (2003a) suggested that
if developed countries were to raise to 3 percent of their labor force their quotas on the inward movements of temporary workers fromdeveloping countries, they would realize an
overall gain of $150 billion each year. His
work concludes that the gains from such liberalization would be shared equally by developed and developing countries. Most important, from a development perspective, thesefindings suggest that the largest benefits (toboth sending and receiving countries) would
come from the movement of lower-skilledworkers, as those workers are spread more
evenly over the economy, benefiting more sectors, than highly skilled ones (OECD 2002a).
Winters and Walmsley (2002) recognizethat adjusting wage levels in response to competition from low-skilled developing country
workers could entail high social costs. Suchfindings underscore the long-term importanceof enhancing the educational levels and humancapital of lower-skilled individuals to ensurethat fewer developed country nationals arecompeting directly with unskilled workers
from poorer countries. To manage the complex
political economy that TMNP liberalization
could entail and to minimize adverse (or excessively concentrated) distributional effects forvulnerable workers in receiving countries, theauthors suggest that the liberalization process
should be incremental, with the most sensitive
sectors exempted. Affected workers may behelped through adjustment schemes similar to
the U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, theassistance provisions of NAFTA, Canada’s
General Adjustment Assistance Programme,
and Australia’s Special Adjustment Assistance(Borjas 2000; Borjas, Freeman, and Katz 1997;
OECD 2002a).
Because liberalization of merchandise trade
has reduced price differentials between developed and developing countries to a ratio of
two to one—whereas service prices and wage
differentials continue to differ by a factor often or more—the gains from liberalizing cross-L A B O R

Table 4.6

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

The distribution of costs and benefits associated with Mode 4 trade
Sending countries

Benefits

Receiving countries
Costs

Benefits

Costs

In a situation of labor
shortages, departure ofworkers exerts only an
upward pressure on (high)wages.

Temporary admission offoreign workers is a response
to labor needs (shortages insome sectors or geographic
areas).

Temporary admission offoreign workers could delay
the structural adjustment of
the economy.

Once abroad, workers
proceed to income transfers(compensation of employees
and remittances), which area major source of capital
inflows and investment for
many developing countries.

The effects of temporarily
losing human capital andpublic investment (educationand training expenses)
depend on the scarcity of
the workers’ skills (see costof removing a doctor v.
a low-skilled worker).

Entry of foreign service
providers results in increased
competition (wider choice ofbetter services at lower price)
at lower cost (activity stays
in the country).

Upon return of the workers,
global human capital of thecountry is increased.

Replacement of scarce
resources could generatehigh costs.

In a situation of saturated
labor markets, departure ofworkers exerts a downward
pressure on unemployment,
and an upward pressure on(low) wages.

In a situation of saturated
labor markets, return ofworkers exerts an upward
pressure on unemployment,
and a downward pressure
on wages.

Temporary admission ofworkers is a partial
substitute for permanent
immigration (less sensitiveand lesser use of public
infrastructure and services).

In a situation of saturated
labor markets, arrival of
workers exerts an upward
pressure on unemployment
and a downward pressure
on wages.
Departure of workers
generates a replacement costand a loss of human capitaland investment (training).

Maximizing benefits

Maximizing benefits

Provide adequate infrastructure and career opportunities tomaximize the use of competence acquired abroad once theworker is back.

Create a possibility for workers to change visa status(become permanent resident) to avoid departure of the mostuseful ones.

Create incentives for return.

Facilitate temporary admission of workers and create
incentives to attract workers in specific sectors or geographic
areas (where shortages exist).

Negotiate commitments from other members in sectors
where the national labor market is saturated.
Adopt structural adjustments in sectors of labor shortages
to prevent outflows of workers.

Adjust the national economy to new competitive conditions.

Overall benefits

For business: a source of increased flexibility, profitability, and competitiveness; an instrument for facilitating trade andpenetrating new markets
For individuals: acquisition of vocational skills and know-how, including the learning of a foreign language; improved
quality of life while abroad (compensation for expatriation); increased employment opportunities upon returnSource: OECD (2001, 2002a).

border labor movements and other trade inservices could be much greater than from further liberalizing trade in goods. Rodrik (2002)
proposes a scheme under which skilled andunskilled workers from developing countries
could apply for temporary visas entitling them
to work in developed countries for three tofive years, after which they would return totheir home countries. The author suggests that
if admissions were capped at 3 percent of thedeveloped countries’ labor force, the scheme
could generate direct income gains of as muchas $200 billion annually. Returnees’ investments and the transfer of their experience

157

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

would produce further gains for sending countries (OECD 2002d).
The source of the gains identified in thestudies discussed above is a narrowing ofwage differentials between rich and poor
countries—a politically sensitive subject. In
the regulated labor markets of many WTO
member countries, domestic legislation limits
or opposes downward pressure on wages.
Moreover, many recipient (developed) countries require equality of treatment for temporary workers (equal wages and social protection parity requirements) with nationals at
comparable levels of skill and experience(OECD 2002d). For these and other reasons,most models assume no more than a halvingof differentials. To the extent that national
provisions sustain domestic wages, the overall
gains of Mode 4 liberalization may be lower,
but in such cases adjustment costs will be concomitantly lower as well.
Other factors that may affect the overall
gains of greater mobility of temporary labor
are the cost of creating or scaling up temporary visa schemes7 and the possibility that
temporary workers might join the ranks of theunemployed in the developed countries. Overshadowing such technical factors, however,are the doubts and fears arising from the recent rise in legal and illegal migration in theOECD area. The bursting of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and the security implications of the ongoing war against terrorism
have compounded those fears, making significant liberalization of temporary movement
less probable than was believed possible a few
years ago.

And the costs?
Temporary movement may help address several concerns often associated with the political debate over more permanent migration inboth developing and developed countries (seetable 4.6). One such concern revolves aroundthe possible impact on developing countries
of a “brain drain,” and its longer-term consequences for capital accumulation and growthin the developing world. Indeed, if the pattern158of trade growth reduces the demand for skilledlabor in skill-scarce developing countries while
increasing the demand for skilled labor in skillabundant developed countries, the result could
be a widening of the gap in labor income ofskilled workers between the North and theSouth while narrowing the gap in labor incomeof unskilled workers. Ghose (2002) concludes
that “in a world without restrictions on labormobility, increased trade worsens the brain
drain from developing countries but has uncertain effects on overall migration. Trade andflows of skilled labor are complements while
trade and flows of unskilled labor are substitutes.” Under such circumstances, measures toincrease the mobility of skilled workers can reinforce the initial comparative advantage of the
trading countries, so that skill-abundant countries become ever more skill abundant, whilelabor-abundant countries become ever more
(low-skill) labor abundant. Trade expansion
combined with the unrestricted mobility ofskilled workers could conceivably put the accumulation of human capital beyond the reach ofmany developing countries.8
Much of the existing literature on brain
drain focuses on the short-term costs in sending countries. Indeed, such costs can be substantial—higher education is subsidized heavily in developing countries and skilled migrants
carry away scarce human capital built throughpublic investments. But some of the purported
disadvantages associated with the migration ofskilled workers from developing to developed
countries can be partially mitigated if the
movement is temporary. Temporary migrants
may generate sizeable remittance flows which,along with the accumulation and subsequent
repatriation of embodied knowledge andglobal experience when workers return, could
substantially increase the benefits associatedwith greater temporary movement. Key toachieving this outcome are changes in the design of both trade and immigration policies inreceiving countries and stepped-up efforts on
the part of sending countries to increase return
migration of skilled workers while pursuingenhanced temporary movement of lower-

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

skilled workers in developed country markets.
Doing so would help to ensure that the growthof trade does not exacerbate developing country skill shortages.

For sending countries, TMNP has risks
and rewards 9
The impact of the temporary movement ofworkers on the sending country can be considered at three levels. First, there are economic effects of removing the worker fromthe labor market (departure). Next, during thestay abroad, the worker will maintain contacts with the home country, remitting funds
to family or making direct investments. Finally, there is the economic impact of the migrant’s return to the home country. Each ofthese effects is considered in turn.
Departure: Temporary migration and domestic labor markets. A genuine risk associatedwith sending workers abroad is that scarce resources, such as human capital, will be lost—often at a substantial public cost in educationand training investments.10 Workers who goabroad are generally young, highly motivated,
well educated, and not easy to replace, especially in developing countries, where wages
are lower, career paths are limited, and working conditions less satisfactory than abroad(PSI/EI 1999, OECD 2002d). An important
corollary of the “brain drain” is indeed therisk that developing countries will indirectly
subsidize industrial country R&D by exporting the human capital embedded in locallytrained workers. Indeed, the cost of providing
university education to professionals whothen move to wealthier countries for increased
opportunities may represent a net resource
loss for developing nations. Tax policy can beused to recover some of the loss—for example,
by requiring students who choose to leave thecountry to repay their education expenses before departing.
Further, because highly skilled workers
earn more, consume more, pay more taxes,
and are more productive than the unskilled,
their departure, even if temporary, can have a

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

significant impact on a developing country’s
economy and impede its development (WTO
1998, Devan and Tewari 2001). Moreover, because skilled migrants are often from relatively affluent households that do not require
regular income support, they may be lesslikely than unskilled migrants to send back remittances (Ghose 2002). As long as the movement of such workers remains temporary,
however, it is certainly preferable to the more
lasting brain drain caused by permanent emigration (WTO 1998, OECD 2002d).
Temporary movement of workers can help
to ease the strain on domestic labor markets—
work abroad can be an escape route from unemployment, and can reduce a country’s overall unemployment rate (Werner 1996). Thisis most often the case for unskilled workers,
although in some countries the number ofpeople trained for certain occupations exceeds
the absorptive capacity or needs of the local
market—as is the case for Indian engineers,
for example.11 Whether out-migration sustains wages in the sending country (Ghosh1998) or exacerbates an existing skills shortage (Werner 1996), its effect will be less if the
migration is temporary than if it were permanent—thereby reducing not only the potential
risk but also the potential reward of temporary mobility as a policy tool (OECD 2002d).
Receiving countries can play a part in preventing particularly harmful shortages ofskilled personnel in developing countries. For
example, the British government has publisheda code of conduct for trusts under the National Health Service (NHS) that prohibits
the recruitment of nurses from countries where
they are in short supply, such as in South Africa
or the West Indies. The code is not legallybinding (OECD 2002d).
Through appropriate policies and incentives, sending countries can encourage skilledmigrants to return (box 4.5). To date, incentive policies have a mixed record, often failingto address the real reasons behind workers’
decisions to settle abroad permanently—acculturation, better career opportunities, andaccess to and integration within personal and159

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 4.5

UP R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Initiatives to encourage return migration

p to one-third of R&D professionals from thedeveloping world reside in the OECD area.
Foreign studies constitute a major channel for migration, especially in science and technology—79 percent of 1990–91 PhD graduates in science and technology from India and 88 percent of those from
China were still working in the United States in
1995, compared to only 11 percent of Koreans and
15 percent of Japanese. The migration of skills canbe slowed through the return of expatriates to theircountry of origin. Returnees contribute to economic
development through their valuable management
experience, entrepreneurial skills, and access to
global networks. The Ministry of Science and Technology in China, for example, estimates that mostof China’s Internet-based ventures were started byreturning overseas students.
Taiwan (China), the Republic of Korea, andSingapore have been successful in fostering return
migration by opening up their economies and employing policies to foster domestic investments in innovation and R&D. Korea has focused on upgrading
its research institutions, such as the Korea Institutefor Science and Technology, as a way of attracting
returnees (UNDP 2001). The government of Taiwan(China) likewise played an important role in drawing
back American-trained scientists and engineers, whohave subsequently helped to develop the country’s
information technology sector. A National YouthCommission has been established there as a clearinghouse for potential employers and returningscholars seeking employment, and an airfare subsidy
is granted to the graduating student, spouse, and up
to two children, if they decide to return to Taiwan(China). The Commission also has established channels of communication with overseas scholars tosimplify recruitment when the need arises (Cultural
Division of Taipei 1998).
Opportunities for research, innovation, andentrepreneurship at home are needed to stimulate

returns of migrants and capital. Developing countries
such as India, for example, have the capacity toinvest in R&D and human infrastructure, and thus
are more able to draw migrants back. China recently
launched a project to develop 100 universities into
world-class institutions that not only provide higher
education, but also academic employment andresearch opportunities. An alternative for lessdeveloped countries is to create a good communication network among expatriates by linking themto counterparts in their county of origin. Scientificdiaspora and other expatriate knowledge networks
can help sending countries reap benefits and knowhow from emigrants overseas. Forty-one expatriate
knowledge networks have been identified around theworld. The FORS Foundation, for example, seeks toinvolve Romanian scientists in Romania and abroadin contributing to economic reform in Romania.
Grassroots initiatives in South Africa and Latin
America have been developed to connect researchers
abroad to networks in their home countries.
The worldwide network of Indian professionals
has been investing in skill development at home toraise endowments and bolster the finances of someof India’s institutions of higher education. The Indian
government also has contributed to the emergence ofprivate networks among Indian professionals abroad
through legislative and tax rules that encourage remittances and investment. The Return of Qualified
African Nationals Program, conducted by the International Organization for Migration, has attempted
to encourage the return of qualified nationals andhelped them to reintegrate. Even Switzerland has
promoted networking and contact among Swiss scientists in the United States through Swiss-List.com,
an online network. France has a similar network.

Source: World Bank staff.

professional networks. Chinese Taipei addressed those reasons by investing heavily inresearch and education. More than half of theenterprises in Chinese Taipei’s Hsinchu Science Park were created by engineers who had

160

worked for a time in California’s Silicon Valley. Today the park accounts for nearly 10 percent of Chinese Taipei’s gross national product(Devan and Tewari 2001). The Hsinchu example illustrates the positive economic impact

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

that workers can have upon their return froma temporary stay abroad (OECD 2002d).
Staying in touch: Temporary migration as asource of increased financial inflows. Becausebanning temporary movement by workers isneither feasible nor desirable, sending governments have an interest in optimizing the benefits of such movement, for example, by offering incentives for the repatriation of foreignearnings (OECD 2002d).
The economic impact of remittances and associated labor receipts depends significantly on
the use to which the funds are put in the sending country. They may be consumed, invested,or saved. Moreover, if they are consumed, theimpact will differ again depending on the nature (consumer or capital goods) and origin(local or imported) of the goods consumed(Werner 1996). An ILO study on Indonesia
shows that income from temporary work
abroad was applied by workers and their families to pay off debts, sustain consumption,raise savings, and finance investments, in thatorder (ILO 1996). In India, expatriate engineers working either permanently or temporarily in Silicon Valley have accounted for most of
the investments made in the cities of Bangaloreand Hyderabad, which have become new polesof growth for the country, establishing India as
an export powerhouse in software design andIT-outsourcing industries (Devan and Tewari
2001, OECD 2002d). The current Mexican
administration has reshaped the government’s
attitude toward migrants to the U.S., including
greater advocacy on their behalf with the U.S.
government. The Ecuadorian government has
a program designed to increase the earnings of
its citizens working abroad, whose remittances
are the country’s largest source of foreign exchange after petroleum.
An important feature of TMNP is the observed tendency for workers to retain closer
links with their home country if the length oftheir stay abroad is relatively short and predetermined. Remittances seem to be greatest
when a worker expects to return at a fixed
date (Galor and Stark 1991). Temporary mi-

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

gration may thus do more to encourage remittances than permanent migration. Many visa
regimes require proof of a fixed-term contract(pre-established and limited duration); it
could be argued that this type of regulation
may therefore have benefits for sending andreceiving countries alike (OECD 2002d).
Returning: Returning migrants as a source ofincreased human capital. Where labor mobility is only temporary, the net benefits of departure may be partially offset by the effects
on return. Yet the balance need not be zero, as
the country’s stock of human capital will havegrown between the time of departure and thetime of return (OECD 2002d).
The additional skills (languages, experience, know-how) acquired by temporary
workers can be put to work upon their return,thereby contributing to economic growth anddevelopment. Indeed, as endogenous growththeories suggest, increases in human capital
can yield significant positive externalities anddurably affect the long-term growth prospects
of developing countries. In particular, the accumulation of human capital can be instrumental in helping developing countries tomove into more skill-intensive production. Yet
just as with firms, taking advantage of suchcapital requires a suitable enabling environment. In particular, the home country must beable to provide the infrastructure and career
opportunities necessary to meet the aspirations
workers may have developed during their stayabroad (OECD 2002d).
Temporary movement may be an important vector for enhancing two-way trade andinvestment flows between sending and receiving countries. The Indian experience confirms
such linkages, for while India may have exported a number of its skilled workers in recent years, the flow has not been one-way; thecountry saw its IT exports increase from $150
million in 1990 to $4 billion in 2000. The recent surge in FDI directed toward India’s hightech centers is similarly related to the presence
abroad of a large group of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs (Nielson 2002).

161

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4For receiving countries, temporary
movement is politically sensitive but
usually beneficial
While the temporary movement of workers is
not likely to unduly disrupt the sending country’s labor market, the potential effects of such
mobility on segments of the receiving country’s
labor market may at times be more significant.
There, the concern arises that mobile foreign
workers may be in direct competition with nationals of the host country working permanently in the same occupations. Even if the migrant’s stay is temporary, the growing numberof foreign workers and the continuous influxof workers over different time horizons undercontract-based flows could increase competition in the labor market (OECD 2002d).
From this angle it is easy to see why immigration can be controversial in receiving countries. There is evidence that unskilled migration reduces the relative wages of unskilledworkers in industrial countries (Borjas, Freeman, and Katz 1997). An inflow of unskilledworkers from the South will benefit highly
skilled workers in the North. Their jobs are
not threatened by the latter, and the presenceof immigrants will lower prices for many
goods and services consumed by the skilledworkers. But the same inflow will reduce real
wages of unskilled northern workers (WorldBank 2001), and over time contribute to a deterioration in income distribution. Against thislatter trend, however, demographic and educational trends in affluent countries will combine
in the coming decades to raise the relative
wages of unskilled labor in the absence of migration (see box 4.1). As these demographic effects will likely be large, scope may therefore
exist for increased flows of unskilled labor inan environment of relative wage stability.
Despite the acknowledged benefits of temporary migration, the norm in receiving countries is to continue to impede the movementof low-skilled or unskilled workers throughvarious restrictions. Such restrictions can contribute to the recent sharp rise observed in undocumented low-skilled workers throughout
the OECD area. The stricter border controls

162

enacted to contain such flows may inhibit theability of undocumented workers to maintaincloser two-way links with sending countries(in part because of a reluctance to incur thehigh costs and attendant risk of illegal reentry)
through formal temporary migration channels.
As a result, undocumented workers become
particularly vulnerable to various forms ofwork-related abuse and often become caught
in a poverty trap (Papademetriou 2001).
Impact on the receiving country labor market.
Migrants, especially workers involved in temporary movement, tend to concentrate in sectors and regions characterized by labor shortages at both the high and low end of the skills
spectrum. It may thus be less likely for them tocompete directly with native workers than iscommonly assumed.12 In the majority of receiving countries, temporary foreign workers
are found mainly in the following five sectors:(a) health (especially doctors and nurses; doctors are more likely to practice in remote/rural
areas); (b) education, particularly higher education (that is, academic and research staff);(c) information technology; (d) catering; and(e) agricultural labor.
It is important, however, to understand
why migrants (including temporary migrants)
are concentrated in these sectors. In healthand education, wages in most countries are set
by policy or collective bargaining, and relatively clear procedures for recognizing foreign
credentials are in place. Migration in these
sectors benefits the public sector—and hence
the general public—as workers become taxpayers and consumers of public services. In IT
and other private sector professions prone
to labor shortages, wages are more likely
market-determined. But supply is constrainedby lags in training home-country specialists. In
the absence of migration, firms would bid up
wages and after a lag, supply would respond.
But with flexible work permit systems, firms
can import migrants, especially on temporary
contracts. In low-paying sectors such as catering and domestic services, unskilled local
workers are typically unwilling or unable toL A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

fill the available jobs. The effect of temporary
foreign workers in these sectors again is tobenefit firms, but it is not likely that workers
in receiving countries will be significantly disadvantaged: if migrants do not fill these jobs,
they simply tend to go unfilled or are not created in the first place (Home Office 2001).
In all three cases, the receiving country
tends to benefit overall from filling labor market gaps through migration/temporary movement. The result of such mobility is likely toinclude reduced inflationary pressures and anincrease in the overall efficiency of firms.
Expansion of such temporary schemes has
thus become a preferred means of responding
to labor shortages in receiving countries,
whether these are seasonal, cyclical, regional,
sectoral, or skills-related (Werner 1996). Froman economic viewpoint, the ability to bring inforeign labor is essential, since human capital
limitations can depress investment and create

Box 4.6

T

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

significant income transfers to the most highly
qualified workers at the expense of the rest of
the workforce and of the country’s consumers(Hodge 1999, OECD 2002d). However, theimpact of temporary workers on the workforce in receiving countries is the subject ofsignificant debate, in particular with regard towages and working conditions (box 4.6).
Temporary foreign workers may also bringmore direct benefits. Intracompany transferees
consume the bulk of their income in the hostcountry (housing, food, clothing) and makeuse of that country’s services (banks, transportation, communications). Their income
therefore generates wealth to the host country,
which would not be the case if the services
were provided remotely across borders (under
online outsourcing, for example), or if consumers required such services abroad. The
presence of the temporary foreign worker’s
employer in the host country is itself a source

Wages and conditions

he basic question is whether temporary workers
should receive the same wages and conditions
as nationals employed in the same industry. In many
countries (particularly OECD countries), this is alegal obligation—and 50 WTO members have included this stipulation in their Mode 4 commitments.
But some developing-country advocates contend
that such requirements undermine the comparativeadvantage upon which Mode 4 trade should bebased—the relatively inexpensive labor of sending
countries.
Such arguments are met with fierce resistancefrom unions in developed countries, which fear thatcheaper temporary foreign workers could undermine
the hard-won gains of workers in developed countries. To prevent foreign “strike breakers,” 22 WTO
members also have reserved the right to suspend
Mode 4 commitments in the event of labor-management disputes. Even where foreign workers may notactually be paid less, their presence may act as an
impediment to reform. For example, some claim thatthe temporary employment of foreign nurses has
allowed governments to ignore the root causes of

their nursing shortages—the need for better wages
and working conditions (OECD 2002f).
Proponents of wage parity argue that because atemporary foreign worker in an OECD country faces
living costs in that country, there is no justification
for paying lower wages. Moreover, temporary foreign workers, particularly women in domestic services and other lower-skilled activities, can be highly
vulnerable to exploitation if not fully subjected to
local labor laws.
Equal treatment, however, does not always result in equitable outcomes. In many countries, temporary workers are required to contribute to social
security programs in the receiving country fromwhich they receive no, or minimal, benefits. One
alternative in this regard could be for social security charges from temporary migrant workers to be
paid into separate funds and reimbursed upon
workers’ return to their home country.

Source: Nielson (2002) and OECD (2001b).

163

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 4.7

SP R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

E-commerce and temporary movement

ome WTO members, in particular developing
countries, have expressed concern that the growthof trade in services via information and communications technologies will become a substitute for trade
via temporary movement of service suppliers (Mode4). In some cases, services are now delivered over theInternet that previously required physical presence.
This tends to be more common in knowledge-intensive fields of activity and can be attractive to companies wishing to pay developing-country wages rather
than local (developed country) wages, as is generally
required for workers temporarily relocated. Still, theInternet is not always a good substitute. Security andconfidentiality requirements may limit its use, and insome countries the infrastructure is not yet capableof fulfilling contracts remotely.
Trade in services over the Internet can offer service suppliers from developing countries the opportunity to participate in global trade, notwithstanding
their lack of commercial presence in foreign markets.
While some of this trade may be in knowledgeintensive areas, primarily benefiting those developing

countries with a large pool of skilled labor, a rangeof lower skilled “back-office” services are now
traded over the Internet—among them basic data
entry and customer call centers.
Technological developments may be changing
the nature of temporary movement, rather than removing the need for it, with increasing numbers of
employees managing their international responsibilities through a combination of regular communication link-ups and frequent, shorter business trips tothe local operations, referred to as “virtual assignments.” Replacing longer-term assignments withmore frequent shorter ones, in addition to virtual
working, helps companies manage the costs of international responsibilities. ICT also may play a role inencouraging employees to accept longer-term assignments by reducing the sense of isolation from friends,
family, and cultural context.

Source: OECD (2001b).

of wealth (jobs preserved, intermediate consumption of goods and services, business taxes,
and so on) (OECD 2002d).
In fact, by focusing on the physical mobility of temporary movement of foreign workers
critics may miss a key point: A country cannot
restrain international competition in hopes ofpreserving the market share of domestic producers simply by blocking the entry of temporary foreign workers. For example, India iswidely recognized for expertise in computer
services, thus explaining the heavy flow of Indian computer specialists to more advanced
countries. It is likely that if those countries
were to refuse temporary visas to these workers or introduce stricter limitations on theirissuance, the work could still be outsourced
to India over electronic networks via Modes 1
and 2 (Chadah 2000, OECD 2002d). Indeed,some developing countries point to outsourcing of work, including over the Internet, as

164

an alternative to sending qualified personnel
abroad (box 4.7).
Temporary movement as a first step toward
permanent migration. Temporary movement
can be a first step to permanent residence,either legally (by changing visa categories)
or illegally (overstaying). Overstaying is a risk
with all forms of temporary entry, including
for tourists. Administered schemes for temporary movement arguably could help discourage employers from using undocumented
workers by making available legal temporary
foreign workers for seasonal activities. Where
temporary workers are permitted to apply forpermanent-resident status, their temporary
stay may serve as a useful preselection of candidates for future migration (OECD 2002a,
Nielson 2002).
Available data show little evidence of largescale transfer of workers from temporary toL A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

Box 4.8

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Boosting intra-EU labor mobilityT

he Treaty of Rome recognizes the principle offree movement for nationals of EU countries
wishing to reside or work within the area formedby the signatory states. More recently, measures
have been taken to facilitate intra-European mobility.
These include a directive on free movement of nonworkers, students, and retired persons, and a seriesof directives on mutual recognition of skills and access to certain public service jobs previously reserved
for nationals.
Nevertheless, intra-European mobility remains
very low, involving less than 0.2 percent of the total
population of the Union, a level seven times lower
than movements among the nine major census areasin the United States. The low mobility within Europe

permanent status. The U.K. work permit system allows employees to apply for permanent
settlement after four years of continuous employment, but in practice, a relatively small
proportion seem to settle permanently (in1998, 3,160 work permit holders settled in
the United Kingdom against approximately
70,000–80,000 work permits approved eachyear). Indeed, even where all, or most, barriers
have been removed, floods of foreign workers
generally have failed to materialize, as intraEU labor flows show in the context of a single
labor market (OECD 2001b) (box 4.8).
Security concerns. Any attempt to facilitate
individual mobility must confront today’s increased concerns about national security.
While all countries ultimately share such concerns, they tend to pose a greater challenge forpolicy officials in major receiving countries.
Brought into sharper focus since September
11, 2001, security considerations are changing
the balance between the facilitation and enforcement aspects of immigration controls,with measures to facilitate the entry of foreign
workers increasingly scrutinized to ensure
they do not become conduits for entry by illegal or undesirable individuals. There can be

is partly attributable to linguistic and cultural barriers, but it is also a result of structural rigidities in thelabor markets of individual member states.
In 2002, the European Commission launched
an action plan for mobility and skills with a view tofacilitating geographic mobility in the period up to2005 by removing remaining administrative and legal
barriers, increasing the portability of supplementary
pension rights of migrant workers, and improving
existing regimes of skills recognition in the regulated
professions.

Source: OECD (2002f).

little doubt that tightening immigration controls because of heightened concerns over national security is likely to have a chilling effecton TMNP liberalization. Meaningful expansion of temporary worker programs requiresthat security clearance be quick and reliable.
The challenge politically is to separate the security arguments from labor market or service
export considerations, and to strike an acceptable balance between economic efficiency andnational security (Mattoo 2003).
It estimated that up to 250,000 informationtechnology professionals from India work in
the United States, some on temporary visas andothers on work permits. But with almost allvisa applications taking longer to process, Indian technology companies are taking steps
to adapt to the increasingly limiting conditions.
For example, Infosys, a leading provider ofsoftware services, is ensuring that the bulk of
its outsourcing activities are undertaken on site
in India rather than in the United States orEurope. The spectacular recent growth of IT
outsourcing in developing countries, while
minimizing the need for labor movement, isnonetheless proving controversial, with fears ofan exodus of white-collar jobs in service industries. A case in point is the recent set of legisla-

165

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

tive measures passed by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington,
restricting outsourcing of state government services. Similar concerns, and calls for similar
policy responses, have been voiced in Europe.
Besides restricting the movement of workers, delays in travel can harm the competitiveness of firms. There is evidence that the competitiveness of subsidiaries of U.S. companies
established in China has been adversely affected as tightened security has hampered theability of U.S. companies to obtain visas for
Chinese nationals to conclude deals, undertake training, and even attend strategic seminars and meetings in the United States. Parent
companies in the United States are complaining about lost contracts and the move of Chinese clients to European companies that canoffer faster and more predictable issuance ofvisas.
While recognizing the importance of bordersecurity in an environment of heightened risk,care must be taken that the granting of visas
and work permits does not become a disguisedbarrier to trade. India’s minister for trade andcommerce recently termed the denial of visas
and restrictions on the movement of natural
persons as an indirect method by developed
nations of denying market access to developing
nations. Care also must be taken to reconcile
the need for increased security at entry points
with that of allowing commerce to flow as
freely as possible. This includes recourse to newtechnologies, notably biometrics, a system offingerprint and retinal recognition, and more
traditional methods such as permanent resident cards.

Mode 4 and the WTO

A

s noted above, some types of temporary
foreign workers—service suppliers—arecovered under the WTO General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS). Greater freedom
for the temporary movement of individual service suppliers is being negotiated under the
GATS, as part of the multilateral negotiations

166

set in process following the WTO meetings inDoha in November 2002.
These discussions go by the label of “Mode4” negotiations, in reference to the classification of the modes of service delivery in the
GATS agreement. Mode 1, or “cross-border
supply,” is analogous to trade in goods; Mode
2 is “consumption abroad” (for example,
tourism or study abroad); Mode 3 is “commercial presence” (as in the supply of a service
through a subsidiary or branch in another country); and Mode 4 is “temporary movement of
individual service suppliers.”13 WTO members
can elect to commit to providing market accessand/or national treatment for each mode of
supply for any number of around 160 possible
services sectors and sub-sectors.
Mode 4 is defined as the supply of a service
by a service supplier of one WTO member,through presence of natural persons of a member in the territory of another member on atemporary basis. While there is some debate
about what exactly this means, Mode 4 service suppliers generally:• Gain entry for a specific purpose (for example, to fulfill a service contract as selfemployed or as an employee of a service
supplier);• Are confined to one sector (as opposed
to workers who enter under general migration or asylum programs who canmove among sectors);• Are temporary (that is, they are neither
migrating on a permanent basis nor seeking entry to the labor market). “Temporary” is not defined under the GATS,
but permanent migration is explicitly excluded, and thus this issue is left to thediscretion of each country. In practice,
the time frames set out in WTO members’commitments on Mode 4 range fromseveral weeks to up to three to five years,
varying among countries, sectors, andprofessions. Thus, for example, Japan allows foreign business travelers to stay fora maximum of 90 days, but certain cate-L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

gories of intracorporate transferees canstay as long as five years.
• Are service suppliers. Being a services
agreement, GATS Mode 4 only covers service suppliers—there are no parallel WTO
rules covering movement of people related
to agriculture or manufacturing.14• Are service suppliers at all skill levels, although in practice WTO members’ commitments are limited to the higher skilled(see below) (Nielson 2002).

Box 4.9

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Measurement of Mode 4 trade suffersfrom poor data, tepid commitments, anda range of barriers
There are two ways to measure Mode 4 trade:by value or by number of service suppliers (seebox 4.9). Services trade statistics face a number of conceptual and practical problems
and, despite progress, reliable figures are some
way off. Nonetheless, available estimates—andthey are very rough—suggest that, in terms ofthe monetary value of trade, Mode 4 is the

Measuring Mode 4 is still imprecise

Value of trade: Balance-of-payments statistics
Balance-of-payments statistics capture some laborrelated flows of relevance to the estimation of tradeunder Mode 4:“Compensation of employees” (wages, salaries,
and other compensation received by individuals
working abroad for less than one year). This measures both overestimates (includes workers otherthan service providers) and underestimates (excludes
business visitors and individuals staying more than ayear abroad) trade under Mode 4.
“Workers’ remittances” (transfers from workers
who stay abroad for a year or longer). This measure
overestimates (covers all expatriates, regardless ofthe sector in which they work) and underestimates(only a residual income after expenditure and savingsin the host country, and many such remittances are
not effected through official channels) trade under
Mode 4.
Statistics on trade in services are available only
for some services sectors and traditionally have notbeen broken down by modes. Figures for Mode 4
are likely to be significantly underestimated.

• Migration statistics consider “temporary” to be 12months or less; under the GATS it is undefined but
in practice can be up to 6 years.
• Migration categories generally do not distinguishbetween service and non-service activities.
• It is not always possible to judge whether the activities covered by some visa categories are commercial and would qualify as the supply of a service under the GATS (for example, occupational
trainees, professional exchange programs).
• Some visa categories include persons both consuming and supplying services (for example, exchange
visitors encompass exchange students and visiting
lecturers).

The number of people: Migration and labor statistics
Statistics on the number of people moving under
Mode 4 are scarce and highly imprecise. Statistics areavailable for temporary foreign workers for several
countries, but they are not an exact match to GATS
Mode 4. Main problems include:

Neither of these sources—value of trade andnumbers of people—capture the dynamic effects ofMode 4 and its essential role in facilitating tradeunder other modes (for example, Mode 3, commercial presence; Mode 1, cross-border supply).
Some national figures for entries under specificvisa programs may closely correspond with Mode 4(for example, temporary medical practitioner visas),but because of the above problems, no aggregate
figures are available for all entrants falling under
Mode 4 at the national level. Additionally, given theabsence of detailed temporary entry visa regimes inmany countries, aggregate global estimates of thenumber of people moving to supply services under
Mode 4 are not possible.

• Business visitors may be excluded or hidden undertourist visas (a significant part of Mode 4 trade).

Source: OECD (2001b) and Nielson and Cattaneo (2003).

167

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 4.7

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

TMNP is the smallest of the four modes of international service supply

Service exports by mode of supply, 2001 (billions of dollars and percentage of total)
1997

2001

Mode of international service supply

Value

Percentage
of total

Estimate

Percentage
of total

1

Cross-border supply

890

41.0

1,000

28.2

BOP: commercial services
minus travel2

Consumption abroad

430

19.8

500

14.1

BOP: travel exports

3

Commercial presence

820

37.8

2,000

56.3

FATS statistics turnover

4

Movement of natural persons

30

1.4

50

1.4

BOP: compensation of
employees

2,170

100.0

3,550

100.0

Total

Proxy

BOP is balance of payments. FATS is Foreign Affiliate Trade in Services.
Source: IMF, Balance of Payments Yearbook.

smallest of the four modes of services supply(table 4.7).
Negotiations on Mode 4 first took place
during the Uruguay Round of trade talks heldfrom 1986 to 1993, but they were not particularly successful—in fact, they served primarily to facilitate exploratory business visits andthe movement of high-level personnel within
multinational corporations. While the Uruguay
Round negotiations were formally concludedin December 1993, negotiations in several
areas—basic telecommunications, financial
services, maritime transport services, and the
movement of natural persons—were extended
beyond the end of the Round because of widespread dissatisfaction with the level of liberalization achieved in those areas. Further negotiations on Mode 4, concluded on June 30,
1995, produced no major breakthrough. Only
Australia; Canada; the European Communities; and its member states, India, Norway, andSwitzerland improved on the commitments
they made in the Uruguay Round, and these
improvements were annexed to the Third Protocol to the GATS. The improvements mainly
concern access opportunities for additional
categories of services suppliers, usually independent foreign professionals in a number ofbusiness sectors, or the extension of such professionals’ permitted duration of stay.

168

A look at members’ current GATS schedules shows that levels of commitments varystrongly across modes of supply. Within agiven sector, trade conditions for Mode 4 tend
to be significantly more restrictive than conditions for other modes. No developed country
has scheduled a “none” entry (signifying unfettered access) for its Mode 4 commitments,and only 1 percent of market-access commitments undertaken by developing countries are
fully liberal. This compares with one out of
two entries for Mode 2 (consumption abroad)being full commitments.15
Many schedules have established links
across modes of supply. Members’ schedules aremostly biased in favor of intracorporate transferees, hence making the economic value ofsuch commitments dependent on access conditions for Mode 3 (table 4.8). Such commitments
are of limited interest to WTO members which,given their level of economic development, arenot significant foreign investors. Schedules arealso more open for highly skilled labor, wheredeveloping countries tend to be net importers,
since their comparative advantage lies with relatively unskilled labor-intensive services.
As of April 2002, an overview of members’
horizontal commitments shows that the majority of the entries scheduled—nearly 280 out
of a total of 400—concern executives, man-

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

Table 4.8 Most Mode 4 commitments
by WTO members are in management
categories
Entries by WTO members that have made Mode 4
commitments in the horizontal section of their GATS
schedules as of April 2002, by type of natural person

Intracorporate transferees,of which
Executives
Managers
Specialists
OthersExecutives
Managers
Specialists
Business visitors, of which
Commercial presenceSales negotiations
Contract suppliers
Other
Total

Number of
entries

Percentage ofentries

168
56
55
56
1
24
42
44
93
41
52
12
17
400

42

28

23

3
4
100

Source: Mattoo and Carzaniga (2003).

agers, and specialists. Of these, some 170 entries explicitly relate to intracorporate transferees. Only 17 percent of all horizontal entries
may cover low-skilled persons as well (“business sellers” and “other”). It is also revealingthat few significant differences exist between

Box 4.10

F

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

the commitments scheduled by developed anddeveloping countries. Both groups seem to havebeen equally hesitant in undertaking very liberal commitments for Mode 4 (box 4.10).16
The periods for which entry may be permitted have not always been indicated. This is surprising because it might be expected that, in theabsence of a definition of “temporary” in the
GATS, members would provide more precisionin their schedules. Where time limits have been
specified, the relevant periods are shorter forbusiness visitors than for executives, managers,
and specialists. The focus of existing commitments on employed persons is reflected also inmembers’ frequent use of employment links as
an entry criterion: “Pre-employment,” usuallyof one year, is one of the most recurrent restrictions. Numerical quotas and economic
needs tests rank next in terms of frequency oflimitations. While most of the quotas relate to
the total staff of a company, some members
also have reserved the right to operate quotas
based on parameters, such as senior staff or
wages. Significant administrative discretion results from the frequent scheduling of economic
needs tests without indication of the criteria on
which they are operated; with such entries, therelevant government agency grants access to

Key impediments to Mode 4 trade

ive policy impediments discourage Mode 4
trade.

• Quantitative restrictions on the movement of natural persons with a view to protecting local labormarkets.
• Economic needs tests and labor certification
requirements, whereby prospective employers
must certify that no domestic workers were available prior to hiring a foreign worker. Particularly
troublesome is the lack of transparency and thehigh degree of administrative discretion applied
to such tests, which reduces the predictability of
trading conditions. The administration of suchtests also may cause significant delays in hiring
procedures.
• Issuance and renewal of visas and work permits
may be cumbersome, expensive, stringent, andlack transparency.
• Social security contributions (lack of tax credits in
the home country), double taxation burdens
placed on foreign workers, non-portability ofpension and other social contributions.
• Lack of recognition of qualifications, educational
degrees, training, and experience, especially in
regulated professions.
Source: Mattoo (2003).

169

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

foreign natural persons provided that unspecified economic conditions are met.

What’s on the table in the current
negotiations?
Proposals related to Mode 4 in the current services negotiations by both developed and developing countries address many of the issues
identified above.17 Six proposals relate specifically to Mode 4; others raise Mode 4 in thecontext of sectoral proposals. Some propose
ways to expand existing market access, either
through the development of sectoral commitments or by expanding access available to one
group (such as intracorporate transferees) or
the categories of personnel that benefit fromfavorable Mode 4 access. Other proposals seek
to improve the level of access by removing obstacles to existing commitments, such as lackof information or cumbersome and inappropriate administrative procedures. Some makelinks to the development of broader regulatory
disciplines under GATS Article VI.4, or raise
specific barriers such as economic needs tests
or recognition of qualifications.
The negotiating proposals on Mode 4tabled by WTO members pursue two core objectives. One class of proposals, favored by developing countries, focuses on widening market access. Another, preferred by developed
countries, aims at increasing the effectivenessof existing market-access commitments (Nielson 2002). Together, such proposals provide a
useful roadmap of what an improved and more
equitable outcome on Mode 4 trade could
comprise within the framework of the Doha
Development Agenda. Key issues under discussion include:
Greater clarity and predictability in WTO
members’ commitments. Common definitions
for main personnel categories are included inmany WTO members’ commitments. Many
members refer to “executives, managers, specialists,” but there is no common understanding of who is covered by these categories; use ofa worker category nomenclature developed by
the ILO could be useful in this regard.

170

Providing clearer information on economic
needs tests (where entry of foreigners is subject to an assessment of needs in the domestic
market), such as criteria used, responsible authorities, likely timeframe for determinations,and record of recent decisions (Nielson 2002).
Greater transparency. Existing access is notalways used because service suppliers lackinformation on the necessary requirements
and procedures. WTO members could provide
one-stop information on all relevant procedures and requirements via a dedicated website
covering all WTO members, through notifications to the WTO, or by creating a one-stop
contact point at the national level. Other suggestions include prior consultation on regulatory changes, timely responses to applications,and the right of appeal (Nielson 2002).
Adoption of a GATS visa. This would facilitate entry of Mode 4 workers, including avoidance of the detailed visa procedures currently
required in many countries (often not separated from permanent migration). India has
put forward the idea of a GATS visa, which
would be issued rapidly, be time-limited, coverboth independent service suppliers and intracorporate transferees, feature rights of appeal,and be backed up by a bond, with sanctions
for abuse. The main idea behind the proposal
is to distinguish between temporary and permanent flows of migrants in the administration of entry procedures.18 The key elementsof a GATS visa scheme are presented in box
4.11 (Nielson 2002).
Enhanced market access commitments. There
are several additional areas where expanded
market access for specific groups would substantially increase the scope for developing
countries’ Mode 4 entry:• Commitments for particular service sectors in high demand (such as ICT, professional services) rather than the current
blanket treatment for Mode 4 entry acrossall sectors;

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

Box 4.11 Elements of a possible GATS
visa/permit regime
Coverage: Either all categories of service providers
covered by sectoral and horizontal commitments
under Modes 3 and 4 (visas), or only intracorporatetransferees (including at trainee level) and key personnel providing services pursuant to a contract
between two businesses (permits).
Duration of stay: Less than 12 months; no single visit to exceed 365 days; 3 years for intracorporate transferees. Stays of less than 3 months (butpossibly multiple entries over the course of a year)
would not require a visa.
Procedure: A separate body dealing with GATS
visas as contact point within the overall immigration
framework; a one-source availability of all relevant
rules and regulations; information on the status ofapplications to be available upon request; authorities
required to provide notification of delays; expedited
security checks; consultation mechanism for any
changes to the rules.
Time for issuance: 2 to 4 weeks from filing of
application to issuance of visa, but with proceduresfor issuance in one day or at port of entry under
special circumstances.
Conditions: For intracorporate transferees,
proof of employment with current employer for adefined period (6 months) and performance bonds;• Better access for some groups, in particular intracorporate transferees, via“blanket” applications by companies orby charging companies for streamlined
processing (including via a GATS visa);• More access for other types of skilled,
but not necessarily highly skilled, personnel such as “technical support personnel,” “nonprofessional essential personnel,” and trainees (future executives)(Nielson 2002);• Progressively reducing the range of admissible worker categories subject tolabor market/economic needs tests, withno economic needs tests applied to intracompany transferees or to certain pro-demonstrated experience of performing services atsenior level; proof of qualifications for some seniorlevels of personnel; contracts above a certain value
not subject to economic needs tests.
Role of companies: A company-specific GATS
visa for personnel working for well-known and reputable companies. Following certification by immigration authorities, companies could self-administertransfers.
Appeal rights: Appeal against rejection, with adecision within one month.
Renewal: Simple procedures with fees reflecting
administrative costs.
Prevention of abuse: Declaration of intention
not to establish a permanent residence; inability tochange to another visa category during life of the
GATS visa; payment of bonds by sponsoring company to local embassy or consulate; imposition of
special safeguard of one year’s duration against any
WTO member whose companies have a pattern ofvisa abuse.

Sources: OECD (2001), drawing on Chanda (1999), Zutshi(2000), and European Services Forum (2001).

fessional service providers working on a contract basis.
Of the six proposals tabled specifically on
Mode 4 by WTO members to date, four are
by developed countries—Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States—
whereas only two are from developing countries—Colombia and India. The fact that so
few developing country members of the WTO
have articulated negotiating proposals in anarea of obvious export interest is somewhat
surprising. This lack of interest may connote a
preference for the guaranteed access afforded
to sending countries by bilateral guest worker
programs (an outcome that appears to mirror

171

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4the tendency for some developing countries topursue preferential bilateral trade agreements
rather than multilateral agreements). It also
may reflect the difficulties many developing
countries have faced in identifying their export
interests in services trade, an area of high demand in trade-related capacity building. The
dearth of negotiating proposals need not, however, imply that individual developing countries are not formulating specific requests for
greater access for their workers to developedcountry markets in the context of ongoingbilateral request-offer negotiations under the
GATS.

Discovering mutual interests is essential
not only for the success of Mode 4
negotiations but also for the GATS
as a whole
The success of the GATS negotiations may depend on progress on Mode 4 trade. As Mattoo(2003) notes, liberalizing advances in the multilateral trading system have always derived
from the reciprocal exchange of market-accessconcessions. It is important that developing
countries understand the potential of, and press
for, enhanced access in an area of natural comparative advantage. Such an understanding, if
not opposed by the OECD countries, should
enable developing countries to engage more effectively in the GATS negotiations.
Furthermore, there is reason to believe that
reduced barriers to the temporary movementof service providers will produce substantial
global benefits. Significant gains already arebeing realized, for example, in the software industry—some 60 percent of India’s burgeoning exports are provided through the movement of software engineers to the site of theconsumer. And with greater liberalization of
barriers to the movement of people, many
more developing countries could “export” atleast the significant labor component of services such as construction, professional services, environmental services, and transport.
A benefit of the temporary nature of such
movement is the potential for both the hostcountry and the home country to gain. For ex-172

porting countries the financial and knowledge
benefits would be greatest if service suppliers
return home after a certain period abroad, andfor importing countries the temporary movement would create fewer domestic problems
than immigration.
However, there are a number of significant
issues and concerns to be addressed. Experience
with bilateral or regional temporary worker
schemes might highlight some of the practicalmeans of tackling policy challenges and concerns associated with temporary movement—
issues such as the operation of bonding requirements, avoidance of double taxation of
temporary workers, repatriating social security
and pension contributions to the sending country, ensuring that the temporary nature of entry
not be abused, and on-site inspections of worksites employing TMNP workers.19
None of these issues are insurmountable—
but they require a new level of policy dialogue
and coordination among trade, labor, and migration authorities, both at the national andinternational level, to find workable solutions(Nielson 2002).

Notes
1. Two definitions of migrants are used: Europe andJapan usually refer to country of citizenship in defining“foreign,” whereas in the United States, Australia, andCanada country of birth is the relevant definition.
2. Available statistics are incomplete and not readily comparable between countries. While most migration systems distinguish between temporary and foreign
migration, the definition varies among countries. To acertain extent, statistics on highly skilled workers tend
to be better, because data on such workers are collectedin connection with their temporary visas. Work permits
and visas are valuable sources of data (OECD 2001b).
The situation is even more difficult for statistics on
those temporary foreign workers falling under GATS
Mode 4—for example, Mode 4 entrants usually cannot
be separated from broader groups, and even when migration data provide occupations—such as “managers”—they are not disaggregated by sector. Further,many business visitors may enter under tourist visas
and not appear in employment-related figures, particularly where no short-term business visitor visa exists. Industry surveys can be a useful, but limited, source ofdata for Mode 4 (Nielson and Cattaneo 2003).

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

3. This section draws heavily upon the chapter onlabor mobility prepared by Julia Nielson of the OECD
Secretariat in the study “Regional Trade Agreements
and the Multilateral Trading System” prepared for the
Trade Committee of the OECD (OECD 2002c).
4. H-1B visas are also available for professionals
entering the United States. Some main differences between H-1B and TN visas include: H-1B visas include
requirements to show that temporary hires will not adversely affect U.S. workers; TNs are granted for one
year, but renewals are unlimited, whereas H-1B visas
have a three-year duration with one renewal (up to six
years). Similar conditions to TNs are applied to traders
and investors and intracompany transferees underE1/E2 and L1 visas, respectively (OECD 2001b, citing
Globerman 2000).
5. Provisions facilitating mutual recognition are included in some agreements (for example, EFTA), andothers have complementary arrangements. For example, the ANZCERTA Services Protocol, the TransTasman Travel Arrangement, and the Trans-Tasman
Mutual Recognition Arrangement together providethat persons registered to practice an occupation in one
country can practice an equivalent profession in another (OECD 2002e).
6. This section of the chapter relies heavily on“Service providers on the move: economic impact ofMode 4” prepared by Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson of the OECD Secretariat for the Trade Committeeof the OECD (OECD 2002d).
7. With the exception of the “settlement countries”(Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States), or
others with significant migration (Germany, United
Kingdom), many WTO members do not currently havespecialized regimes in place to deal with temporary entrants as service providers (OECD 2002d).
8. Not everyone agrees that permitting workers tomove abroad temporarily, or indeed to emigrate permanently, reduces the sending country’s welfare. Stark andWang (2001) suggest that emigration can have the opposite effect—that is, improve the welfare of those left
behind. They argue that migration opportunities createa strong incentive to acquire greater skills through education. Only a portion of graduates will emigrate, while
many will remain behind, better educated than theywould have been if immigration opportunities had notbeen provided (Winters 2003b). Such effects thus cangenerate spillover benefits in sending countries, effects
that are likely to be felt intergenerationally (Commander, Kangasniemi, and Winters 2002).
9. This section of the chapter draws heavily on“Service providers on the move: economic impact ofMode 4” prepared by Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson of the OECD Secretariat for the Trade Committeeof the OECD (OECD 2002d).

W T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

10. In health services, the World Health Organization has suggested offsetting earnings generated by migrant service workers against (1) reduced domestic access to these services, (2) loss in the quality of services,and (3) loss of public investment (Scholtz 1999).
11. Circumstances may even induce a deliberate
policy of encouraging migration as a way of combating
unemployment (Abella and Abrerar-Mangahas 1997).
The effectiveness of such a strategy may be limited by
the reluctance of workers to accept a job abroad as a
substitute for one at home (OECD 2002d).
12. Borjas (2000) suggests that immigration may
contribute to improving domestic-factor use by compensating for the reluctance of native workers to movefrom areas of relative labor surplus to areas of shortage. Such findings hold especially in health-related professions, with obvious social benefits for populations inmore geographically remote areas.
13. Mode 4 is defined in Article I:2(d) as entailing“the supply of a service . . . by a service supplier of one
Member, through presence of natural persons of a
Member in the territory of any other Member.” The
Annex on Movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services under the Agreement (hereinafter the Annex)
specifies that two categories of measures are covered:those affecting natural persons who are “service suppliers of a Member”; that is, self-employed suppliers who
obtain their remuneration directly from customers; andthose affecting natural persons of a Member who are“employed by a service supplier of a Member in respectof the supply of a service.” These natural persons canbe employed either in their home country and be present in the host market to supply a service, or employed
by a service supplier in the host country.
The Annex clarifies that the GATS does not apply
to measures affecting individuals seeking access to theemployment market of a member, or to measures regarding citizenship, residence, or permanent employment. There is no specified timeframe in the GATS ofwhat constitutes “temporary” movement; this is defined negatively, through the explicit exclusion of permanent presence. A cursory look at members’ schedules shows that the maximum length of stay permitted
under Mode 4 varies with the underlying purpose.
Thus, while business visitors generally are allowed tostay up to 90 days, the presence of intracorporatetransferees, another frequently scheduled category,tends to be limited to periods of between two and five
years. The Annex does provide for the possibility thatcommitments, and therefore access conditions, may bescheduled by “categories of natural persons,” thereby
introducing an additional element of flexibility.
The Annex also clarifies that, regardless of their
obligations under the Agreement, members are free toregulate the entry and stay of individuals in their terri-173

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

tory, including through measures necessary to protect
the integrity of their borders and to ensure the orderly
movement of natural persons across those borders,provided that the measures concerned “are not appliedin such a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Member under the terms of a specificcommitment.” The operation of visa requirements only
for natural persons of certain members, but not forothers, is not per se regarded as nullifying or impairingsuch benefits.
14. This is a strange distinction—are temporary
foreign workers engaged in picking apples temporary
agricultural workers or suppliers of fruit-picking services? Is an employee of General Electric’s consumer
credit arm engaged in service or manufacturing activities? (Nielson 2002)
15. Calculated on a sample of 37 sectors deemed
representative for various services areas. (See document S/C/W/99, March 2, 1999). The shallow level ofcommitments for Mode 4 is to a certain extent also reflected in the pattern of horizontal limitations, which
apply across all sectors: there are five times as many
limitations scheduled for Mode 4 than for Mode 2.
In turn, this reflects many members’ basic method
to scheduling Mode 4 entries. Contrasted with othermodes, the “negative list” approach to scheduling limitations has been turned upside down: schedules startwith a general “unbound” which is then qualified byliberalization commitments, mostly limited to specified
types of persons (for example, managers), movements(intracorporate), and stays (up to four years).
Commitments are often exclusively governed bywhat is inscribed in the horizontal part of the schedule,
so that identical access conditions apply to all scheduled sectors. Commitments usually are based on functional or hierarchical criteria, related either to the typeof person involved (executive, manager, specialist) or
to the purpose of their movement (for example, to establish business contacts, negotiate sales, set up a commercial presence). Besides, no generally agreed definitions or precise descriptions exist of the types ofnatural persons to which access is granted, which candetract from the predictability of entry conditions.
16. Access conditions scheduled by countries acceding to the WTO after 1995 also are substantially
identical to the ones scheduled by Uruguay Round participants. This contrasts with the situation in the threeother modes of supply, for which recently acceded
members have generally undertaken deeper commitments. The only detectable difference with regard to
Mode 4 is a relatively higher number of commitments
scheduled by recent WTO members for “contract suppliers”—that is, employees of a foreign enterprise whohave completed a contract to supply a service in a174

country but does not have a commercial presence inthat market.
17. This section of the chapter relies heavily on
Nielson (2002) and OECD (2001b).
18. Although the Indian proposal for the adoptionof a GATS visa has helped to broaden the scope ofMode 4 discussions among trade and immigration officials, the odds of seeing such a scheme adopted in the
DDA seem remote. Indeed, the sobering experienceemerging from attempts to implement the APEC Business Travel Card, epitomized by the reluctance of three
key APEC Members (Canada, Japan, and the UnitedStates) to implement the scheme, suggests a long roadahead in liberalizing TMNP at the multilateral level(OECD 2001b). It should be noted that from the pointof view of migration authorities, TMNP represents asmall proportion of those crossing borders every day.
The additional resources required to create special
treatment for such persons—which a GATS visa would
entail—are hard to justify in the face of other priorities,
notably in border security, arising for larger groups ofmigrants. Such resources also could be well beyond theadministrative capacities of many developing country
WTO members (Nielson 2002). See OECD (2001b) for
more discussion of the potential impact of a GATS visa
scheme.
19. Winters and others (2002, pp. 43–50) provide a
useful summary of such programs and the means to enforce them in France, Germany, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.

References
Abella, Manolo I., and M. A. Abrera-Mangahas. 1997.
Sending Workers Abroad: A Manual for Lowand Middle-Income Countries. Geneva: International Labor Office.
Athukorala, P., and C. Manning. 1999. Structural
Change and International Migration in East Asia.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Borjas, George J. 2000. Labour Economics, 2nd ed.
Boston: McGraw Hill.
Borjas, George, Richard B. Freeman, and Lawrence F.
Katz. 1997. “How Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labour Market Outcomes?” In Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity, pp. 1–67.
Chadah, Rajesh. 2000. GATS Negotiations and Developing Countries: A Case Study of India. Mimeo.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Chanda, R. 1999. “Movement of Natural Persons andTrade in Services: Liberalising Temporary Movement of Labour under the GATS.” New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. Available at www.icrier.res.in.

L A B O R

M O B I L I T Y

A N D

T H E

Chanda, Rupa. 2002. “Movement of Natural Persons
and the GATS: Major Trade Policy Impediments.” In Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya Mattoo,
and Philip English, eds., Development, Trade, and
the WTO. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Commander, S., M. Kangasniemi, and L. Alan Winters.
2002. “The Brain Drain: Curse or Boon? A Survey of the Literature.” Paper prepared for International Seminar on International Trade, May,
Stockholm.
Devan, J., and P. S. Tewari. 2001. “Brains Abroad.”
The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4.
European Services Forum. 2001. “Draft Model Schedule Covering the Temporary Entry of Natural Persons under the General Agreement on Trade inServices.” July 20. Brussels: European Science
Foundation.
Galor, O., and O. Stark. 1991. “The Probability of
Return Migration, Migrants’ Work Effect, andMigrants’ Performance.” Journal of Development
Economics, No. 35.
Ghose, Ajit K. 2002. “Trade and International Labor
Mobility.” Employment Paper 2002/33. International Labor Office, Geneva.
Ghosh, Bimal. 1998. Gains from Global Linkages:
Trade in Services and Movements of Persons.
New York: St. Martins’ Press.
Globerman, Steve. 2000. Trade Liberalisation and theMigration of Skilled Professionals and Managers:
The North American Experience. London: Blackwell Publishers.
Hodge, James. 1999. “Examining the Cost of Services
Protection in a Developing Country: the Case ofSouth Africa.” Paper presented at the World Services Congress, November, Atlanta.
Home Office. 2001. “Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis.” RDS Occasional Paper 67. London: Home Office.
Hutton, T., and J. G. Williamson. 2002. “What Fundamentals Drive World Migration?” NBER Working
Paper 9159. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass. September.
International Labor Office (ILO). 1996. Emigration
Pressures and Structural Change: Case Study ofIndonesia. Geneva.
Lindert, Peter H., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. 2001.
“Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?” National Bureau of Economic Research(NBER) Paper 8228. Cambridge, Mass.
Manning, Chris. 2002. “Structural Change, Economic
Crisis, and International Labor Migration in East
Asia.” The World Economy 25(3): 359–85.
Mattoo, Aaditya. 2003. “Introduction and Overview.”
In Aaditya Mattoo and Antonia Carzaniga, eds.,
Moving People to Deliver Services. New YorkW T O :L I B E R A L I Z I N G

T E M P O R A R Y

M O V E M E N T

and Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press
and World Bank.
Mattoo, Aaditya, and Antonia Carzaniga, eds. 2003.
Moving People to Deliver Services. New Yorkand Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press
and World Bank.
Nielson, Julia. 2002. “Service Providers on the Move.”
Evian Group Compendium, Lausanne: EvianGroup.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment). 1998. Migration, Free Trade, andRegional Integration in North America. Paris.
———. 2000. Globalisation, Migration, and Development. Paris.
———. 2001a. Migration Policies and EU Enlargement: The Case of Central and Eastern Europe.
Paris.
———. 2001b. “Service Providers on the Move: A
Closer Look at Labor Mobility and the GATS.”
TD/TC/WP/Final. Paris.
———. 2001c. Trends in International Migration.
2001 SOPEMI Report. Paris.
———. 2002a. International Mobility of the Highly
Skilled. Paris.
———. 2002b. “Labor Mobility in Regional Trade
Agreements.” TD/TC/WP/Final. Paris.
———. 2002c. Migration and the Labour Market in
Asia: Recent Trends and Policies. Paris.
———. 2002d. “Service Providers on the Move: The
Economic Impact of Mode 4.” TD/TC/WP/Final.
Paris.
———. 2002e. “Service Providers on the Move: Mutual
Recognition Agreements,” TD/TC/WP/48. Paris.
———. 2002f. Trends in International Migration.
2002 SOPEMI Report. Paris.
Papademetriou, Demetrios G. 2000. “Labor Mobilityand Human Resources Development Policies.”
Globalisation, Migration, and Development. Paris:OECD.
PSI (Public Services International). 1999. “The WTO
and the GATS: What Is at Stake for Public
Health?” Common Concerns for Workers in Education and the Public Sector Series. Brussels. June.
Rodrik, Dani. “Feasible Globalisations.” NBER Working Paper W9129. National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, Mass. August.
Scholtz, Peter. 1999. “International Trade Agreement
and Public Health: WHO’s Role.” Paper preparedfor conference on Increasing Access to Essential
Drugs in a Globalized Economy, Geneva, World
Health Organization, April 11–12.
Stark, Oded, and Yong Wang. 2001. Inducing Human
Capital Formation: Migration as a Substitute for
Subsidies. Reihe Okonomie Economics Series
100. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.

175

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

UNCTAD (United Nations Commission on Trade andDevelopment). 2001. “Movement of Natural Persons under the GATS: Perspectives for the New
Negotiations.” Mimeo. Geneva.
United Nations. 2000. “Replacement Migration: Is it a
Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”
Population Division, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, New York: United Nations.
Visco, Ignazio. 2000. “Immigration, the Labour Market, and Development.” Paper presented at conference on Migration Scenarios for the 21st Century, Rome, July.
Werner, Heinz. 1996. Temporary Migration for Employment and Training Purposes, Social Cohesion,and Quality of Life. Brussels: Council of Europe.
Winters, Alan. 2001. “Assessing the Efficiency Gainfrom Further Liberalisation: A Comment.” In
Roger Porter, Pierre Sauve, Arvind Subramaniam,and Americo Beviglia-Zampetti, eds., Efficiency,
Equity and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading
System at the Millennium. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Winters, Alan. 2003a. “The Economic Implications of
Liberalising Mode 4 Trade.” In Aaditya Mattoo
and Antonia Carzaniga, eds., Moving People to
Deliver Services. New York and Washington,
D.C.: Oxford University Press and World Bank.
———. 2003b. “GATS Mode 4: The Temporary Movement of Natural Persons.” Mimeo. Brighton: Uniersity of Sussex.
Winters, Alan O., and Terrie L. Walmsley. 2002. “Relaxing the Restrictions on the Temporary Move-176

ment of Natural Persons.” Mimeo. Brighton: University of Sussex.
Winters, Alan, T. L. Walmsley, Z. K. Wang, and R.
Grynberg. 2002. “Liberalising Labor Mobility
under the GATS.” Economics Discussion Paper
87, University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K. October.
World Bank. 1995. World Development Report 1995:
Workers in an Integrating World. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 2000. East Asia: Recovery and Beyond.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
———. 2001. Globalization, Growth, and Poverty:
Building an Inclusive World Economy. Washington, D.C.
———. 2001. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002: Making Trade Work for
the World’s Poor. Washington, D.C.
———. 2002. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2003: Investing to Unlock
Global Opportunities. Washington, D.C.
———. 2003. Global Development Finance 2003:
Striving for Stability in Development Finance.
Washington, D.C.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1998. “Presence of
Natural Persons (Mode 4).” Background note by
the Secretariat, S/C/W/75, Council for Trade inServices. Geneva. December 8.
Zutshi, B.K. 2000. “Liberalisation of Temporary Mobility of Natural Persons.” Intervention before theEuropean Services Forum International Conference on GATS 2000 negotiations, Brussels, November 27.

5Reducing Trading Costs
in a New Era of Security

Security measures can drive up
transport costs
In the wake of September 11 and worldwide
worries about terrorism, governments everywhere have enacted security measures that
could, if not managed properly, drive up trade
costs and shut out exports from developing
countries. This action has focused attention on
the search for greater efficiency in international transportation, the need for cooperationin adopting collective measures to promotetransport security, and the imperative of improving customs regimes, port facilities, andlogistics management.
The cost of moving goods between destinations and across international borders is often
as important as formal trade barriers in determining the cost of landed goods—and ultimately of market share. The costs of transport
among many points are as significant as tariffs. Other delays are equally costly. One study
estimates that every day spent in customs adds
nearly 1 percent to the cost of goods. In developing countries, transit costs are routinely two
to four times higher than in rich countries.

But they hold out the promise of
facilitating and securing trade
A study of the trade effects of September 11
estimated that world welfare declined by $75
billion per year for each 1 percent increase incosts to trade from programs to tighten bordersecurity. Developing countries are particularly

vulnerable to cost increases related to security
threats. Limited budget resources, dependence
on foreign trade and investment, and outdated
infrastructure and technology present serious
challenges for these countries.
Fortunately, new security protocols being
deployed at ports, customs offices, and border
posts around the world have the potential tostreamline trade transactions as well as promote safety and security. However, a global
framework must be established to ensure thatthe needs of developing countries are addressed
as security regimes take shape. The G-8 anddeveloping-country partners should take thelead in drafting such a framework.

Regulations hamper competition ininternational transport systems
and raise costs
Anticompetitive regulations and private commercial practices inflate trade costs by restricting international air and maritime transport
services to developing countries. The share of
trade shipped by air has grown to 30 percent
for U.S. imports in 1998, but international airtransport is one of the service sectors that ismost heavily shielded from international competition. By denying entry to efficient outside
carriers, bilateral air service agreements increase export costs for developing countries.
Though international airline alliances increase
network efficiency, they can be harmful if they
impede effective competition. City-pair routes

179

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

on which more than two passenger airlines ordedicated freight airlines operate can cut costsby an average of more than 10 percent.
Maritime transport is often subject to practices such as cargo reservation schemes andlimitations on port services that protect inefficient service providers. Such competitionrestricting practices among shipping lines andport operators can increase freight rates up to
25 percent on some routes. Rising concentration in the market for port terminal services
has increased the risk that private firms may
capture the benefits of government reforms.
Abusive practices by private operators are of
special concern in developing countries, wheretraffic volumes are lower and competitive
forces inherently more limited.

Investments in improving ports, customs,
and trade-related institutions can have asubstantial payoff
Building capacity in trade-related services canprovide the great gains in this new environment. If the countries now below the world
average in trade-facilitation capacity could beraised halfway to the average, trade among 75
countries would increase by $377 billion annually, according to new analyses outlined inthis chapter. Facilitating trade to improveexport-led growth therefore depends on policy
reform, technical assistance, and modernization of infrastructure. All trading partners canbenefit when barriers are removed and capacity is strengthened—with many of the benefitsof reform and modernization flowing directly
to developing countries.

Domestic policy reform is now evenmore important—
Domestic policy reform is needed to ensurethat the benefits of modernized customs, port
facilities, and related investments in information technology are realized. Streamlining regulations to remove technical barriers and liberalizing transport and telecommunications
can promote domestic competition and significantly lower transport costs while expanding
the availability and choice of services in many180

developing countries. In particular, appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks areneeded to ensure competition. Developing
countries need to address such domestic reform to take advantage of the opportunities
offered by a liberalized trading system.

—and new multilateral efforts could prove
beneficial
Multilateral efforts to reduce transport frictions could include revamping competitionrestricting regulations in air and maritime
transport. Such an effort might include revisiting antiquated exemptions of transport from
OECD antitrust legislation. Involving developing countries more centrally in global security
planning, together with a program of appropriate technical assistance, would help developing
countries mitigate security-driven cost increases
that would otherwise reduce their participationin the global market. A commitment to multilateral efforts on trade facilitation would also
have a high payoff—the World Customs Organization (WCO), the multilateral developmentbanks, bilateral donors, and private groups are
all important players. The leadership of theG-8 should join multilateral and other development institutions in a plan to facilitate and expand trade, strengthen security, and promote
domestic development.
Broad trade facilitation goals do not fit
neatly into the disciplines of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). In contrast to strokeof-the-pen tariff reductions, improving ports,
customs, and logistics involves a continuing
process of institutional changes that movecountries toward best practice. The lion’sshare of the agenda requires national action,
supported by multilateral development agencies to promote—and in some cases finance—
institutional changes. However, if the Doha
Round propels the WTO into a supporting rolein the broader trade-facilitation agenda, negotiations on simplified and harmonized trade
procedures could advance best practice in administering fees and formalities in trade and in
reducing the costs and uncertainty of transit
trade, especially for land-locked countries.

R E D U C I N G

Most importantly, obligations undertaken
by developing countries should be carefully tailored to long-term implementation capacity.
Any new agreement should include innovative
procedures for settling disputes before they
move toward WTO-sanctioned action.

Why transport, trade facilitation,and logistics matterT

he costs of transporting developing-country exports to foreign markets are a muchgreater hindrance to trade than are tariffs. A
comparison of countries’ “transport cost incidence” (the share of international shipping
costs in the value of trade) and their tariff incidence (the trade-weighted ad valorem duty
actually paid) shows that for 168 out of 216
U.S. trading partners, transport cost barriers
outweigh tariff barriers. For the majority of
Sub-Saharan African countries, the tariff incidence was relatively insignificant, at less than
2 percent, while their transport cost incidence
exceeded 10 percent (World Bank 2001). A
doubling of shipping costs is associated withslowdowns in annual growth equivalent tomore than one-half of a percentage point.
Trade-related transaction costs—freightcharges as well as other logistical expenses—
are a crucial determinant of a country’s ability
to participate in the global economy. Trans-

Box 5.1

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

port costs determine potential access to foreign markets, which in turn explains up to 70
percent of the variance in countries’ GDP per
capita. Among the problems that add to thecosts of trade are:
• Frequent reloading of goods• Port congestion affecting turnaroundtime for feeder vessels• Complicated customs-clearance procedures• Complex and nontransparent administrative requirements, often pertaining to
documentation• Limited use of automation leading tohigh costs for processing information• Uncertainty about the enforceability oflegal trade documents such as bills of
lading or letters of credit.
Policies to remove nontariff barriers and accelerate the flow of goods and services acrossborders—in short, to facilitate trade—are thus
at the forefront of today’s trade-policy debate.1
Cross-country evidence suggests that hightransport costs tax growth in countries with
underdeveloped transport links (World Bank
2001). Inefficient internal transport systems
can widen income inequalities within countries
by separating the hinterland regions from theglobal marketplace.

The evolving definition of trade facilitation

OECD: “Simplification and standardization of procedures and associated information flows required tomove goods internationally from seller to buyer andto pass payments in the other direction.”

APEC: “Trade facilitation generally refers to the simplification, harmonization, use of new technologies,
and other measures to address procedural and administrative impediments to trade.”

UN/ECE: A “comprehensive and integrated approachto reducing the complexity and cost of the tradetransactions process, and ensuring that all these activities can take place in an efficient, transparent, andpredictable manner, based on internationally accepted
norms, standards, and best practices.”

APEC: “The use of technologies and techniques which
will help members to build up expertise, reduce costs
and lead to better movement of goods and services.”
Source: Wilson and others (2002), citing various institutionalsources.

181

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

The new international security
dimension in tradeThe terror and tragedy of September 11,
2001, have emphasized the need for reforms in border and transport infrastructure.
Terrorist attacks can seriously disrupt the passage of people, goods, and modes of transport
across borders. Measures designed to stop terrorism can add certainty and stability to theglobal economy, raise investor confidence, andfacilitate trade. Secure trade is now as important as free trade—and the two need not be
mutually exclusive.2
Since the September 11 attacks, billionsof dollars have been spent to enhance port
security, install airport security equipment,
strengthen customs authorities, and bolster
border security. While much attention has
been devoted to new security protocols in the
United States, security plans in other parts of
the world also have been revised and strengthened.3 The G-8 has committed itself to increasing security for all transport modes andto promoting policy coherence and coordination among international organizations suchas the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), and WCO.
The bombing of the VLCC Limburg off
the coast of Yemen in 2002 was a stark reminder of weaknesses in global maritime systems, which handle 95 percent of world trade.
The event alarmed the shipping world andprompted sweeping new security proposals,
several of which are outlined below.

The security of maritime transport has
been strengthened, but the costs andbenefits of the new security programs
have yet to be assessed
A series of measures aimed at strengthening
maritime security and suppressing acts of terrorism was adopted by the IMO at its diplomatic conference in December 2002. These included changes to the 1974 Safety of Life at
Sea Convention (SOLAS), which covers 98
percent of the world’s fleets. The International
Ship and Port Facility Security Code, which

182

will go into force on July 1, 2004, for vessels ininternational trade, contains detailed securityrelated requirements for shipping companies,
port authorities, and governments, together
with guidelines on meeting the requirements.
The new rules cover security plans, security officers, and certain security equipment.
In the United States, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), signed
by President Bush in November 2002, is intended to improve safeguards at the country’s
361 sea and river ports and to improve intelligence on cargo and personnel entering U.S.
ports. Many of the requirements imposed by
the IMO protocol also are mandated by the
MTSA. Port-security efforts have been extended with the introduction of the AntiTerrorism and Port Security Act of 2003.
In April 2002, the trade community and the
U.S. Customs Service (USCS) launched theCustoms-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism(C-TPAT) to improve security along the entire
transport chain. The initiative encompasses
manufacturers, warehouse operators, andshipping lines. Participation in the voluntary
scheme is open to all importers, airfreight consolidators, carriers, and non-vessel-owningcommon carriers that agree to comply with the
supply-chain security profile. Under the program, importers or carriers provide USCS with
documentation relating to security measures at
each step along the route of goods—from thefactory to the warehouse, the port, and theocean carrier.4
The United States has imposed new controls
to increase the screening of freight containers
arriving at and leaving ports with goods boundfor the United States. Almost 90 percent of
all freight is transported in containers, 244 million of which move annually among theworld’s seaports. The Container Security Initiative (CSI), introduced in January 2002 by
the USCS, is designed to prevent terrorists
from concealing personnel or weapons of mass
destruction in U.S.-bound cargo. Participating
countries agree to help the USCS identify andscreen high-risk containers at the earliest stage.
Beginning with the world’s 20 busiest ports,

R E D U C I N G

CSI initiative will be extended until 100 percent of containerized cargo is covered.5
The bilateral agreements that underpin the
CSI may discriminate against ports not coveredby CSI. The European Commission, concernedthat the United States had approached only
some large European ports, argued that the CSI
could divert trade to Rotterdam, for example,
and create competitive distortions among ports
in the European Union—violating EU fair trade
rules. Although the top nine northwest European ports handle 80–90 percent of Europe’s
containerized cargo bound for the UnitedStates, the other 11 that also export to theUnited States would be affected. In a recent development, the European Union has given theEuropean Commission the power to negotiate
a maritime security agreement with the UnitedStates to replace the bilateral deals with eight
EU countries. In return, the Commission has
decided to drop legal action against EU members that signed deals with Washington.6
The CSI measure is especially important for
countries that send a substantial share of theirexports to the United States—for example, 20
percent of Malaysian exports are to the UnitedStates. By not joining the CSI, Malaysian
goods could lose competitiveness in the global
market—a risk not many nations are willingto take. Countries that do not implement therequired procedures would have a competitive
disadvantage because their shipments would
undergo more complex examinations and thus
be cleared more slowly.
The WCO passed a resolution on Security
and Facilitation of the International Trade Supply Chain in June 2002 to enable ports in all
161 member nations to develop programs similar to the CSI and consider adopting stricter
security measures. These measures are intended
to enhance security and improve facilitation
through a comprehensive reform of customs.
With nations seeking reciprocal inspection
rights, Japanese officers have been positioned at
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach toscreen high-risk cargo containers bound forJapan. Canadian customs inspectors also havebeen posted at Newark, New Jersey, and Seattle.

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

Under the USCS’s 24-Hour Advance Cargo
Manifest Rule, which took effect on February
2, 2003, carriers must provide cargo manifests
electronically via the Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24 hours before loading a container
bound for a U.S. port. USCS will use the information to identify containers that pose a potential risk and determine whether containers
can be cleared for loading. Ships unable to meetthe requirements risk receiving “no load” orders and thus being detained at the port of origin. Failure by a shipper to comply with the notification requirement carries a fine and thepossibility of seizure and forfeiture of the cargo.
Even freight not bound for the United States—a shipment from Hong Kong to Canada via
the United States, for example—must meet therequirements. Canada’s Customs and Revenue
Agency adopted a similar manifest rule for marine cargo imports in April 2003.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has proposed registration of an estimated 400,000 domestic and foreign food facilities to prevent a threat to the U.S. foodsupply as mandated by the Bioterrorism Act of2002. Starting December 12, 2003, importers
must file advance notice of food shipmentswith the FDA. Estimates by the FDA suggestthat the U.S. food industry could lose as muchas $6.5 million in perishable imports if the rule
for importers is adopted.7 Many agriculturalcommodities such as bananas and broccoli are
still growing on the stalk, vine, or tree the day
before loading, and in some cases as few as six
hours before.8 Such cargo may spoil if shipments are held up because of documentation
requirements. In the highly competitive market
for agricultural commodities, this risk could
prompt importers in other countries to moveaway from U.S. suppliers. The Bioterrorism
Act may also be harmful to Indonesia’s small
and medium enterprises, which are big exporters of food and agricultural products.
The USCS intends to extend the advance
electronic cargo reporting requirement to imports and exports transported by air and on
land. Final rules are expected by October 1,
2003. Since September 11, airlines have spent

183

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4$43 billion on security measures—among themmore thorough baggage checks, greater inflight inspection, and new regulations for secure cockpit doors.9 A new passenger datacollection system, the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), was recently introduced by the United States; already it has
raised ethical questions about a passenger’s
right to privacy.10 With regard to air cargo,
new security proposals are expected this year
from the U.S. Transport Security Administration. Road and rail transport operators also
have also been the subject of new measures toforestall attacks.11
Canada has tightened security at airports,
ports, and border crossings to prevent shipments to the United States from being delayed.
The Canadian government will spend $112.7
million over the next five years to improve security at maritime borders. Canada’s Customs
Self-Assessment and Partners in Protection
programs, like C-TPAT in the United States,
are based on the hypothesis that if companies
adopt secure practices, inspectors will be free
to focus on shipments from companies whose
practices are uncertain. With respect to airtransport, the Canadian Air Transport Security Association has improved luggage screening by installing explosive-detection equipment at many large airports in Canada.12 In
May 2003, the EU adopted a brief that suggested high security standards on maritime
transport to be applied across the member
states, new requirements on passenger ships on
domestic voyages, and heightened security ofthe entire maritime transport security chain.
Accounting for nearly 60 percent of world
GDP and half of all trade, the 21 countries of
the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group(APEC) have had to adopt new technologies tostrengthen security without impeding trade. At
a recent meeting in Bangkok, APEC adopted
Secure Trade in the APEC Region (STAR)—aset of measures to protect cargo, ships making
international voyages, international aviation,and people in transit. Ports in the APEC region
now must upgrade security to meet STAR
standards. At a meeting in February 2003 in
Thailand, APEC announced its commitment to184

protect cargo through programs of container
security, container risk assessment, and advance electronic information on container content. The group also will endeavor to introduce more effective baggage screening in
airports in the region, improve coordination
among immigration officials, establish new
cyber-security standards, develop an advanced
passenger information system, and devise systems for tracking and monitoring potential
threats. APEC’s new counterterrorism task
force will coordinate these activities.13

Developing countries may have a hardtime meeting new security requirements
Balancing new security priorities with economic and trade objectives is complicated. Security proposals can affect global supply chainsby requiring costly changes in business practices, process redesigns, and new equipment.
Critics fear that developing nations could besqueezed out of the global trading system because of their limited capacity to implement the
new international initiatives. High transport
costs, poor infrastructure, and the high costsof border clearance already pose a large obstacle to their development. Customs services inmany less-developed countries lack qualified
personnel to operate advanced security equipment and the ability to execute the necessaryreforms in their domestic administration. In response to new security demands, for example,
shippers are adding extra cycle time to their
supply chain rather than risk delays or fines.14
The USCS 24-hour rule has affected portsthat accept cargo as few as six hours before
departure, dealers in perishable commodities
that are harvested and loaded within 24 hours,
and shipments of emergency replacement partsand medical supplies. Holding additional inventories to hedge against delays and disruptions requires more storage space and more
operating capital.
The 24-hour rule also has introduced extra
costs for Indian exporters. Almost 35 percent
of outbound trade from India is headed to theUnited States, including 600,000 containers.
Exporters must now pay additional costs tolocal agencies that help them with documenta-

R E D U C I N G

tion. While large manufacturers can provide
detailed commodity descriptions, the smallscale and cottage industry units, which are big
exporters, may be unable to provide the correct description that is required at a level consistent with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule(HTS) codes of USCS.
Descriptions such as “freight of all kinds”
are no longer acceptable. If officials are uncertain about their contents, containers may misstheir scheduled carrier sailing dates. Electronic
filing and paperless clearance are additional
challenges. Most transactions handled by ocean
carriers are still conducted by fax or phone.
Many shippers in India still use manual typewriters—obviously hindering their ability toprovide data in electronic form. Many governments may be unaware of the potentially negative trade-related repercussions from inaction
on security.
Despite limited finances and capacity tofacilitate trade, some developing countries
such as Sri Lanka have adopted cargo security
measures that are on par with ports in many
developed countries. The same applies to
Bangladeshi facilities that boast advanced detection devices. These measures, however, arefocused on imports into the country, emphasizing the need to enhance inspection of exports.
Airlines and airports throughout Asia areworking toward the goal of screening all
checked baggage. The Agency for Air Transport Security in Africa (ASECNA) is investing$27 million to modernize member states’ airport security infrastructure.15

Security-driven improvements canbenefit trade
New programs to combat terrorism and corruption clearly will involve investment in newtechnology and infrastructure—possibly raising the costs of trade in the short to medium
term. At the same time, the prospect of reducing future threats through technology-intensive customs inspections should be viewed as
an investment in greater trade efficiency.16 Automated technology—such as bar codes, wireless communications, radio frequency ID tags,
tamper-proof seals for containers with global

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

Figure 5.1 Customs clearance takes
longer in the developing world than in theOECD, lowering the competitiveness ofdeveloping-country trade
Average days required for customs clearance by sea,by region

Developed (7)East Asia
and Pacific (9)Latin America andCaribbean (4)Africa (5)South Asia (1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Note: The number in parenthesis indicates the number ofcountries selected from each region to calculate the average.
Developed includes France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands,
Spain, Sweden, United States; East Asia and Pacificincludes China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan (China), Thailand, Vietnam;
Latin America and Caribbean includes Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Mexico; Africa includes Mozambique, South Africa,
Egypt, Guinea Bissau, Angola; South Asia includes India.
Source: International Exhibition Logistics Associates(http://www.iela.org).

positioning technology, and other electronic
measures—could accelerate global trade while
improving security (Reddy 2002). Sharing
information among terminal operators, shippers, and customs brokers can help expedite
the movement of freight through terminals
without any new physical investment. By reducing delays in container clearance throughcustoms, the need for shippers to pay “teamoney”17 to officials would be diminished—
contributing to port efficiency (figure 5.1). In
addition, simplification of customs procedures
can increase the chances of detection of fraudand criminal activities.

185

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Security-inspired modernization can bringabout overdue improvements to ocean shipping. The USCS Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) project, which replaces paper
documents with electronic methods of identifying high-risk containers, is expected to save
U.S. importers $22.2 billion and the U.S. government $4.4 billion in administrative costs
over 20 years. Hong Kong recently launchedelectronic filing for cargo manifests for allmodes, which will enhance the efficiency andaccuracy in submitting these documents. Pakistan has introduced electronic filing of a single
shipping document at Port Qasim as part ofan effort by its customs service to streamline
clearance and reduce transaction costs. According to recent research, automated customs
can lower the direct costs of customs clearance
by the equivalent of 0.2 percent of the value of
traded goods. By accounting for the indirect
benefits of reduced delays, costs are reducedby 1 percent of merchandise value. (Hertel,
Walmsley, and Ikatura 2001).
Implementation of these measures, which
involve important changes throughout the supply chain, may prove a difficult task for many
developing countries. But if the costs of complying with new security-inspired measures canbe recovered later through greater efficiencies
in the supply chain, the end result will bea global trading system that works better for
everyone—securing trade and smoothening
trade flows simultaneously.

Can the impact of security measures
be quantified?
The recent introduction of the new security
protocols and their even more recent implementation make it difficult to quantify theirimpact on trade. Leonard (2001) estimated the
new security-related costs at 1–3 percent of thevalue of traded goods, while analysis by theOECD (2002a, 2002b) suggests a more modest
impact.18
Security-driven frictional costs of transport,
handling, insurance, and customs can affecttrade even in the medium and long run.
Walkenhorst and Dihel’s 2002 study of the ef-

186

Figure 5.2 Higher trade costs reduce
global welfare
Overall welfare losses, by region, from a one-percentagepoint ad valorem increase in trade costs
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North Africa
and Middle East
North America
North Asia
OceaniaSouth Asia
Sub-SaharanAfricaWestern Europe
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Note: The measure of welfare loss—“equivalent variation”
divided by GDP—was devised by Walkenhorst and Dihel(2002). “High-risk” regions will suffer greater welfare
losses than lower risk regions from an identical increase infrictional costs of trade. Similarly, some sectors are moresensitive than others to increases in frictional costs.
Source: Walkenhorst and Dihel (2002).

fects of September 11 on international trade
indicates that even countries not directly involved in a terrorist event may expect theirincome to decline by $75 billion per year asa result of a 1 percent ad valorem increase infrictional costs to trade.19 While Western Europe and North America suffer the greatest
loss in absolute terms, other regions, such as
South Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East,
are the main losers when income losses are related to the size of the economies (figure 5.2).20
A one-percentage-point increase in trade costs
would cost South Asia $6 billion, more than
one-half of one percentage point when expressed as a percentage of GDP. Regions withhigh trade-to-GDP ratios and sectors with elastic import demand incur the greatest trade andincome losses in relative terms.

R E D U C I N G

The threat of terrorism is not the only
source of frictional costs. War and epidemic
disease, too, call for extraordinary measuresthat often disrupt trade. The 2003 war in Iraq
imposed significant costs on manufacturers,
shippers, wholesalers, and retailers stemmingfrom supply-chain disruptions, blockages ofvital sea routes, and delays in shipments. Thiswas especially true for manufactures linking
factories in Asia with markets in North America and Europe. New protocols at seaports
and airports have been implemented this year
to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a virus that has
swept large parts of Asia. The outbreak has
sharply reduced passenger travel to, from, andwithin Asia, especially Hong Kong and China.
Tourism has fallen sharply.21

A coordinated action plan on trade andsecurity is clearly needed
Even though the costs of compliance could belarge and disproportionate for smaller countries, all participants in the global trading system have an incentive to invest in counterterrorism efforts. As noted above, the initial costsof new security procedures will pay off in thelong run through efficiency gains, better management of information, and greater use ofelectronic commerce. It is easy to square enhanced security with improved trade facilitation at a theoretical level, however; it may well
be more difficult in practice.
The importance of partnerships at various
levels in the global security campaign is clear.
The IMO, ICAO, and other organizations
should step up their technical cooperation activities to help developing countries improvetheir capacity to bolster security and trade.
Assistance should be coordinated so as toensure absorption and nonduplication of
capacity-building initiatives provided by thedeveloped world. The WCO has conducted asurvey of members’ capacity-building needs toensure that security measures do not impede
development. Initiated by the World Bank in
1999, the Global Facilitation Partnership forTransportation and Trade, which includes sev-

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

eral international, private, and professionalorganizations, has focused on facilitating
trade—with security one of its themes.
Development institutions, in partnershipwith national governments, have a role to playin risk assessment, training, development of
human capital, and improving customs administration and infrastructure in their client
countries. They also can help track international initiatives and assess implications fordeveloping countries.
Because containers travel by sea, road, andrail, their regulation is especially problematic.
The container may be subject to IMO regulations when on ship, but on land national governments may impose a different set of legislations. The interdependence and linkages
among different transport modes call for a coordinated security approach among sectors
and modes. A ship may be owned by a company in one country, crewed by national of asecond country, and carry the cargo of a third
to a port of a fourth. Regional and bilateral
partner-ships among countries and stakeholders can strengthen information exchange, cooperation in training, and sharing of best practices, resulting in mutual enhancement of
security efforts.22 The United Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) container security project and the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
supply chain model are particularly promisingin this regard.
The APEC STAR initiative has stressed
greater cooperation between governments andprivate business to protect the global economy.23 Sustained dialogue between governments
and industry is needed to implement measures
to protect supply chains against security threats.
The private sector needs to be directly involved
with governments in crafting the most efficient
ways of complying with the requirements andto ensure the integrity of trade from the point of
manufacture to the port of delivery. In October
2001, for example, a joint venture plan between
Boeing and Israel’s El Al airline was aimed at
integrating airlines’ security concerns into theearly stages of the aircraft production process,187

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

with a view to providing a higher level of security at a lower cost (OECD 2002a).
A risk-assessment template should be developed to ensure that high-risk areas are targeted for special security programs. The measures adopted should be those that distort
trade the least and provide the greatest benefits, especially for exports from developing
nations. Since it is impossible to screen andinspect all containers, procedures to identify
high-risk containers—by detecting irregularities in shipping patterns—could be deployed.
Emphasis on detecting corrupt practices suchas bribery will be needed to prevent controls
from being evaded.
A formula for cost-sharing that is optimal
for all also must be developed. The Hong
Kong Shippers Council (HKSC) and theASEAN Federation of Forwarders Associations (AFFA) have urged USCS to subsidize
the cost of its new requirements and U.S. importers to share with Asian exporters the burden of providing information.
Caution must be exercised to ensure that
security barriers do not become trade barriers.
One possible solution may be a new intergovernmental program with the mandate to plan
coordinated and comprehensive trade-related
security programs. Such a program could ensure the win-win outcome that is achievable insecurity and trade, while recognizing the special needs of developing countries. The G-8, incooperation with developing countries, is one
logical forum for development of a coordinated “Action Plan for Security and Trade.”

The anticompetitive effects
of international transport
regulations

C

osts rise and fall with public policies andprivate practices. For a long time, manytransport services came under the aegis of public monopolies, and state-owned enterprises exerted a powerful force in the transport sectorsof many countries. Such public monopolies are
becoming increasingly difficult to jusify. Private
entry and competitive market structures have

188

proved viable for almost all transport modes
and generally have brought greater efficiency
and lower prices for consumers. However, public and private barriers remain pervasive in air
and maritime transport—restricting competition and increasing costs. In general, theyshould be replaced with systems that rely on
private provision of services.

International air transport services areheavily protected
Efficient air transportation is an important determinant of an economy’s export competitiveness. This is especially true for high-value, nonbulky manufactures, perishable horticulturaland agricultural products, and time-sensitive
intermediate inputs traded within international
production networks. Efficient air cargo services play a critical role in attracting investment—including foreign direct investment(FDI)—in these sectors, which can be an important source of employment and economic
growth.
The share of world trade shipped by air has
grown continuously over the past decades—
for example, from 7 percent of U.S. imports in1965 to 30 percent in 1998. In terms of tonmiles shipped worldwide, air cargo has grownby almost 10 percent annually from 1970 to
1996, while ocean shipping grew only 2.6 percent per year over the same period (WorldBank 2001). More than 20 percent of African
exports enter the United States by air, and, fora quarter of all product groups, the share of
air-shipped exports exceeds 50 percent.24
For many developing countries, the cost of
air transportation often far exceeds the costs
observed on developed-country routes. Amjadi
and Yeats (1995) found, for example, that
air transport costs made up between 10 and
50 percent of the value of African exports
to the United States, a much higher proportion than for U.S. imports from non-Africancountries.
High air freight rates on developing-country
routes are primarily due to two factors. First,
the cost of serving developing countries may behigher. Developing countries are farther from

R E D U C I N G

the world’s economic centers, increasing thecost of operating aircraft. And overall tradevolumes tend to be smaller on routes serving
less-developed countries, preventing operatorsfrom reaping economics of scale and scope.
Thin traffic densities also may adversely affect
the quality of air transportation, as services
may be offered less frequently. Second, different degrees of competition in the provision of
air services may affect the markup that air
cargo operators may be able to charge on aparticular route. The extent of competition
among cargo carriers again depends on traffic
volumes—as economies of scale and scope
limit the number of providers that can be sustained on a particular route. Competition also
may be influenced by government policies—inparticular, restrictive market-access agreements
for the provision of air transport.
In an econometric investigation conducted
for this report, we attempted to quantify thedeterminants of air transport costs using asample of 139 randomly selected city-pairroutes in the Western Hemisphere. Preliminary
results suggest that distance is a key determinant of international air cargo freight rates—
most likely due to the cost of fuel and thecapital cost of operating aircraft. Across the
sample, a one-percentage-point increase incity-pair distance leads to a 0.72 percent increase in prices—a higher distance elasticity
than that typically found for maritime transport. Countries located far from economic centers are therefore at a disadvantage.
Moreover, the investigation confirms that
there are sizeable economies of scale in theprovision of air transport. On average, a 10
percent increase in city-pair traffic volumes
leads to a drop of slightly more than 1 percent
in the observed freight rate. In view of thewide variance in freight traffic volumes, thescale effect can be quite large—and in mostcases it works against poorer nations. Finally,
competition among airlines is found to exert
downward pressure on freight rates. City-pairroutes on which more than two passenger airlines or dedicated freight airlines operateenjoy, on average, 10.7 percent lower prices.

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

Liberalizing air services can help
reduce costs—
What are the implications of these findings for
public policy? First, there remain significant
policy-induced barriers to competition in air
cargo services. The complex system of air service agreements (ASAs) still governs the market for international air cargo services. ASAs
are typically negotiated bilaterally, although
recent years have seen the emergence of regional arrangements. Among other things,
they designate the airlines allowed to operate
on city-pair routes and the number and frequency of flights they can operate.
Over time, ASAs have become increasingly
liberal. For example, the so-called Bermudatype agreements do not regulate capacity oneach route but allow the designated airlines tonegotiate the number and frequency of flights.
“Open skies” agreements are even less restrictive, allowing all airlines to fly on all routes
between two countries without any ex ante
controls on capacity.
More liberal ASAs can be a way of promoting competition and thus lowering air cargofreight rates. Moreover, greater freedom in designing air transport networks could allow airservice operators to reap greater economies ofscale and scope, offering additional cost savings. Indeed, it is thought that liberalization inprotected air service markets may lead to consolidation among airlines, as operators seek togenerate larger scale and network economies.
Consolidation may not necessarily be associated with lessened competition, as fewer operators may compete on a larger number of routes.
But it does suggest that liberalization needs tobe accompanied by competition policies that
ensure a review of mergers, acquisitions, andother forms of private cooperation on economic efficiency grounds (World Bank 2001).

—but important challenges remain
Notwithstanding the benefits of air-service liberalization, thin traffic densities and the associated lack of economies of scale are likely toremain a key obstacle to substantially lowering air cargo freight rates in the developing189

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4world. Moreover, liberalization may lead airlines to foster the adoption of hub-and-spoke
networks, which may lower prices on wellconnected hub routes but could actually raise
freight rates on thin spoke routes.
Overcoming these challenges may call for
broader policy reforms. Countries have longrecognized the need for universal service policies in a variety of service sectors to ensurethat remote and poor regions are offered services at affordable prices. These policies include special service obligations imposed on
operators, universal service funds, and various
forms of subsidies. The universal service concept could be extended by international action
to remote and poor countries within continents. The necessary action could come in theform of tax breaks offered by developed countries on air cargo service provided to certain
developing country locations or through theestablishment of an international fund for theprovision of universal air services.

Regulations in maritime transport also
restrict competition
Various trade barriers have been imposed oninternational maritime transport that protect
inefficient service providers and hamper effective competition. Public policy restrictions include cargo reservation schemes that requirepart of the cargo carried in trade with otherstates to be transported only by ships carrying
a national flag (or other ships deemed national

Table 5.1

by other criteria). Cargo sharing with trading partners can be done unilaterally, or on
the basis of bilateral and multilateral agreements. Although more and more countries
have phased out such requirements, countries
ranging from Benin to India still have in placereservation policies that at least nominally restrict the scope of trade.
Cooperative agreements among maritime
carriers on technical or commercial matters
are another type of practice that restrainscompetition. For example, liner conferenceagreements set uniform freight tariff rates andconditions of service, often employing exclusive contracts and other loyalty-inducing instruments to prevent the entry of outside shipping lines. Private cooperation can improve
network coordination, generate economies ofscope, and provide a wider range of services to
consumers of shipping lines. But a recent
study of the impact of price-fixing and cooperative working agreements on liner freightrates for U.S. imports, found that liberalization of certain port services would lead to an
average price reduction of 8 percent and costsavings of up to $850 million (Fink and others
2002a). Private practices continue to have astrong impact on liner freight rates; breaking
up carrier agreements could cause prices to decline further by 20 percent, with additional
cost savings of $2 billion (table 5.1).
Seaport services have recently witnessed atrend toward increased private-sector partici-

Elimination of anticompetitive private practices can cut costs drasticallyAverage percentage
price reduction
Projected total savings for all
U.S. imports(in millions of dollars)

Breakup of
price-fixing
agreements

Cumulative
effect of the
breakup of
private carrier
agreements

Cumulative
total effect

5.3

15.7

20.0

26.4

544.1

1618.42063.02712.5

Liberalizationof port services

Breakup ofcooperative
workingagreements

8.3

850.4

Note: The average percentage price reductions are computed from the sample of 59 countries included in the study, while the projected total savings apply to all U.S trading partners. Given the functional form of the underlying regression equation, theindividual effects do not sum to the cumulative effects. See Fink and others (2001) for additional explanatory notes.
Source: World Bank (2001).

190

R E D U C I N G

pation and greater competition within andamong ports. Different ownership and operation structures have emerged with respect toport management, provision of infrastructure,and the supply of services. With the emergenceof large global port operators, there is now agreater risk of abuse of market power—abuse
that could reduce the benefits gained fromport liberalization. Creating regulatory capacity and strengthening institutions is necessary
for the success of port reforms.

Trade facilitationTo be effective, trade-facilitation measures
must include or be accompanied by improvements in domestic regulatory procedures
and institutional structures. Above all, theymust include development assistance to raise
trade-related capacity—individual, institutional, and social—in developing nations. One
example of the need for capacity building andtechnical assistance in the trade-facilitation
agenda relates to the technology required forexpediting cargo clearance. International commerce depends increasingly on information
technology—most basically for the electronictransmission of trade information. Modern
customs methods of profiling consignments ortraders based on risk-assessment techniques
can help expedite cargo clearance. Compilinga unique set of computerized information foreach shipment enables data to be processed
before cargo arrives, thus expediting clearance
and speeding delivery.
Measures to speed the flow of goods andservices across international borders haveplayed a critical role in the expansion of global
trade over the past decades. Cross-border tradein raw materials, components, and intermediate goods by multinationals with integrated
production and distribution facilities now constitutes more than one-third of world trade.
This expansion would not have been possible
without precisely timed maritime container
services, express door-to-door delivery of air
freight, new information and communications
technologies, and other services. All parties to a

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Ytransaction gain from fast, easy, and low-cost
trading conditions.25

High logistic costs affect competitiveness
Although the incidence of logistics costs varies,
with some developing countries more efficientthan others in providing trade services, a study
by the United Nations Commission on Tradeand Development (UNCTAD) estimates that
average customs transactions in developing
countries involve 20 to 30 parties; 40 documents; and 200 data elements, 30 of which had
to be repeated at least 30 times. Subramanianand Arnold (2001) broke down the cost ofinternational shipment into five categories:
ocean freight, inland transport cost, and three
indicators of logistics costs—custom inspection, cargo handling and transfer, and processing of trade documentation. Their analysis
shows that logistics accounted for no less thana third of the cost of door-to-door shipment ofcontainerized carpets from Nepal to Germany
and teabags from India to the United Kingdom. Using a similar methodology, a WorldBank (1997) study of the performance ofBrazilian ports reported that per-container
costs for administrative procedures and customs clearance could be reduced by more than
20 percent (from $1,727 to $1,320) if international best practices were followed.
For small economies, higher logistics costs
translate directly into higher import and export
prices. To remain competitive in industries
where profit margins are thin, exporters must
either pay lower wages to workers, accept
lower returns on capital, or enhance productivity. The pressure on factory prices and productivity is even higher for countries exporting
products that have a high import content, suchas domestic export-oriented firms producing
garments or electronic final goods using imported materials—as is the case with many developing countries. In these cases, where small
differences in transaction costs can determine
whether the export venture is commercially
viable or not, logistical efficiency can mean
greater retention of the value-added benefits oftrade-led growth. Particularly in labor-intensive

191

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Box 5.2 The logistics needs of a German car partmanufacturer in TunisiaAs the subsidiary of a large German car part supplier, Leoni Tunisie S.A. produces cable and electronic components for Daimler Chrysler and other
European car manufacturers. The just-in-time supply
chains in the car industry put high demands in thelogistics system. Leoni has outsourced all logistics
needs to an international forwarder that has a legal
subsidiary in Tunisia.
A full production and logistics cycle lasts aboutnine days. Raw materials and intermediate products
are sourced from across Europe, Asia, and theUnited States. They are consolidated at Leoni’s headquarters in Germany and shipped to about a dozen
factories in various countries. Several trucks leave
Germany for Tunisia each week. The trailers arecleared and sealed by German customs on the firm’s
premises, where they are picked up by the logistics
provider. The forwarder drives the trailers to Genoa
or Marseilles (2–2.5 days), places them without adriver on RoRo ferries (20–24 hours by sea), claims
them at Rades’s port, and delivers them to a factoryin Sousse (2–3 hours by land). Once assembled, thefinished components are cleared by a Tunisian customs officer on the premises before they are sent on

their return journey. Eight trucks carrying approximately 350 tons of finished parts leave Tunisia eachweek. The company considers the chain to be efficient and reliable.
Even so, the just-in-time demands of the industry are posing a threat to Tunisia as a production
base—more and more clients require six-day cycles.
Because internal production processes have beenstreamlined, further time savings depend on logistics
efficiency. Leoni Tunisie recently lost an internal
company competition for a new factory with a potential for 1,700 jobs to Leoni’s Romanian subsidiary. The reasons cited for the loss were not wage
competitiveness or the investment environment—thecompany regards Tunisia as very competitive—butEastern Europe’s logistics advantage. The land journey between Romania and Germany takes one dayless in each direction. According to the CEO of
Leoni Tunisie, Tunisia will need to economize on logistics costs (including better air cargo connections
or high-speed ferries to Europe) if it is to retain its
competitive advantage in time-sensitive industries.
Source: Mueller-Jentsch (2002).

industries in developing countries, high transport costs may preclude wage growth, thus affecting the standard of living of workers.
A study that examined the effect of higher
shipping and port charges in the garment industry of Bangladesh estimated that exports
could rise by 30 percent, raising hard-currency
earnings by 125 percent, if port inefficiencies
were reduced. One recent estimate, based oncomparisons between air and ocean freightrates for U.S imports, puts the per-day cost for
shipping delays at 0.8 percent of the value of
trade for manufactured goods—with only asmall fraction attributable to the capital costsof the goods while on the ship (box 5.2).
Minimizing transit time is particularly important in modern commerce, given the trend
toward just-in-time production systems that192

enable firms to outsource stages of production to geographically dispersed locations. Research by Hummels (2001) showed that delivery times had a pronounced effect on imports
of intermediate products, suggesting that rapid
delivery of goods is crucial for the maintenanceof multinational vertical product chains. Hummels found that each day saved in shipping
time due to a faster transport mode and fastercustoms clearance was worth almost one percent, ad valorem, for manufactured goods. Uncertain order-to-delivery times impose implicit
production costs as well. If logistics services
are unreliable and infrequent, firms are likely
to maintain higher inventory holdings at every
stage of the production chain, requiring additional working capital. Forgone earnings canbe significant for firms in countries with high

R E D U C I N G

real interest rates. Gausch and Kogan (2001)
found that inventory holdings in the manufacturing sector in many developing countries are
two to five times higher than in the UnitedStates. Their estimates further show that developing countries could reduce the unit costof production by as much as 20 percent by reducing inventory holdings by half.

Better measures of trade facilitation are
yielding some positive results
With increased attention to the benefits of reducing nontransport barriers to trade, efforts
have been made to assess the importance oftrade facilitation. Because empirical measures oftrade facilitation are lacking, however, progresshas been limited.
Several recent studies quantify the benefitsof improved trade facilitation, modeled as a
reduction in the costs of international trade oras an improvement in the productivity of theinternational transportation sector. UNCTAD(2001) considers trade facilitation in the
broader context of creating an environment
conducive to developing e-commerce usage
and applications. The results show that a reduction of one percentage point in the cost ofmaritime and air transport services could increase Asian GDP by $3.3 billion.26 If tradefacilitation is expanded to include improvements in wholesale and retail trade services,an additional $3.6 billion could be gained bya one-percentage-point improvement in the
productivity of that sector. APEC (1999)
found that the shock-derived reduction intrade costs ranged from 1 percent of importprices for industrial countries and the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, to 2 percent for developing countries.27 The study
estimated that APEC merchandise exports
would increase by 3.3 percent from tradefacilitation efforts.
Empirical studies of the impact of enhanced
e-commerce and telecommunication access,
improved customs procedures, and harmonized or improved standards also demonstrate
the benefits of trade facilitation in specificT R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

fields. Freund and Weinhold (2000) found thata 10-percentage-point increase in the relative
number of web hosts in one country would
have increased trade flows by 1 percent in 1998
and 1999. Fink, Mattoo, and Neagu (2002b)
found that a 10 percent decrease in the bilateral calling price was associated with an 8 percent increase in bilateral trade.
Moenius (2000) estimated the effect of bilaterally shared and country-specific standards
on goods trade, finding that shared standards
generally promoted trade. Hertel, Walmsley,and Itakura (2001) quantified the impact on
trade of greater harmonization of e-businessstandards and of automating customs procedures between Japan and Singapore, concluding that such reforms would increase tradeflows between these countries as well as withthe rest of the world. In agricultural trade,
Wilson and Otsuki (2003) find that the major
exporters of nuts and cereals would gain
$38.8 billion if divergent national food-safety
standards relating to aflatoxins were replacedby the Codex international standard.

Those results show clearly that when tradeis facilitated, trade volumes rise
In their study of APEC manufacturing trade,
Wilson, Mann, and Otsuki (2003a) incorporate indicators linked to multiple categories oftrade facilitation into a single model, thus allowing a synthetic analysis that prioritizes
areas for reform. The authors estimate the relationship among four indicators and tradeflows using a gravity model.28 Wilson, Mann,and Otsuki (2003b) expand the scope of theanalysis to include 75 countries worldwide,
including 52 developing countries. The indicators in the analysis are:• Port efficiency (through measurementsof port infrastructure)• Customs environment (including nontariff fees)• Regulatory environment (including transparency of government policy and control on corruption)

193

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4• Use of e-commerce by businesses, aproxy for the service-sector infrastructure necessary to implement e-business.
The study estimates the potential increase intrade following improvements in each tradefacilitation area. The authors examine a scenario in which trade-facilitation capacity in
below-average countries is raised halfway to theaverage for the entire set of countries. This approach recognizes that in some countries tradeis already being facilitated at levels approaching
the global best, leaving little room for improvement, whereas in others a standardized improvement of, say, 10 percent in trade facilitation would be quite difficult, requiring
additional capacity-building assistance. Figure
5.3 illustrates the projected gain, by trade-facilitation indicator, for the 75 countries examined.
Preliminary findings suggest that better
trade facilitation would increase trade amongthe 75 countries by approximately $377 billion dollars—an increase of about 9.7 percent.
About $33 billion (0.8 percent) of the gain

Figure 5.3 Facilitating trade in lessefficient countries would bringsignificant gains
Trade gains from raising handling capacity in 75
below-average countries halfway to the global average(percent change and dollar gain)
4.5

160

4

140

3.5

120

3

Exportpromotion

2.5

100
80



2
Importpromotion

1.5
1
0.5

40
20



0

0
Ports

Customs Regulations Services

Source: Calculations based on table 4 in Wilson, Mann,and Otsuki (2003b).

194

60

would come from improved customs regimes,
and about $107 billion (2.8 percent) from
more efficient ports. But the largest gain—$154 billion, or 4.0 percent—would comefrom enhancing infrastructure in the services
sector (figure 5.3). Reforms and improvements affecting exports would have a greater
effect on trade growth than would changes affecting imports, suggesting that the exportpromotion effect of trade facilitation should
not be underestimated in designing capacitybuilding efforts.
The impact of individual trade-facilitation
measures differs significantly from region toregion, but improvements in service-sector infrastructure would provide the largest gain insum of imports and exports in all regions—particularly in South Asia (figure 5.4). The potential gains from improvements in port efficiency also are great—again, particularly inSouth Asia.
The gains to be expected from domestic reform alone (figure 5.5) show similar patterns
to those projected for global reforms, implying that priority areas for domestic reform areconsistent with reforms to raise capacity globally. In assigning priorities for capacity building, enhancing port efficiency and improving
service-sector infrastructure appear to be mostimportant for domestic and global action.

Reforming domestic policies
is indispensable
The benefits from investment in modern customs, port facilities, and new technology, however, can only be realized if an appropriate regulatory framework is in place. In this regard,
domestic reforms have an important role toplay, by making better use of existing resources
and improving the efficiency of services. Liberalization of transport and telecommunication
networks can help encourage domestic competition and produce substantial cost reductions.
Liberalization also offers the added advantage of widening the availability and choiceof services in many developing countries. As
discussed earlier, the prevalence of anticompetitive practices by transport service providers

R E D U C I N G

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

Figure 5.4 The impact of individual trade-facilitation measures differs significantly fromregion to region
Trade gains (exports plus imports) under the “halfway to average” scenario; gains from domestic and partners’ reforms(percent change)
20
18
16
14
Customs

12

Regulations

10
Ports

8
6

Services






4


2
0
OECD

East Asia

Europe andCentral Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Middle EastandNorth Africa

South Asia

Sub-SaharanAfricaSource: Wilson, Mann, and Otsuki (2003b).

calls for the development of efficiency-orientedcompetition policies. Replacement of inefficient public monopolies in international transport systems with private operators can thusincrease competition.
Cross-country comparisons provided in
Wilson, Mann, and Otsuki (2003b) reveal significant difference in countries’ potential for
gains from trade facilitation. Guatemala, forexample, has great potential to reap trade gains
by reforming its service-sector infrastructure.
In contrast, the potential importance of regulatory reform predominates in Indonesia. In
Nigeria, reform of the customs system would
have the most productive outcome. In all countries, domestic reform would have greater impact on total trade than would reforms by trading partners.

Trade facilitation and the
WTO agenda

T

he Singapore Ministerial Declaration in
1996 empowered the WTO for the firsttime to look at trade facilitation in a compre-

hensive fashion.29 Exploratory work on the
trade-facilitation agenda centered on ways tosimplify trade procedures, to harmonize themto conform to a rule-based multilateral framework, and to integrate the work of other international organizations involved in tradefacilitation into the WTO framework. But
progress on trade facilitation at WTO’s next
two ministerial conferences was limited.30

The Doha Declaration raised the issueof negotiations on trade facilitation
The Doha ministerial raised the possibility oflaunching multilateral negotiations on tradefacilitation at the Cancun ministerial meetingin September 2003.31 The “Doha agenda” ontrade facilitation referenced simplifying trade
procedures, enhancing technical assistance andcapacity building, and recognizing limitations
in capacity associated with a country’s level ofdevelopment. The Doha ministerial declaration was explicit in recognizing the need to increase trade-related capacity in developing
countries and address the issue of implementation costs associated with capacity building,195

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 5.5 Domestic reforms alone would produce many of the same gains as global reform
Trade gains (exports plus imports) under the “halfway to average” scenario; gains from domestic reforms only
(percent change)
16
14
12
10

Regulations

8

Customs

6

Ports

Services




4




2
0
OECD

East Asia

Europe andCentral Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Middle EastandNorth Africa

South Asia

Sub-SaharanAfricaSource: Wilson, Mann, and Otsuki (2003b).

particularly in developing and least-developed
countries.
Some proposals under discussion envisage
either building new or strengthening existing
rules and principles of transparency, simplification, efficiency, proportionality, nondiscrimination, and due process within the country forindependent litigations involving trade disputes, as well as recourse to the WTO Dispute
Settlement Undertaking, if need be, to ensure
nondiscriminatory treatment of traders in member countries.
Not everyone agrees that trade facilitation
measures should be on the agenda at Cancun.
Proposals advanced by the proponents of arules-based approach to trade facilitation focus
on the role and importance of the WTO. Are
national governments free, they ask, to follow
the recommendations of the WCO’s revised
Kyoto convention on customs procedures? Arethey likely to do so? Or should these recommendations be a reference point for WTO
rules?32 The WTO has many more members
than WCO, the proponents point out, and therevised recommendations of the Kyoto con-196

vention have not been ratified by all WCO
member countries. To the proponents, a binding framework would help establish effective
compliance with the recommendations of therevised Kyoto convention.
The challenges to negotiations on trade facilitation center on two concerns. First, it is
not clear that binding multilateral rules oncustoms and border-crossing procedures are
actually needed; implementing institutionalchanges requires country ownership and voluntary actions. Second, it is not clear that any
new rules could be enforced through conventional dispute-settlement proceedings andpenalties, since violations of those rules often
stem from the limited capacity of governments
to meet their obligations. Rules alone are not
likely to produce the desired reforms or modernizations. Those depend on capacity building,and capacity building depends on resources—financial and other.
Simplifying administrative and procedural
requirements in customs and border-crossing
procedures—unlike negotiations on tariff cuts,for example—depends directly on improve-

R E D U C I N G

ments in physical infrastructure, institutional
reform, and other complex development objectives that typically involve large commitments of resources for training and capital
equipment. In an environment of constrained
resources, expenditures on such improvements
must be made in accordance with the priorities of the national development strategies.

The trade-facilitation agenda requires
a broad multilateral effort
Trade facilitation necessarily involves both infrastructure investments and revisions in legal
frameworks, technology training, and othermeasures. A little capacity building could go along way. Expediting customs clearance procedures by providing transparent and clear guidelines, for example, reduces the discretionary
power of customs officials, thereby reducing
the scope for corruption by establishing a rightof independent judicial appeal (box 5.3). Assistance to modernize customs procedures by upgrading information technology and applying
risk-based criteria in reviews of documentationand cargo, allowing for self-assessment andaudit-based (as opposed to transactions-based)
release of goods can also have high payoffs(box 5.4).
Because behind-the-border policies affectcross-border trade, trade-related capacity

Box 5.3

E

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

building must have a broad scope. The procedural and administrative burdens on traders
are often aggravated by overlapping and duplicative informational requirements from several ministries, departments, or agencies. New
ways of minimizing such requirements include
the single-window concept: official controls areadministered by a single agency. This and other
innovations often require coordination of several government agencies, as well as changes
in domestic regulatory procedures and institutional structures.
Multilateral agreement on standards oftransparency and acceptable fees as well as
new ways to publish and disseminate applicable trade laws, rules, fees, and schedules—perhaps through a new information clearinghouseor inquiry center for WTO members—could
help countries facilitate trade. Discussions also
could include development of harmonized andquantifiable measures of “timely release ofgoods.” Consideration of wider use of the “supplier’s declaration of conformity” with technical regulations for low-risk goods—along witha parallel program to expand information technology systems and databases—could decrease
and simplify documentation requirements.
Strengthening the provisions of GATT Article
V (Freedom of Transit) could be particularly
beneficial to land-locked countries.

Tackling corruption in customs: Peru

liminating customs corruption in Peru requiredchanges in laws, regulations, and humanresources policy.
After firing corrupt employees, the Peruvian customs service established a uniform code of conductand contracted with a university to develop tests of
employee competence. Continued employment wascontingent on passing the tests. Although substantial
pressure was exerted on the customs service to rehire
discharged employees, it was able to resist the pressure with support from government allies. As a resultof these efforts, employee corruption decreased,
while competence levels improved. Salaries ofretained personnel were increased by nearly 10 times
the previous salaries.
To increase the competence of customs officers,
hiring for professional positions was limited to university graduates. The service established a training
academy, offering up to one year of training to new
and incumbent employees. In addition to these efforts, customs embarked on a program to bring new
skills and knowledge to the organization throughexternal recruitment of mid-career professionals—
economists, auditors, statisticians, and information
technology experts.
Source: Wilson et. al (2002).

197

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 5.4

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Customs reform in LebanonLebanon’s ongoing customs reform project is partof a fiscal reform project under the sponsorshipof the United Nations Development Programme andthe World Bank. An inefficient customs service haslong been a major logistical bottleneck in Lebanon.
Procedures were nontransparent and time-consuming. Most of the 7–12 days needed for container delivery were due to customs delays. Such deficiencies
not only imposed unnecessary economic costs but
also bred corruption.
Under the reform project, customs clearance was
reduced from 13 to 5 basic steps—entry and acceptance of declaration, inspection of goods for verification of declared information, assessment of information, automatic calculation of taxes, and payment oftaxes. Clearance procedures were then aligned withinternational procedures, with UN and EU standards
translated into Arabic for the first time. A one-pageadministrative document replaced 26 complex andoutdated forms. These reforms enabled the clearance
process to be computerized, with a new software

program monitoring the days required for clearance.
The computerization process was accompanied bystaff training and a restructuring of work procedures.
Clearance operations were set up on the shop floorsof some of the main importers and exporters, withinspectors using risk-assessment criteria to conduct
selective inspections. To inform users of their rights
and responsibilities and to further streamline the inspection process, the customs service published asummary of its border regulations.
Preliminary results of the ongoing reform indicate that although the percentage of consignments
cleared without inspection had quadrupled between
1997 and 1999 (from 10 to 40 percent) and the average days needed for clearance had declined from six
to four as a result of more selective testing, the average rate of tariff collection remained constant.

Source: Mueller-Jentsch (2002).

Any negotiation on trade-facilitation measures, however, must carefully consider how the
WTO’s dispute-settlement provisions could betailored to ensure that the capacity constraintsof developing countries are taken into accountwhen enforcing commitments undertaken by
governments. Important capacity-building work
done by several institutions outside the WTO
framework provides a model for a future multilateral agenda to raise trade-facilitation capacity in developing countries. It is difficult tosee how this level of institutional change andassistance coordination could be “enforced”
through dispute settlement mechanisms.

Lowering transport costs,
increasing security, andfacilitating tradeT

he costs of moving goods across international borders are a crucial determinant ofa country’s export competitiveness. Every day
spent in customs adds almost 1 percent to the198

costs of goods. High costs also result from regulations and practices that impede effective
competition in international transport systems.

Open skies and universal service canlower international transport costs fordeveloping countries
Improving competition in air transport will require revisions in air service agreements to reduce barriers to entry into markets. Moving
progressively toward “open skies” agreements
would allow all airlines to fly on all routes between two countries without any ex ante controls on capacity. This would lower air cargofreight rates and could allow air service operators to obtain greater economies of scale andscope, offering additional cost savings. It may
well be that liberalization in protected air service markets may lead to consolidation among
airlines, as operators seek to generate larger
scale and network economies. (Consolidation
may not necessarily reduce competition, however, as fewer operators may compete on a

R E D U C I N G

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

larger number of routes.) Even with open entry,
thin traffic densities and the associated lack of
economies of scale are likely to remain key obstacles to lowering air freight rates in the developing world. If liberalization leads airlines
to adopt hub-and-spoke networks, prices could
fall on well-connected hub routes, while risingon some spoke routes. To reduce this risk bycross-subsidizing transport to remote and poor
areas within continents, the concept of universal service should be embraced internationally.
Rich countries could offer tax breaks on air
cargo service provided to certain developing
country locations. Alternatively, an international fund for the provision of universal air
services could be established.
For maritime transport, one avenue to improvement would be to subject the industry to
MFN treatment in routes as part of the larger
GATS discussion on services. Doing so would
undermine the competition-restricting liner
codes that prevent new entries in designatedshipping routes. Another avenue would be toreview exemptions in U.S. and EU antitrust
law for maritime transport.

dependence and linkages among different
transport modes call for a coordinated approach to security among sectors and modes.
Regional and bilateral partnerships among
countries can strengthen channels for information exchange and cooperation in training andsharing of best practices, resulting in mutual
enhancement of security efforts. Other regions
could follow APEC’s lead by looking for ways
to design collaborative programs with the private sector to implement security measures.
Third, a risk-assessment template would
ensure that high-risk areas are targeted forspecial security programs. The measures
adopted should be those that distort trade theleast and provide the greatest benefits, especially for exports from developing nations.
Fourth, a formula for cost-sharing must be
developed. The Hong Kong Shippers Council (HKSC) and the ASEAN Federation of
Forwarders Associations (AFFA) have urged
the USCS to subsidize the cost of its new
requirements and U.S. importers to sharewith Asian exporters the burden of providing
information.

Security can be increased without
jeopardizing trade flows fromdeveloping countries

Trade facilitation depends on capacity
building and development assistance

Even though the costs of compliance with new
security measures could be large and disproportionate for smaller countries, all participants in the global trading system have an incentive to invest in counterterrorism. Suchinvestments are likely to pay off in the longrun through efficiency gains, better management of information, and greater use of electronic commerce. To ensure that they do, several steps must be taken.
First, technical assistance must be increased.
The IMO, ICAO, and other organizations
should step up their technical cooperation efforts to provide more training in risk assessment, customs administration, and infrastructure planning in their client countries.
Second, nations must coordinate trade-related actions not only with other countries, butalso with their own private sectors. The inter-

S E C U R I T Y

Capacity building and development assistanceare necessary if countries are to make the mostof trade-facilitation measures—whether thosemeasures stem from security imperatives ormultilateral trade talks. Attempts to build tradecapacity may require several elements—frombuilding basic transport infrastructure to making legislative changes and training regulators.
Some developing countries may require only
technical assistance to expedite cargo clearance
through electronic trade documentation. Others will need much more help. No single package will meet the needs of all countries.
Whether or not trade facilitation becomespart of multilateral trade negotiations, measures that lower transport costs, remove barriers to goods and services moving across borders, and build capacity in trade facilitationmust be pursued. Success will depend first on
governments and the private sector in devel-

199

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

oping countries, but also on the G-8, UN
agencies, the WCO, the World Bank, and otherinternational development institutions. Multilateral efforts to support domestic policy reform and institutional improvements in developing countries are particularly important if
investments in trade facilitation are to yield
their full potential—a potential that is great
indeed.

Notes
1. These sections draw on Wilson and others(2002), among other sources.
2. A study of the effect of security on private investment and growth by Poirson (1998) spanning 53
developing countries from 1984–95 indicates that enhanced security fosters private investment and growthin developing economies. Private investment in the
short run increased by 0.5 to 1 percentage point ofGDP, in relatively insecure countries that adopted security measures to the levels in “best practice” regions.
Moreover, economic growth received a boost by 0.5 to
1.25 percentage points per year in the long term.
3. The newly created Department of Homeland Security includes Customs, Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), Border Patrol, and the federal Agricultural Inspection Service. The Department provided$170 million in port security grants in June 2003.
Under discussion is a plan that would include an additional $1 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, $200 million to $700 million more for
the Coast Guard, and an increase in federal grants tolocal police and fire departments for counterterrorism
training.
4. Some overseas suppliers are covered under the
C-TPAT because they are subsidiaries of U.S. companies enrolled in the initiative.
5. The Swedish port of Goteborg has become thetwelfth to join the Container Security Initiative (as of
May 2003). Those already participating include: Rotterdam, LeHavre, Bremerhaven, Hamburg, and Antwerp in Europe; Singapore, Hong Kong, and Yokohama in Asia; and Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax
in Canada. These ports are at different stages of implementation of the CSI framework. CSI is now moving
into its second phase, which will include Turkey, Dubai,
and about 20 other nations in Asia, Latin America,
Europe, and Africa.
6. On a related note, Europe’s largest air cargo carriers, which are calling for a level playing field among
the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world as

200

far as security and its costs are concerned, criticized
U.S. government aid of $10 billion to its airlines toconform to increased security measures. European carriers believe that the aid has helped U.S. carriers slashrates on very competitive North Atlantic routes.
7. Another proposal under consideration is the filing of a bill of lading by U.S. Agricultural exporters 24hours before loading the containerized freight.
8. The Agricultural Ocean Transport Coalition has
urged Customs to require no more than 12 hours advance notice for agricultural products and 6 hours for
perishable products.
9. U.S. VISIT, a new entry-exit system to be installed in U.S. airports and seaports by January 1, 2004,
will be based on visas that include biometric features
such as fingerprints and photographs to identify foreign
visitors. The EU has also earmarked Euro 140 million
to fund biometric identification technology for visas.
10. A U.S.-EU dilemma arose over reservation
records demanded by the United States that violated
EU’s data privacy rules. An interim agreement wasreached, after the United States assured the European
airlines of “appropriate handling” of the records,
which include not only names but also the passenger’s
itinerary, contact phone number, and other details,
such as credit card numbers.
11. The United States has initiated “smart border”
programs with Canada and Mexico, that use modern
technology to enhance security and expedite movement
across borders.
12. Canada levied a C$24 (US$15) Air Traveller’s
Security Charge on all round-trip tickets in April 2002,
to finance the increased airport security measures. The
tax—the highest security tax in the world—contributed
to a 10.2 percent decline in passenger traffic acrossCanada since the beginning of 2002, and resulted in asteep fall of 50 percent on some short routes.
13. Recognizing the lack of resources to buy newtechnology, the United States intends to provide financing to developing countries with transportation
security projects. Two security experts from the UnitedStates have arrived in Indonesia to assist in upgradingcargo security and assess the implementation of security measures at the country’s seaports and airports.
The United States announced a joint initiative withThailand to transform Laem Chabang port into a safe
transportation port.
14. Given that a ship carries thousands of containers at any time, inspection of the cargo could cause delays. While the scanning process is quite fast, the problem lies with the turnaround time of the containers
targeted for scanning. It would take time to transport
the container to and from the scanning area, and con-

R E D U C I N G

tainers that are late for loading would tie up haulingequipment and reduce stowage efficiency.
15. In other developments:• The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
and Transport (MLIT) is set to introduce antiterrorist legislation that will prevent foreign
ships from entering Japanese ports unless they
have a security crew on board and can provide
identification.
• Hong Kong’s customs authorities have created aterrorist response system, acquiring mobile x-ray
machines and a radiation detector to scan cargo
and beefing up its intelligence capabilities withmore staff and equipment.
• The ICAO has adopted resolutions designed toassure the safety of passengers, ground crew personnel, and the public. Its Regulated Agent Regime requires parties in the flight chain to implement measures to strengthen air-cargo security.
• The Australian government’s Aviation Transport
Security Bill aims to provide screening of all baggage checked on international flights. A $100
million federal plan to protect the nation’s maritime gateways also has been enacted.
• The New Zealand government will be allocating$5.9 million next year and $1.9 million in futureyears to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs andTrade, for security.
16. A recent online survey by BDP International indicated by a three to two margin that exporters believed
the implementation of the 24-hour rule would enhance
security. About 23 percent of those surveyed said thatthe impact was extreme, 30 percent reported moderate
to significant costs of compliance, half did not know
how to recover costs, and 42 percent plan to absorb expenses. With respect to implementation of the advance
manifest filing rule, USCS has issued less than 400 “NoLoad” directives for violations of cargo description requirements in its first three months of enforcement.
17. Tea money refers to the use of illegal or unfair
means, such as bribery to gain an advantage in business. Ports and airports all over the world are places
where tea money comes in handy to expedite deliveries
and shipments.
18. Estimates by Leonard were made soon after the
events and could reflect the major disruptions faced
during the period.
19. This figure is comparable to the estimates of$30–58 billion losses for the insurance industry by theOECD (2002b).
20. The authors employ four alternative scenarios
to quantify the trade and welfare impacts, in which all
frictional costs are increased by 1 percent ad valorem.

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y

However, assumptions are made regarding such increases as varying across regions and sectors according
to exposure to terrorism risks following the September 11 attacks. For example, high-risk regions (North
America, Middle East, North Africa) are assumed to experience increases in frictional costs that are two and ahalf times as high as cost increases in low risk regions.
The figure shows only the uniform increase in frictionalcosts to trade.
21. Since a large part of the airfreight is transported
in the bellies of passenger planes, a cutback in passenger flights has an impact on cargo.
22. Australia and New Zealand are strengthening
their Pacific regions border control relationship by cooperating and exchanging information regarding
smuggling, air and sea cargo security approaches,
SARS, and general border protection issues.
23. In its “Cargo Security White Paper,” the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association ofAmerica (NCBFAA) has outlined ways for the tradingindustry to assess risks, build information links to help
government officials, and use technology to improvecargo security. It recommends building a “chain of custody dataset” to verify people connected to a shipment
and assess cargo security throughout the supply chain.
24. See Amjadi and Yeats (1995).
25. This part draws extensively from the WTO(1999).
26. See UNCTAD 2001, table 8, page 33.
27. APEC (1999).
28. See Global Competitiveness Report 2001–2002,
World Competitiveness Yearbook 2001–2002, andKaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobaton (2002), for thelist of countries in the dataset.
29. The ICC, a nongovernmental organization thathas long advocated trade facilitation, promoted thesubject on the WTO agenda at the Singapore ministerial meeting.
30. The Ministerial conference in Geneva (1998)
concentrated on the perceived threat to the global
economy due to the ensuing Asian financial crisis. Although there were several proposals in favor of andagainst launching trade negotiations in the period prior
to the Singapore ministerial meeting in 1999, trade facilitation was overshadowed by other events at the
Seattle ministerial (Woo 2002).
31. The Doha declaration states: “Recognizing thecase for further expediting the movement, release, andclearance of goods, including goods in transit, and theneed for enhanced technical assistance and capacity
building in this area, we agree that negotiations willtake place after the fifth session of the ministerial on
the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consen-

201

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4sus, at the session on the modalities of the negotiations.
In the period until the fifth session, the Council for
Trade in Goods shall review and, as appropriate, clarify and improve relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII, and
X of the GATT 1994 and identify the trade-facilitationneeds and priorities of members, in particular developing and least-developed economies. We commit ourselves to ensuring adequate technical assistance andsupport capacity building in this area.” WTO (2001).
32. See WTO (2002) and Messerlin and Zarrouk(2000).

References
Amjadi and Yeats. 1995. “Have Transportation Costs
Contributed to the Relative Decline of Sub-SaharanAfrican Exports? Some Preliminary Evidence.”
World Bank Working Paper 1559.
APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation). 1999. “Assessing APEC Trade Liberalization and Facilitation.” Update, Economic Committee. September.
Fink, Carsten, Aaditya Mattoo, and Ileana Cristina
Neagu. 2002a. “Trade in International Maritime
Services: How Much Does Policy Matter?” WorldBank Economic Review 16(1): 81–108.
———. 2002b. “Assessing the Impact of Communication Cost on International Trade.” World Bank
Working Paper 2929.
Freund and Weinhold. 2000. “On the Effect of the Internet on International Trade.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International
Discussion Paper 693.
Gausch and Kogan. 2001. “Inventories in Developing
Countries: Levels and Determinants, a Red Flag
on Competitiveness and Growth.” World Bank
Working Paper 2552.
Hertel, T., T. Walmsley, and K. Ikatura. 2001. “Dynamic Effects of the ‘New Age’ Free Trade Agreement between Japan and Singapore.” Journal of
Economic Integration 24: 1019–49.
Hummels, D. 2001. “Time as a Trade Barrier.” Unpublished. Department of Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobaton. 2002. “Governance Matters II: Updated Indicators for 2000–01.”
World Bank Working Paper 2772.
Leonard, J. 2001. “Impact of the September 11, 2001,
Terrorist Attacks on North American Trade
Flows.” E – Alert, Manufacturers Alliance, Arlington, Virginia.
Messerlin, Patrick A., and Jamel Zarrouk. 2000.
“Trade Facilitation: Technical Regulations andCustoms Procedures.” The World Economy 23(4): 577–593.

202

Mueller-Jentsch, Daniel. 2002. Transport Policies for
the Euro-Mediterranean Free-Trade Area. An
Agenda for Multi-modal Transport Reform in theSouthern Mediterranean. World Bank TechnicalPaper 527. Washington, D.C.
Moenius, Johannes. 2000. “Three Essays on Trade
Barriers and Trade Volumes.” Ph.D. dissertation.
University of California, San Diego.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Development andCo-operation). 2002a. “The Impact of the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September 2001 on International Trading and Transport Activities.” Unclassified Document TD/TC/WP (2002)9/Final. Paris.
———. 2002b. “Economic Consequences of Terrorism.” OECD Economic Outlook 71: 117–40.
Paris.
Poirson. 1998. “Economic Security, Private Investment
and Growth in Developing Countries.” IMF
Working Paper WP/98/04.
Reddy, R. 2002. “Friction over Security Gaps,” Intelligent Enterprise. October 8 (Available at http://
www.intelligententerprise.com/021008/516
infosc1-1.shtml)
Subramanian U., and J. Arnold. 2001. Forging Subregional Links in Transportation and Logistics inSouth Asia. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
UNCTAD (United Nations Commission on Trade andDevelopment). 2001. E-Commerce and Development Report.
Walkenhorst, Peter, and Nora Dihel. 2002. “Trade Impacts of the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September
2001: A Quantitative Assessment.” Paper prepared
for the Workshop on The Economic Consequencesof Global Terrorism. Berlin, June 12–13.
Wilson, John S., and Tsunehiro Otsuki. 2003. “FoodSafety and Trade: Winners and Losers in a Nonharmonized World.” Journal of Economic Integration 18 (2): 266–87.
Wilson, John S., Catherine L. Mann, and Tsunehiro
Otsuki. 2003a. “Trade Facilitation and Economic
Development: Measuring the Impact.” Working
Paper 2933. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
———. 2003b. “Trade Facilitation and Capacity
Building: Global Perspective.” Unpublished. World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, John S., Catherine L. Mann, Yuen Pau Woo,
Nizar Assanie, and Inbom Choi. 2002. Trade Facilitation: A Development Perspective in the AsiaPacific Region. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
Woo, Yuen Pau. 2002. “Trade Facilitation in the
WTO: Singapore to Doha and Beyond.” In Will
Martin and Mari Pangestu, eds., Options for the
Next Trade Round: View from East Asia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

R E D U C I N GWorld Bank. 1997. “Multilateral Freight Transport:
Selected Regulatory Issues.” Report 16361-BR.
———. 2001. Global Economic Prospects 2002: Making Trade Work for the World’s Poor. Washington, D.C.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1999. “Development Aspects of Trade Facilitation.” WT/COMTD/
W/57. Geneva.

T R A D I N GC O S T S

I N

A

N E W

E R A

O F

S E C U R I T Y———. 2001. “Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration.”
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. Geneva. November.
———. 2002. “Compendium of WCO Capacity Building Tools.” G/C/W/445. Geneva.

203

6
Development and theDoha Agenda

T

he challenges confronting developing
countries seeking to expand their international trade are primarily domestic.
Countries that have expanded their share of
global markets have generally shared certain
conditions: a progressively more open domestic trade regime; a supportive investment climate; and complementary policies relating to
education, health, and infrastructure. Most of
this agenda is national and requires domestic
policies to deal with prevailing constraints toincreasing trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiating agenda is necessarily
limited to a narrow subset of issues that overlaps only partially with priority development
concerns for most countries (Finger 2001).
In this sense, the WTO is not a comprehensive development institution. It is a negotiating forum in which governments make trade
policy commitments that improve access toeach others’ markets and establish rules governing trade. Developing countries can gainfrom both functions: first, because trade openness, growth, and poverty reduction are mutually reinforcing; and, second, because a rulesbased world trading system protects small
players that have little ability to influence thepolicies of large countries. Rules can reduce
uncertainty by placing mutually agreed limits
on the policies that governments may adopt—
thus potentially helping to increase domestic
investment and lower risks.

Historically, many WTO rules evolved to reflect the perceived interests of developed countries in an era when the participation of developing countries was limited. Many rules reflect
the status quo practices that have already been
adopted in industrial countries. The wider latitude accorded agricultural subsidization reflects the use of such support policies in many
developed countries. The same is true for thepermissive approach historically taken toward
the use of import quotas on textile products—
in principle prohibited by General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rules. New disciplines adopted in the WTO often mirror regulatory practices of rich countries. For example,
the recent inclusion of rules on the protectionof intellectual property rights has led to the perception that the WTO contract demands regulatory changes in developing countries without
any corresponding changes in regulatory policies in industrial countries.1
As developing countries have become more
actively involved in the WTO, the challenge isto design rules that promote development.
Meeting that challenge means evaluating theimplications of various ways to achieve thisobjective. Rarely is this a straightforward
process, especially when it comes to the“behind-the-border” regulatory policies thatare increasingly the subject of multilateral discussions. Negotiating pro-development rulesin such a context requires the active engagement of developing countries.

205

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The developing countries’ traditional approach has been to seek differential treatment.
“Special and differential treatment” (SDT) provisions in the WTO span three core areas: preferential access to developed-country markets,
typically without reciprocal commitments fromdeveloping countries; exemptions or deferrals
from some WTO rules; and technical assistanceto help implement WTO mandates. What constitutes a developing country is not defined in
the WTO—a country’s status is a matter of selfdeclaration. All in all, the current system has
not worked especially well, and many countries
are seeking a new approach.

Trade preferences have been disappointing
in delivering market access: the dilemma
Developed countries grant preferences voluntarily rather than as part of a binding multilateral negotiation. Those preferences often comeladen with restrictions, product exclusions, andadministrative rules. Preference programs often
cover only a share of exports from developing
countries, and among those eligible countries
and products, only a fraction of preferences are
actually utilized. Products and countries with
export potential often do not receive preferences, whereas eligible countries and productcategories often lack export capacity.
Another problem is that preferences, evenwhen effective, are likely to divert trade awayfrom other excluded developing countries because the exports of developing countries tend
to overlap more with each other than withthose of developed countries.
Finally, preferences do little to help the
majority of the world’s poor. Most of thoseliving on less than $1 per day live in countries
like China, India, Pakistan, and Associationof Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member
countries, which receive limited preferencesin products in which they have a comparativeadvantage. Meanwhile, many middle-income
countries justify relatively high barriers to tradeon SDT grounds, to the detriment of poorer developing countries whose access is impeded.

206

Nondiscriminatory trade liberalization
for poor countries—and poor people—
is critical
Recent initiatives by developed countries to extend duty- and quota-free market access for the
least developed countries (LDCs) could, if fully
implemented, make preferences more effective.
But because offering deep, unilateral preferences to larger countries is not politically feasible, preferences can do little for the majority ofthe poor in non-LDCs. Providing opportunity
for all of the world’s poor, therefore, requires
multilateral, nondiscriminatory liberalizationof trade, so that all developing countries candevelop their comparative advantage. Mostof the gains from trade liberalization result
from a country’s own reforms. As reciprocity
in the exchange of liberalization commitments
is the engine of the WTO process, both lowand middle-income countries should harness
reciprocity to gain market access.
Elements of a development-supportive trade
regime would include a binding commitment
by developed countries to abolish export subsidies, decouple agricultural support, and significantly reduce—or eliminate—tariffs on
products of export interest to developing countries. Negotiations should target tariff peaks,
specific tariffs, and tariff quotas, while aiming
for a significant overall reduction in the average level of applied tariffs. The pursuit of theseobjectives would be more supportive of development than one that continues to emphasize
nonreciprocal preferential access to markets.

Negotiating WTO rules that support
development is a major challenge
Trade-policy disciplines that can be implemented through a stroke of pen, such as tariff
reductions, are fundamentally different from
regulatory disciplines and administrative rulesthat require institutional changes. In contrast
to tariff reforms, administrative rules may
require substantial resources to establish or
strengthen implementing institutions. Domestic rules and regulations must be customized toD E V E L O P M E N T

local circumstances. Thus, rules relating to regulatory practices are unlikely to be a development priority for every country, nor are thebenefits to global partners likely to be proportional in all countries. The experience after the
Uruguay Round with implementation of agreements by developing countries has demonstrated that limiting recognition of differential
capacities and levels of development to uniform transition periods is inadequate, as are
nonbinding offers of technical assistance. Allowing for greater differentiation among developing countries in determining the reach of
WTO rules is important.

Aid for trade must be complemented byaction in developing countries
Development assistance must play an important role in helping to expand and improve thetrade capacity needed for countries to benefit
from better access to markets. Low-income
countries confront many challenges in identifying and addressing trade-related policy andpublic investment priorities. Those priorities
should be made explicit in the form of a national development strategy. That strategy, not
a WTO agenda, should drive technical andfinancial assistance. Diagnostic trade-integration studies completed for several LDCs revealthat action is required in areas lying far beyond the scope of WTO agreements. Trade facilitation and logistics are especially important. Additional development assistance could
help low-income countries address such priorities. Such assistance should also help countries adjust and adapt to a gradual reduction
in trade preferences and address the effects ofpossible increases in world food prices.

Special and differential treatment
and the WTOT

he idea that developing countries should
receive SDT has a long history in the
GATT/WTO system. It has three related dimensions. First, for certain products, develop-

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

ing countries are granted access to developedcountry markets at tariffs lower than the mostfavored-nation (MFN) rates through policies
such as the Generalized System of Preferences(GSP). Second, they may be temporarily exempted from certain disciplines or granted
greater discretion to apply restrictive trade
policies. Third, they may request technical assistance from high-income countries to implement trade rules and related reforms.
The intellectual foundation of SDT was laidin the 1960s by Raoul Prebisch and Hans
Singer, who argued that developing-country
exports were concentrated mainly in commodities with volatile and declining terms oftrade. They called for import-substitution policies, supported by protection of infant industries at home, and preferential access to export
markets. Although the rationale for these policies remains controversial (see, for example,
Bhagwati 1988), in 1968 the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was launched under
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) auspices. This calledon developed countries to provide preferential access to developing-country exports on a
voluntary basis.2 Because GSP programs violate the GATT’s MFN rule, GATT contracting
parties waived the MFN requirement in 1971
for 10 years, thereby placing GSP within the
GATT framework. In 1979, at the conclusionof the Tokyo Round, permanent legal coverfor the GSP was obtained through the socalled Enabling Clause,3 which called for preferential market access for developing countries
and limited reciprocity in GATT negotiatingrounds to levels “consistent with development
needs.” It also confirmed that developing
countries should have greater freedom to use
restrictive trade policies. An important featureof the Enabling Clause was that SDT was to bephased out when countries reached a certain
level of development. That level was never defined, however, leaving eligibility for tradepreferences to the discretion of preferencegranting countries.

207

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4The existence of the GSP and limited reciprocity in GATT negotiations affected thepatterns of MFN trade liberalization in boththe Kennedy (1964–67) and Tokyo Rounds(1973–79) (see chapters 2 and 3). The end result was larger tariff reductions in goods primarily of export interest to industrialized
economies.4 Average levels of trade protection
in developing countries were reduced relatively little. Lack of engagement by developing
countries also facilitated the emergence of restrictive quota regimes for textiles under theMulti-fiber Arrangement (MFA) and the effective removal of GATT disciplines on agriculture-related trade policies (Hudec 1987).
Under the pre-WTO trade regime, new rules
extending the original GATT treaty were applied on a voluntary basis. Extensions werecalled “codes,” whose disciplines bound only
the contracting parties that signed them (Hoekman and Kostecki 2001). This approach to rule
extension was removed with the creation of theWTO. In contrast to the GATT, all WTO
agreements and disciplines, with the exceptionof rules on government procurement and tradein civil aircraft, apply to all members regardlessof level of development—although in manycases transition periods apply to developing
countries. A consequence of this so-called Single Undertaking and the expansion in the coverage of multilateral rules to new areas, suchas intellectual property and trade in services,
was that developing-country governments wereconfronted with a significant implementation
agenda as well as new policy constraints.5
In the runup to WTO’s 1999 Seattle ministerial meeting, SDT and implementation concerns figured prominently. The 2001 Doha
Ministerial Declaration emphasized the importance of SDT, stating that “provisions for special and differential treatment are an integral
part of the WTO agreements.” Paragraph 44
called for a review of SDT provisions with aview to “strengthening them and making themmore precise, effective, and operational.” On
the basis of this mandate, developing countries
made over 85 suggestions to strengthen SDT

208language in various WTO agreements. The
proposals included calls for improved preferential access to industrialized countries, further
exemptions from specific WTO rules, andbinding commitments on developed countries
to provide technical assistance to help implement multilateral rules. Despite intensive talks
during 2002, no agreement on these proposals
emerged. One reason was that many of the
proposals sought to convert nonbinding, “bestendeavors” language into obligations binding
on developed countries. Another was disagreement over what types of provisions would promote development. The latter issue is fundamental, of course, but it was never the focus of
explicit analysis and discussion in the relevant
WTO committee (Keck and Low 2003).

Market access for development

I

nternational trade helps raise and sustain
growth—a fundamental requirement for reducing poverty—by giving firms and households access to world markets for goods,
services, and knowledge; lowering prices andincreasing the quality and variety of consumption goods; and fostering specialization of economic activity in areas where countries have acomparative advantage. Through the diffusion
and absorption of technology, trade fosters theinvestment and positive externalities that areassociated with learning. Policies that shelter
economic agents from the world market impede these benefits and dynamic gains. Whileadjustment costs and measures to safeguard
the interests of poor households should not be
neglected in the design of policies, openness totrade is associated with higher incomes (Irwin
2002). Moving toward an open trade policy
and identifying the needed complementary
domestic policies should consequently figure
centrally in the design of national povertyreduction strategies. Many developing countries have pursued unilateral liberalization of
their trade regimes in the last two decades.
They have also concentrated on obtaining preferential access to rich-country markets.

D E V E L O P M E N T

Preferences result in limited market
access and are uncertain

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

country’s GSP eligibility for a given productmay be removed if annual exports of that product reach $100 million7 or if there is significant
damage to domestic industry. In the European
Union, products classified as “sensitive” only
benefit from a 3.5-percentage-point reductionof the MFN tariff rate, except for clothing, forwhich the reduction is 20 percent.8 Most chemicals, almost all agricultural and food products,
and all textiles, apparel, and leather goods areclassified as “sensitive.”9 The European Unionalso excludes from GSP eligibility certain products from large countries—regardless of their
per capita income. Examples include Brazil,
China, India, and Indonesia. Finally, the European Union has a safeguard clause allowing
preferences to be suspended if imports “cause
or threaten to cause serious difficulties to a
Community producer.”
In numerous instances, products or countries have been removed from GSP eligibility, either as the result of specific criteria having beensatisfied (see above) or because of lobbying by
domestic interest groups in importing countries. The resulting uncertainty can only have anegative impact on incentives to invest in export sectors. Binding multilateral liberalizationcommitments under the WTO are more secure.
The uncertainty of unilateral preferences also
arises from conditions that may be attached

Trade preferences granted by developed countries are voluntary. They are not WTO obligations. Donor countries determine eligibility
criteria, product coverage, the size of preference margins, and the duration of the preference. Developed-country governments rarely
have granted deep preferences in sectors wheredeveloping countries had the largest export potential. Indeed, preferences tend to be the mostlimited for products protected by tariff peaks(Hoekman, Ng, and Olarreaga 2002).
Developing countries often obtain only limited preferences in sectors where they have acomparative advantage (table 6.1).6 In somecases, developing countries face higher average
tariffs because of the composition of their exports. Some subcategories include tariff peaks
that further restrict access for developing countries. The primary reason for this pattern ofprotection is that in some sectors there is strong
domestic opposition to liberalization in developed countries. However, it is also partly a consequence of the limited engagement by developing countries in reciprocal negotiations.
Benefits are often limited by design. Market
share or value thresholds limit the extent towhich recipients can export on preferential
terms. In the United States, for example, aTable 6.1 Developing countries rarely receive significant preferences in sectors in which
they would have a comparative advantage
Import revenues, market shares, and tariff rates for key products without GSP preferences in the European Union andUnited States in 2001 (percent, except where otherwise noted)

Dairy products
Textiles and yarn
Apparel and clothing
Leather products
Footwear
Ceramics and glassware

Averagetariff rate

Average tariff
rate faced by
GSP recipients

Total imports(billions of dollars)

GSP recipients’market share

LDC
market share

EU

U.S.

EU

U.S.

EU

U.S.

EU

U.S.

EU

U.S.

1.4
15.3
48.7
6.1
6.5
6.2

1.2
9.6
60.8
7.6
16.1
8.7

15
42
54
74
67
27

11
21
47
24
18
13

1
3
8
1
1
1

1
1
7
1
1
1

9.9
5.4
10.2
2.3
7.5
5.1

13.4
7.8
15.3
10.4
10.6
6.3

15.9
4.6
8.8
1.9
7.4
3.8

19.7
7.2
15.9
11.5
10.0
8.2

Note: GSP countries only; LDCs may obtain deeper preferential treatment. China is included under EU GSP but excluded by theUnited States.
Source: World Integrated Trade Solution.

209

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table 6.2

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Utilization rates for preference-eligible products with high MFN tariffs are low

Preference use by GSP recipients in the U.S. market, 2001 (percent, except where otherwise noted)

Category

Cut flowers
Prepared fish
Cane or beet sugar
Fruit, nuts
Unmanufactured tobacco
Acrylic alcohols
Ethers, ether-alcohols
Carboxylic acids
Trunks, suitcases
Articles of leather
Plywood and panels
Footwear
Apparel, knitted
Apparel, not knitted
Hats, headgear
Articles of jewelry

Total imports(billions of dollars)

Imports from
GSP recipients(billions of dollars)

Share imported
under GSP

Share under
all preference
programs

Average applied
tariffs on
all imports

0.72
0.72
0.56
0.78
0.75
1.56
1.78
1.64
4.59
2.68
1.10
13.87
25.00
35.10
0.96
5.40

0.43
0.47
0.41
0.34
0.58
0.73
0.34
0.73
1.17
0.52
0.46
2.39
11.50
15.90
0.33
2.10

3
7
29
20
3
55
84
4
0
18
18
0
0
1
0
54

95
13
77
33
7
94
84
4
6
21
22
1
25
15
2
70

6
9
6
15
68
5
5
5
10
8
5
11
14
14
7
6

Note: Table reports data on imports (at the 4-digit HS classification) of products on which the United States applied tariffs thatexceeded 4 percent in 2001, and where GSP recipient countries had significant exports to the United States.
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

to eligibility. Such conditions often relate toworker protection, human rights, intellectual
property, and the environment.10
Recent initiatives by the European Union,
the United States, and several other industrialized countries to provide either full or much increased duty- and quota-free access to theirmarkets for exports from LDCs clearly improves the situation. However, excessively restrictive rules of origin remain an important
impediment to full use of these deeper preferences, which, moreover, do not extend to manypoor countries with substantial trade capacity.

The use of preferences is limited
All preferential programs, whether unilateralor reciprocal (under free-trade agreements),
impose significant administrative costs related
to enforcement of rules of origin.11 These rules
are imposed to prevent transshipment—that
is, reexport of products produced in noneligible countries. Rule-of-origin requirements
and related inspection procedures can be quite
costly. They also may be explicitly protectionist in intent. An example is the so-called triple
transformation rule in textiles, which requires
imported clothing to be made from textiles

210

produced with yarn spun in either the preference-granting or the beneficiary country. Although rules of origin are necessary for preferences to work and are beneficial in ensuringthat value is added and employment created in
the recipient country, it is important to ensurethat rules of origin are not intentionally or inadvertently protectionist.
Rules of origin and associated paperwork
and administrative requirements are likely to
be a major reason that many eligible products
do not enter developed-country markets under
preference provisions—instead exporters pay
the applicable MFN tariff. Except for certain
alcohols, sugar, flowers, and jewelry, less than
one-third of eligible exports from beneficiary
countries entered the United States under any
preference program in 2001 (table 6.2). An indicator of the restrictiveness of these rules isthat only 65 percent of eligible apparel exports
from the Caribbean and Central America enterthe United States under all preference programs, despite a preference margin of morethan 14 percent.
Limited use of preference programs is also
observed in other countries. Sapir (1997)
showed that in 1994, only one-half of Euro-D E V E L O P M E N T

Table 6.3

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Actual use of preference programs is declining

Quad country imports from GSP beneficiaries (billions of dollars) and ratio of use of available preferences (percent), 1994–2001

Year

Total imports

Dutiable imports

Eligible forpreference

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

448
539
585
575
543
548
623
588

283
331
351
346
311
290
308
296

162
195
178
200
183
166
171
184

Receiving
preference

Rate of useof preferences(percent)

83
108
100
100
74
68
72
71

51.1
55.1
56.0
50.1
40.6
40.7
42.0
38.9

Source: Inama (2003).

pean imports that could potentially benefit
from GSP entered under this preferential
regime, reflecting the combined effect of rulesof origin and tariff quotas. In 2001, importsby the Quad (Canada, the European Union,
Japan, and the United States) from GSP beneficiaries totaled $588 billion, of which $296
billion were subject to duties and $184 billion
were covered under various preferential programs (table 6.3). Only $71 billion of the eligible exports actually received preferential
treatment (approximately 39 percent of eligible exports). The share for LDCs, however, ishigher at approximately 60 percent (Inama
2003), reflecting less restrictive treatment.

Who benefits from preferences?
A relatively small number of mostly middleincome countries are the main beneficiaries ofpreference programs. These countries have thecapacity to exploit the opportunities offeredby meeting the administrative requirements. In
2001, 10 of the 130 eligible countries accounted for 77 percent of U.S. non-oil imports
under GSP provisions (figure 6.1). The same
countries accounted for only 49 percent of allimports from GSP-eligible countries. However, some small countries have benefited significantly from preferential access to markets
where high tariffs, subsidies, or other policies
are used to drive the domestic price of the
product to levels well above the world market
price. An example is Mauritius, which has

preferential access to the EU market for sugar
and has been granted a relatively large quota(Mitchell 2003). Such benefits are obtained athigh cost to EU taxpayers and consumers, andto other excluded developing countries.
There also is evidence that GSP programs
are associated with success stories in countries
with the capacity to benefit from access opportunities. Ozden and Reinhardt (2003b) compare the export performances of U.S. GSP
beneficiaries with those of countries removed
from eligibility (those said to have “graduated”).
Their results suggest that countries removed

Figure 6.1 The benefits of U.S. tradepreferences are distributed unequally
Top 10 beneficiaries of U.S. generalized system ofpreferences, 2001 (percentage of total GSP benefits)
Chile
4%
All other
26%

India
11%

Indonesia
13%
Russia4%
Venezuela
6%

Philippines
7%
Turkey4%South Africa
5%Thailand20%

Source: USITC Dataweb.

211

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 6.2 Countries “graduating” from
U.S. generalized system of preferences
have better export performance thanthose still in program
Export performance of countries dropped from U.S. GSP
program in 1976–2000 vs. those remaining in program(percent)
50
45
40
35

Dropped from GSP

30



25

In GSP


20
15
10
5
0
Exports/GDP

Industrial
exports/GDP

Growth rateof exports

Source: Ozden and Reinhardt (2003b).

from the GSP outperform those remaining eligible for GSP treatment (figure 6.2). Countries
that are not on GSP tend to have higher ratios
of exports to GDP, as well as higher export
growth rates. This could be interpreted as evidence that for some countries—the successful
ones—GSP played a role in generating the initial export expansion. While great care is required in attributing causality—clearly manyother factors will be important in determining
export performance—one reason for the better
performance of countries that were removed
from GSP is probably their own trade policies.
Because import protection is equivalent totaxation of exports, liberalization is a precondition for substantially expanding exports.

Preferences have a hierarchy
The foregoing discussion has focused primarily on GSP. In practice, unilateral preferences
granted by the European Union and theUnited States are implemented under manydifferent programs (box 6.1). The differences212

among these programs in product coverage,
eligibility criteria, and administrative rules (especially rules of origin) have important implications, not only for the countries who benefit
from them, but also for those excluded.
The United States, for example, has implemented the African Growth and Opportunity
Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and theAndean Trade Promotion Act, as well as several reciprocal free-trade agreements (withIsrael, Jordan, and Mexico). Major EU programs include the Cotonou convention covering the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP)
countries, and the Everything-But-Arms initiative, which covers LDCs. The European Unionalso has concluded a large number of preferential trade agreements with neighboring countries in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle
East (Schiff and Winters 2003).
These unilateral and reciprocal programs
differ in several important respects from the
GSP. First, they include sectors excluded bystandard GSP programs—for example, appareland food products. Thus, by 2009 Everything
But Arms will cover all exports of beneficiary
countries (the 49 LDCs) without exception—
all duties and quotas will have been removed.
Similarly, the Caribbean, Andean, and African
programs of the United States include apparel,in contrast to its GSP program. Second, the administrative requirements of these deeper preferential schemes tend to be more relaxed regarding rules of origin and competitive needs
tests (USTR 2002).
Notwithstanding these improvements, theoverall impact of these programs has not yet
been very significant, with the exception of
apparel exports to the United States from certain African countries (more on this below).
The share of LDCs in total imports of theUnited States and the European Union has notincreased significantly in recent years (figure6.3). In the case of Everything But Arms, thismay reflect, in part, that the products thatmatter most to a number of LDCs—bananas,
rice, sugar—will be liberalized only in 2006
or 2009. Most of the products exported by
LDCs already were eligible for duty-free entry

D E V E L O P M E N T

Box 6.1

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

EU and U.S. preference programs

United States
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): The U.S.
GSP program has existed since 1976. Criteria for
eligibility include not aiding international terrorists
and complying with international environmental,
labor, and intellectual property laws. Unlike the European GSP (see below), the U.S. program grantscomplete duty- and quota-free access to eligible
products from eligible countries. China and several“graduated” countries are not eligible—among themHong Kong (China), Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
Singapore, Taiwan (China), and Malaysia.
Textiles and apparel, footwear, and many
agricultural products are not eligible for the GSP.
Certain products from certain countries can be excluded if the total exports pass the “competitiveneeds limit”—$100 million per tariff line or $13 million if the exporting country has more than a 50 percent share of U.S. imports. Total imports to theUnited States under GSP provision totaled $14.5 billion in 2001, or 1.5 percent of total U.S. non-oil imports and 13 percent of all non-oil exports to theUnited States from GSP recipients. In most eligible
sectors where the MFN tariff rate is above 5 percent,the share of exports entering under the programfrom eligible countries is only 30–40 percent, in partas a result of rules-of-origin requirements.
Caribbean Trade Preferences: The Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), commonly
known as the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), wasenacted in 1984 and modified in 1990. Twenty-fourcountries are eligible. Duty-free treatment is grantedon all products other than textiles and apparel, certain footwear, handbags, luggage, petroleum and related products, certain leather products, and canned
tuna. In 1998, only 18 percent of exports from beneficiary countries were in eligible product categories.
The 2000 Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act(CBTPA), provides NAFTA-equivalent treatment for
certain items (mainly apparel) excluded from dutyfree treatment under the CBI program.
Andean Trade Preferences: The Andean Trade
Preferences Act (ATPA) extends preferences to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Enacted in 1991
as part of U.S. efforts to reduce narcotic production
and trafficking, it was modeled after the CBI and has
similar eligibility requirements and product coverage.

Duty-free treatment is granted on all products except
textiles and apparel, certain footwear, petroleum andrelated products, certain leather products, canned
tuna, rum and sugar, syrup, and molasses. The maindifferences with GSP are that the Andean scheme
covers more products, has more liberal qualifying
rules, and is not subject to competitive need limits.
ATPA rules of origin permit inputs from CBERA
beneficiaries. ATPA was renewed in 2002 as the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act(ATPDEA) and expanded to include tuna, leather
and footwear products, petroleum products, and apparel—subject, however, to restrictive rules of origin.
For example, if apparel is assembled from U.S. fabrics, no quotas or duties apply, but if local inputs areused, duty-free imports are subject to a cap of 2 percent of total U.S. imports (increasing to 5 percent inequal annual installments).
African Trade Preferences: The African Growthand Opportunity Act (AGOA), passed in 2000, offers beneficiary Sub-Saharan African countries dutyfree and quota-free market access for essentially all
products. AGOA excludes textiles but extends toduty- and quota-free treatment for apparel made in
Africa from U.S. yarn and fabric. If regional fabricand yarn are used, there is a cap of 1.5 percent of
U.S. imports, increasing to 3.5 percent over eight
years. African LDCs are exempt from all rules oforigin for a limited period of time, helping to significantly expand apparel exports from countries such as
Lesotho.
European Union
Generalized System of Preferences: Preferences under
GSP are available to all developing countries, including China. Overall, 36 percent of tariff lines are
eligible for reduced tariffs, and 32 percent are eligiblefor duty-free access. Twelve percent of tariff lines(mostly agricultural) are excluded and subject tofull MFN duty. Excluded products include meat,
dairy products, cereals, sugar, wine, and products forwhich the European Union sets minimum importprices. Approximately 36 percent of all products areclassified as “sensitive”—often those with the highest
MFN tariffs (Panagariya 2002). Sensitive products(Continues on next page)213

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Box 6.1

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

(continued)

are subject to a flat 3.5-percentage point-reductionin the MFN tariff, implying that the higher the duty,
the smaller the proportionate impact of the preference. Specific duties are reduced by 30 percent; if a
product is subject to both ad valorem and specificduties, the specific duty is not reduced.
Additional tariff reductions are available under
special incentive schemes for the protection of laborrights (an additional 5-percentage-point reduction),
the environment (an additional 5 percentage points),
and for countries that combat drug production andtrafficking (duty-free access for certain products).
Currently only one country, Moldova, has requested
and satisfied the requirement relating to labor rights(but not the environment). A group of Latin American countries and Pakistan benefit from arrangements relating to drugs.
Countries can be excluded from the GSP (basedon their development level) or from particular product categories. Sectoral exclusions are determined by
specific criteria based on shares of EU imports from
GSP-beneficiary countries and certain indicatorsof development and specialization.a For example,
Argentina is excluded from preferences for live animals and for edible products of animal origin, while
Thailand is excluded from preferences for fisheryproducts.
ACP countries (Cotonou Agreement): ACP
countries are granted preferences that often exceed
those available under the GSP. Most industrial prod-

ucts are duty and quota free. Preferences are lesscomprehensive for agricultural products. In 2000
duties were still applied to 856 tariff lines (837 ofwhich were agricultural products). Of these, 116
lines were excluded from the Cotonou Agreement,
although specific protocols govern access for sugar
and bananas on a country-specific basis. An additional 301 tariff lines were eligible for reduced
duties, subject to specific quantitative limits (tariff
quotas) set for the ACP countries as a group. The
remaining 439 products were eligible for reduced
duties without limits on exported quantities.
Everything But Arms: Introduced in March
2001, this program grants duty-free access to imports of all products from the LDCs, with the exception of arms and munitions, without any quantitative
restrictions. Liberalization was immediate except forthree major products: fresh bananas, rice, and sugar.
Tariffs on these three items will be reduced gradually
to zero (in 2006 for bananas; in 2009 for rice andsugar), while tariff quotas for rice and sugar will be
increased annually. Access to the EU market is governed by the rules of its GSP scheme. A key featureof the program is that in contrast to the GSP, preferences for the LDCs are granted for an unlimited
period and are not subject to periodic review.

a. Some ad hoc exclusions are applied to China, the CIS countries, and South Africa in the fisheries and iron and steel sectors.

under GSP or Cotonou provisions. As a result,
Everything But Arms had no immediate impact (Brenton 2003). In the case of the UnitedStates, export market shares of countries eligible under the three primary deep preference
programs have not increased (figure 6.4).12
The primary exception is apparel, whichshows remarkable export growth, especially inthe case of AGOA. Total exports of apparelsince 1996 increased by more than 200 percent
for AGOA countries, and approximately 60
percent for Caribbean and Andean countries.
As a result, in 2002, apparel exports to theUnited States from AGOA countries were ap-

214

proximately $1.1 billion, compared to $750
million from Andean countries and $9.5 billion from Caribbean countries. These countries accounted for some 20 percent of the$58 billion U.S. apparel import market. This
growth is mainly a result of exemptions fromquotas and tariffs imposed on other exporters.
In the case of AGOA, rules of origin are removed temporarily for some countries for alimited period, providing an extra advantage.
A crucial issue is how these regions will farewhen remaining quotas (mostly faced by countries in South and East Asia) are phased out
at the end of 2004, as required by the WTO

D E V E L O P M E N T

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Figure 6.3 Preferences have not increased the share of the least developed countries inimports into the European Union and the United States
Share of LDCs in total imports of European Union and United States, 1966–2002 (percent)
1.0
0.9
United States

0.8


0.7
0.6



0.5
0.4

European Union

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992 1993

1994

1995

1996 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 2002

Source: WITS.

therefore suggest that a reciprocal liberalization strategy supported by complementary domestic policies may have a much larger impact
than unilateral preferences.

Figure 6.4 Market shares of countries
eligible for three U.S. “deep preference”
programs have not increased
Shares of AGOA, Andean, and CBI countries in U.S.
imports (excluding oil and previous metals), 1996–2002(percent)
2.0
CBI


1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0

AGOA


0.8
0.6
0.4



Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This isalso the time when liberal rules of origin under
AGOA are set to expire. Competitive pressures
are likely to increase substantially, giving rise toa need for adjustment and for investment programs to improve productivity and diversification of the export base. Extending the liberalrules of origin under AGOA would help reducethe impact of the abolition of the remaining
import quotas on textiles and clothing.
The available evidence suggests that preferences by industrialized countries have thegreatest effect on developing-country exports
if they are granted on a reciprocal basis as partof a deep regional free-trade agreement. Spanish exports to the European Union and Mexican exports to the United States rose dramatically following accession to the European
Union and NAFTA, respectively (figure 6.6).
This supply response is not just the result of
removing import barriers by northern partners, but also of the “regime change” that occurred in these countries and the consequentchange in risk premiums, uncertainty, and investment incentives. A large part of the regimechange involved changes in investment, regulatory, and administrative policies, not justpreferential trade liberalization. These data

Andean

0.2
0.0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Source: US ITC.

215

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 6.5 Preferred countries’ apparelexports to the United States have risen
Growth of apparel exports to United States, 1996–2002(percent)
250

200

AGOA


150

100
CBI



50
Andean

0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Source: US ITC.

Preferences have unintended consequences
Numerous side effects of unilateral preferences
also must be considered when assessing thecase for them. Preferences can lead to more
protectionist trade policies in recipient countries. Ozden and Reinhardt (2003b) show that
U.S. GSP recipients implement more protectionist trade policies than countries removed
from the GSP program (figure 6.7). Although
their finding does not prove causality, preferences can decrease the incentives for domestic
exporters to mobilize in favor of more liberal
trade policies. Because domestic trade policies
affect developing countries’ growth prospects
more than barriers in their export markets,
the perverse-incentive effect of unilateral preferences may be quite damaging. Similarly,
preferential market access may lower the incentives for developing countries to participate
actively in multilateral negotiations, in part because they believe that they will not receive
any further concessions in the multilateralprocess or because of concerns about erosionof preferences. The latter may create conflictsof interest between preferred and nonpreferreddeveloping countries. To the extent that countries specialize in similar product categories

216

and sell at low margins in competitive markets, even small preferences in certain categories could make a difference for some countries, fueling those conflicts of interest.
As an example, 36 countries in Sub-SaharanAfrica are eligible to export apparel products
into the United States without any tariffs orquantitative restrictions under AGOA. These
countries risk losing preference margins if
MFN protection is reduced in the United States.
Many of these countries temporarily face norules of origin requirements. Twenty-four countries in the Caribbean and Central America
enjoy similar privileges under the CBPTA.
Through bilateral NAFTA preferences and unilateral Caribbean and African preferences, beneficiary countries managed to increase theirshare of U.S. apparel imports to around 32 percent (figure 6.8). Such countries may be concerned about the erosion of their preferences if
MFN protection is reduced.
Sugar is a product for which preference erosion will have important consequences for several countries. Quota allocations in protectedmarkets, such as the European Union, are currently very concentrated in a few countries that
tend to have high costs relative to other producers. For example, Mauritius has 38 percent
of EU quotas (Mitchell 2003). Given the extension by 2009 of duty- and quota-free accessto the EU market for all LDCs, Mauritius will
confront much greater competition in the EU
market.
Most of the academic research on preference programs has concluded not only thatthey generally yield modest export increases(at best), but also that a significant portionof these gains is because of trade diversion
from nonbeneficiaries. Multilateral liberalization would reduce some of the detrimental effects of preferential access to highly distorted
markets. For example, moving to free trade insugar markets not only would result in estimated global welfare gains (the sum of producer, consumer surpluses, and tax revenues)
of $4.7 billion, but also would yield a 38 percent increase in world sugar prices and boost
sugar trade by about 20 percent. Brazil alone

D E V E L O P M E N T

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Figure 6.6 Agricultural exports from Mexico and Spain rose dramatically after the twocountries joined regional trade blocs
Mexican exports of certain agricultural products, 1961–2001(billions of dollars)

Mexican exports of certain agricultural products, 1961–2001(millions of dollars)

8

300

7

250

6
200

5

150

Agricultural
products, total

Meat

100



2

Milk



50

1

01

97

20

19
97
20
01

19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93

Spanish exports of certain agricultural products, 1961–2001(billions of dollars)

19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93

0

0

19

3



4

Spanish exports of certain agricultural products, 1961–2001(millions of dollars)
1,400
1,200



13

Agricultural
products, total

10

1,000

Meat


15

800

8

600

5

400

3

200

0

0

Milk

19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01

19
97
20
01

19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93



would experience a real income gain of some
$1.6 billion. Although countries such as Mauritius could lose significantly, coordinatedglobal liberalization across all products would
offset some of the lost rents. World sugar priceincreases alone would offset about one-half ofthe lost quota rents for countries that currently
have preferential access. Moreover, the loss in
preference rents would be much less than iscommonly expected, because many of the beneficiaries are high-cost producers. Indeed, thecost to the European Union and United Statesof providing each $1 of preferential access has
been estimated to be more than $5—a very in-efficient way to provide development assistance (Beghin and Aksoy 2003).
How much preferences are likely to beeroded as a result of further multilateral tradeliberalization will depend both on the benefits
countries currently obtain from preference programs and the speed with which preferences are
eroded. The foregoing discussion suggests thatthe overall benefits of unilateral market accesspreferences are limited by exclusions for sensitive products, rules of origin, and limited supply capacity. The fact that a substantial share of
total exports from eligible countries under
AGOA and Everything But Arms preferences217

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Figure 6.7 The trade policies of countries
in the U.S. generalized system ofpreferences are more protectionist thanthose of countries not in the program
Import policies of countries in U.S. GSP versus those ofcountries dropped from GSP (percent)
60

50

40

30



Droppedfrom GSP


20

In GSP

10

0
Duties/imports

AveragenominaltariffImports/GDP

Source: Ozden and Reinhardt (2002).

do not enter duty free (Inama 2003, Brenton
2003) is one illustration.
One way of obtaining a sense of the magnitude of possible preference erosion is first to
assume that LDCs obtain full preferential access to Quad markets and then to assess theimpact of a reduction in MFN tariffs. A recent
exercise along these lines suggests that the aggregate impact of a 40 percent reduction in average MFN tariffs would lower LDC exports
by about $440 million, or 1.6 percent of totalexports (IMF 2002). This estimate does nottake into account terms-of-trade changes from
the MFN tariff reductions, which on averagecan be expected to be positive for exporting
countries, reducing the losses from preference
erosion. Moreover, in practice, it is likely thatpart of the rents from preferences accrues tothe importing countries, and especially to intermediaries (Tangermann 2002). Account also
should be taken of the benefits to countries
with preferences of the erosion in preferential
access of other countries—especially members

218

of free-trade agreements—and, as noted earlier, of the impact of rules of origin. As MFN
tariffs are by definition not associated withrules of origin, such liberalization may well result in export gains for countries in productsthat in principle benefit from preferences.
Thus, it may be more beneficial for developing
countries to obtain more secure MFN reductions on their key exports than to seek to preserve preference margins on products with relatively high MFN tariffs (Laird, Safadi, andTurini 2003).
The available evidence and analysis suggests that preference erosion is unlikely to bea major issue for many countries, given that
automatic compensation will result frombroad-based multilateral liberalization of market access. However, specific developing countries and sectors in these countries may be
hurt, and resources for adjustment need to be
mobilized and allocated. Governments should
prepare by determining where adjustment
needs are likely to be most significant, so thattechnical and financial assistance can be provided. Actions of the type discussed in chapters 2 and 5 to facilitate trade, complemented
by the adoption of more liberal rules of origin,will help to attenuate the impact of preference
erosion.
The low share of exports entering under
preferences, and the recent research suggestingthat rules of origin play a role in that low
share, suggest that the rules used to determine
origin should be simplified. The recent experience under AGOA, under which several beneficiary countries significantly expanded apparel exports to the United States after origin
restrictions were relaxed, illustrates this point.
The WTO includes an Agreement on Rules ofOrigin that aims to foster the harmonizationof the rules used by members. The agreement
calls for a work program to be undertaken bya Technical Committee, in conjunction with
the World Customs Organization, to develop
a classification system regarding changes intariff subheadings based on the Harmonized
System (Hoekman and Kostecki 2001). The
harmonization program provides a potential

D E V E L O P M E N T

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Figure 6.8 Countries enjoying preferences have increased their exports of apparel to theUnited States
U.S. apparel imports, 1989–2002, by source (millions of dollars)
Africa and Caribbean
without preferences

70
60

Africa and Caribbean
under preferences

NAFTA countries
under preferences





50



40


30
NAFTA countries
without preferences

20
10

Rest of the world

0
1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

solution to rules-of-origin problems. Whilethe harmonized rules are intended to be applied in cases of nonpreferential commercial
policy—tariffs, import licensing, antidumping—they could be applied to preferential
trade as well. A recent proposal by Canada touse a common value-added criterion and toallow for comprehensive cumulation (extending to major players such as China) is an alternative approach. Yet another option is toemulate the “visa” procedure for textile products used under AGOA—this could help tosubstantially reduce uncertainty for traders.
Indeed, minimizing uncertainty is a critical feature of making preferential regimes effective.13

The ultimate goal is MFN-based,
reciprocal liberalization
MFN-based market access will have the greatest beneficial impact on development.14 One
reason is that it implies that elements of “reverse SDT”—special opt-outs and exemptions
that benefit interest groups in industrializedcountries at the expense of developing countries—will be removed. Eliminating agricultural subsidy programs, high protection for

textile and apparel products, tariff peaks, andtariff escalation would not only be beneficial to developing countries (and developedcountry consumers), but also would facilitate
further trade reforms in developing countries.
Developed and developing countries alike
could affirm their commitment to poverty alleviation by accepting an ambitious program ofliberalization that would include the abolitionof export subsidies, substantial decoupling ofagricultural support, and significant reductionof MFN tariffs on labor-intensive products ofexport interest to developing countries. The
program must include significant trade liberalization by developing countries, a major sourceof the total potential gains. MFN liberalization
should extend to middle-income countries,
which are among the most dynamic markets inthe world and where trade barriers are often
substantially higher than in developed countries, and would usefully extend to LDCs as
well.
In defining negotiating modalities to pursue
desired MFN liberalization, WTO members
should set a concrete timetable and agree on
specific benchmarks for product coverage and219

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4maximum tariffs. The challenge is to identify
reciprocal commitments that make economic
sense and support development. The overuseof nonreciprocity in past market-access negotiations has excluded developing countries fromthe major source of gains from trade liberalization—namely the reform of their own policies. Nonreciprocity is also a reason why tariffpeaks today are largely on goods produced indeveloping countries. A willingness to pursue
liberalization at home is critical to increasedeveloping countries’ participation in global
trade, particularly South-South trade, which is
subject to significant barriers (see chapter 3).15
Services are of great importance to development—it is difficult for firms to be competitivein the absence of efficient services sectors. Substantial opportunities exist to expand developing-country services exports and to liberalize
further access to developing-country markets.
While the latter would bring the greatest gains,
temporary access to service markets (particularly labor markets) in developed countries
also would generate large gains for developing
countries (see chapter 4). In addition, binding
the current set of liberal policies applied tocross-border trade (GATS Modes 1 and 2)
would assist governments in pursuing domestic reforms. Many developing countries havebegun to exploit opportunities offered by theInternet and telecommunication networks toprovide services through cross-border trade.
Currently such trade is generally free of restrictions, but that freedom is not locked inthrough the GATS (Mattoo 2003).

Toward a new regime
for WTO rules

Several WTO agreements offer developing
countries some latitude to pursue restrictive trade policies and provide transition periods and technical assistance to help in implementing agreements (box 6.2).16
Should trade rules apply to all developing
countries? If so, should account be taken ofdifferences in national capacities to implement
and benefit from multilateral rules? In answer-

220

ing these questions, it is helpful to distinguishbetween (a) agreements and disciplines thatpertain to the core business of the WTO—
traditional trade policies such as tariffs, quotas, and export subsidies—and (b) rules whose
implementation requires significant resourcesor the existence of well-functioning complementary institutions. With respect to the firstcategory, developing countries would benefit
from abiding by the same trade-policy disciplines that apply to developed countries. The
overwhelming conclusion in the economic literature is that traditional trade-policy instruments should not be used in pursuit of development objectives.17
A country’s trade policy is a key link in thetransmission of price signals from the world
market to the national economy. Undistorted
price signals from world markets, in combination with an exchange rate that reflects
macroeconomic conditions, encourages efficient resource allocation consistent with comparative advantage. An open trade regime gives
consumers and firms access to a greater variety of goods and services, including capitaland intermediate goods, and contributes to
productivity growth through access to global
technology and by forcing domestic firms tobecome more efficient.
Although numerous arguments have beendeveloped that potentially provide a rationale
for intervention to protect infant industries—
most of which revolve around some type ofmarket failure or externality—trade policy israrely if ever an appropriate instrument. Moreover, well-known political economy problems
are associated with protection of infant industries. The prospect of protection can give rise tounproductive rent-seeking behavior with associated scope for (legal) lobbying and (illegal)
corruption (Bhagwati 1988). Moral hazard
problems can easily arise because the reward for
an industry doing well is the removal of protection, which can generate perverse incentives forfirms to underperform so as to retain protection.
Economic first principles suggest that a subsidy-type policy generally will be less distorting(more efficient) than trade policy in offsetting

D E V E L O P M E N T

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Box 6.2 Major WTO provisions allowing developing
countries greater freedom to use restrictive trade policies
Infant industry protection. GATT Articles XVIII:aand XVIII:c allow for removal of tariff concessions
or use of quotas if necessary to establish an industry
in a developing country. Compensation must be offered to countries that would be negatively affected.
Balance-of-payments protection. Article XVIII:b
allows a nation to impose trade measures to safeguard its balance of payments. In contrast to Articles
XVIII:a and c, surveillance and approval procedures
are less burdensome, and compensation need not be
offered to affected countries. Not surprisingly, no
country has invoked the infant industry provisions of
the GATT since 1967, but numerous countries havemade use of Article XVIII:b. In the Uruguay Round,
Article XVIII:b was revised and surveillance procedures were tightened. WTO members must now
publicly announce time schedules for the removalof restrictive import measures taken for balance of
payments purposes and must, in principle, use pricebased measures (such as tariffs).
Subsidies: The WTO Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) attempts todistinguish between subsidies (defined as financial
contributions by government) that can be justified on
the grounds of market failure, or on noneconomic

an externality. From an economic viewpoint,
the drafters of the GATT were therefore justified in placing relatively stringent constraints on
the use of trade policy, and in particular, on theuse of quantitative restrictions and local content
requirements. Moreover, in cases in which import competition proves too fierce, the WTO
allows for safeguards—emergency protection
through safeguards. However, WTO safeguard
provisions impose conditions that enhance certainty and help ensure that interventions are
made only for good cause.
The foregoing does not imply that developing countries should be forced to sign away
their ability to use trade policies—all countries
have the right under the WTO to impose tariffs
or export taxes if they so desire. Committing togrounds, and those that distort the incentive to trade
in a major way. Nonspecific subsidies (defined as
those for which access is general or eligibility automatic on the basis of clear, objective criteria) arepermitted and cannot be countervailed. Subsidies
contingent on export performance or on the use ofdomestic rather than imported goods are generally
prohibited. Permitted measures that create “serious
prejudice”—defined to exist if the total ad valorem
subsidization of a product exceeds 5 percent, if subsidies are used to cover operating losses of a firm orindustry, or if debt relief is granted for governmentheld liabilities—can be countervailed or disputed.
Subsidies that can be shown to have had a negative
effect on a partner’s exports likewise may be countervailed or disputed. LDCs and countries with GNP
per capita below $1,000 are exempted from the prohibition on export subsidies. Developing countries
that have become competitive in a product—defined
as having a global market share of 3.25 percent—must phase out any export subsidies over a two-year
period.

Source: Hoekman and Kostecki (2001).

abide by the same rules on the use of traditional
trade polices that pertain to developed countries, however, will benefit consumers and enhance welfare in developing countries.
The WTO does not identify or constrain
what governments can do in the realm of nontrade policy to maximize the benefits of trade.
As emphasized by Stern (2002), any credible
poverty reduction strategy must rest on two
pillars: a good investment climate to propel
growth, and empowerment of poor people
through participation in decisions that shape
their lives. Although a sound trade policy is amajor element of any successful development
strategy, other factors are equally important.
Institutions to manage the distributional implications of trade reforms and to ensure that221

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

consumers, enterprises, and farmers have access to competitive markets for goods and services are critical to harnessing greater trade fordevelopment.
Nor does the WTO constrain the ability of
governments to address market failures throughsubsidies or taxes. In many cases the intervention required to address an externality will be
horizontal (general), not sector- or industryspecific, and thus be nonactionable. For example, food subsidies, household energy subsidies,and health and education programs are not vulnerable to WTO action. Similarly, factor-use
subsidies—for example, for the wages of workers taken directly off the unemployment rolls—
are permissible unless they are configured insuch as way as to make them de facto subsidies
to specific sectors. Overall, therefore, the sortsof subsidies of most use in fighting poverty andoffsetting market failures are not constrained
by WTO disciplines (McCulloch, Winters, andCirera 2001).

Several policy options are open for futurerules and regulations
Some developing countries and many civil society groups have charged that some WTO
agreements do not support development. In
such cases, the appropriate solution may be toreopen (renegotiate) agreements where members perceive the rules to be unbalanced or
detrimental to their interests. This has been theapproach taken by some proponents of the socalled Development Box in the Agreement on
Agriculture (box 6.3). It is also the approachthat has been suggested by the chair of the
WTO General Council to address several proposals made by developing countries on SDT.
In addition to the Agreement on Agriculture,
an agreement often viewed as unbalanced is
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).18
One lesson that emerged from the Uruguay
Round is that it is important but difficult toassess what makes sense from a development
perspective. In large part this is a reflection of
the absence of strong trade interests and stake-222

holders in developing countries who might inform their governments of their preferences
and clarify the implications of various proposals (Finger 2001; Hoekman 2002). As a result,the “trade-related” aspects of international issues are often identified by constituencies inmajor trading powers and may not have much
relevance for development.
Because countries differ widely in their domestic priorities and in their capacities to implement change, it is as important as it is difficult to identify how and where development
will be promoted by proposals to expand thereach of the WTO into (new) regulatory areas.
With respect to behind-the-border policies
affecting trade, it is difficult to design genericrules that apply to all. Even if negotiators get
the economics right, there is a danger that
good policies may be resisted. Dealing withthese types of issues in the context of negotiation may also induce a predominant focus on
costs, as reforms will be seen as concessions toforeign interests, as opposed to being in the national interest (Finger 2002). Given their complexities and the limited negotiating resources
available in most low-income countries, such
issues may be best left off the negotiating table(Winters 2002). However, if negotiations arelaunched on these topics, it will be importantto recognize that for many countries they may
not have a high priority.

Differential interests and capacities must
be recognized
As noted previously, the challenge is to get therules right from a development perspective.
Even if this is done, in the sense that constituencies in developing countries are enthusiastic about what has been negotiated and governments regard implementation as being in
the national interest, other issues may constitute a higher priority for investment of scarceadministrative and financial resources.
These observations suggest the need for differentiation among developing countries indetermining the reach of WTO rules that are
resource intensive; that is, those that requireD E V E L O P M E N T

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Box 6.3 A “development box” for the Agreement
on Agriculture?

T

he primary focus of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture was to bring this sector
back into the trading system—that is, to reimpose
multilateral disciplines on trade-distorting domestic
support policies. A major feature of the agreement
was to distinguish between permitted subsidies (the“green box”) and subsidies subject to reduced commitments and disciplines. Because the objective ofnegotiators in the Uruguay Round was to reduce distorting types of support, it does not cover the typesof market imperfections likely to be found in developing countries, nor does it recognize their need topursue “second-best” policies where they do nothave the institutional capacity to pursue the mostefficient policies to combat poverty. As a result,several countries have sought to introduce a “development box” into the agreement, which would
identify a set of measures to enhance food security,
stimulate agricultural production, and reduce rural
poverty in developing countries. Examples of suchproposals:• Direct and indirect investment and input subsidies
or other supports to households below the national poverty level to encourage agriculturaland rural development. Such supports could be
product-specific as well as general, as long as
they are effectively targeted to the rural poor.
• Programs supporting product diversification insmall, low-income developing countries currently
dependent on limited commodities for their exports, including programs involving government
assistance for risk management.
• Domestic foodstuffs at subsidized prices in targeted programs aimed at meeting food requirements of the poor, whether urban or rural, as
part of an overall effort to enhance food security.
• Transportation subsidies for agricultural products
and farm inputs to poor remote areas.
• Programs involving government assistance for establishment of agricultural cooperatives or otherinstitutions that promote marketing, quality control, or otherwise strengthen the competitivenessof poor farmers.
• A “special” safeguard provision, available only
to developing countries, to provide rapid, timelimited protection against import surges that hurt
poor producers, especially dumped imports ofsubsidized goods.
• Acceptance that some products—especially key
staple commodities critical to food security—would
not be subject to liberalization commitments.

While often defended as examples of needed preferences, proposals for a development box effectively
involve changing the terms of the Agreement on
Agriculture. Many of the provisions have been included in the “Harbinson” draft, which suggests approaches for future liberalization commitments inthe Doha negotiations on agriculture (WTO 2003).
The draft also contains a large number of provisions
permitting developing countries far greater leeway inprotecting agriculture through border measures suchas tariffs and tariff quotas than would be the casefor developed countries. Such policies may be justified because low-income developing countries do
not have the fiscal capacity to support agriculture
through less trade-distorting direct-income supports,
but they may lead to the same inefficiencies thathave undermined competitiveness of many industries
nurtured behind high protective barriers. While getting the economics right is important and requires
careful analysis, the efforts to alter the terms of theAgreement on Agriculture is arguably the most appropriate method of addressing rules that are notperceived to support development.

Sources: Ruffer, Jones, and Akroyd (2002); Hoekman, Michalopoulos, and Winters (2003).

223

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4significant complementary legal, administrative, and institutional investments or capacityor that will result in large transfers from developing countries. The basic rationale for differentiation is that certain agreements may not
be development priorities for some countries
or may require that other preconditions besatisfied before implementation can be beneficial. Such preconditions can be proxied by theattainment of a minimum level of per capita
income, institutional capacity, and economic
scale (size). Some WTO disciplines may not beappropriate for very small countries, for example, in that the regulatory institutions required may be unduly costly.19
Several options could be considered to takecountry differences into account in WTO agreements.20 Options include:• Adopting a rule of thumb that makes agroup of countries eligible to opt out ofprovisions that entail substantial implementation costs until specific criteria or
benchmarks have been met. This rulewould require renegotiating the current
set of country groups recognized in the
WTO (the LDCs, all developing countries, and developed countries). It would
also require establishing criteria to identify which agreements are affected.
• Establishing an agreement-specific approach under which application of rules
to any given country is determined byagreement-specific criteria, possibly linked
to availability of technical assistance andan action plan for implementation.
• Adopting a country-specific aproach thatplaces trade-reform priorities in the context of national development plans as
defined in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and relying on multilateral monitoring to establish a cooperative framework
under which countries may be assisted in
gradually adopting WTO norms.
A common feature of these possibilities isthat they require a narrower definition of eligibility for temporary exemptions from WTO

224

rules. Country classification is inevitably a sensitive issue, as is the question of determining
the “coherence” of WTO rules with national
development priorities and identifying the implications of different types of WTO rules.
What constitutes “resource intensive,” for example? And what agreements would give riseto large implementation costs? These questions
will require analysis. Determining implementation criteria would require input from relevant
development institutions, national and international, to strengthen policy coherence at bothlevels. One advantage of an agreement-specific“implementation audit mechanism” is that it
could avoid explicit country classifications, giving rise instead to a monitoring process to support developing countries in managing tradereforms and implementing WTO agreementsby recognizing competing demands on scarce
resources.
Involving development agencies may reduce
the risk of inducing countries to adopt and pursue a program of trade and regulatory reformthat may not, in fact, be suited to the country.
During the Uruguay Round many countries
were concerned about avoiding possible “crossconditionality” between WTO and international financial institutions; this led to a ministerial declaration on “coherence” to call for“avoiding the imposition on governments ofcross-conditionality or additional conditions”
resulting from cooperation between the WTO
and the international financial institutions.21
Indeed, care would be required to avoid “crossconditionality.”
Several alternative options may therefore be
feasible in recognizing differences in the ability
to benefit from implementation of resourceintensive rules. Deciding on the best approach
will require considerable thought and discussion. What matters most at this point is that
WTO members acknowledge the issue. It might
be expeditious to make a decision in Cancun toconsider alternative approaches along the lines
sketched out above. Given the steady expansion of the WTO into regulatory areas, doing
so would help make development relevance
more than a slogan.

D E V E L O P M E N T

WTO commitments must be enforced
through monitoring and dispute settlement
While getting rules right is important, so is enforcement and accountability. Two aspects ofenforcement of commitments are particularly
important. The first is regular information on
implementation of agreements and complementary actions being pursued in other forums
and organizations. The second concerns theability of developing countries to use WTO
dispute-settlement mechanisms in instances inwhich partners have not respected the terms ofan agreement. Developing countries may be ata disadvantage in using such mechanisms because of resource constraints and lack of retaliatory power. Proposals to address such biases
are discussed below.
Strengthened assessment and monitoring
Strengthening mechanisms for regular monitoring of implementation of agreements and performance of both developed and developing
countries would help improve transparency
and accountability. This should extend to theprovision of information on national traderelated priorities by developing countries, thefunding and investment requirements these priorities involve, and the extent to which international and bilateral donors have provided
assistance. A first step in compiling information on assistance provided was taken in 2002
by the WTO and the Development AssistanceCommittee of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD),
building on a database of bilateral and multilateral development projects. The WTO’s Trade
Policy Reviews provide a potential mechanism
for bolstering monitoring, although the publication schedule of reports would need to be
increased for timely information to be madeavailable to WTO members. The type of mechanisms to put in place would depend in part on
the approach taken to determine the reach ofresource-intensive rules.
The weaker social safety nets and insurance
mechanisms in the developing world, as wellas higher rates of poverty and vulnerability to

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

external shocks, suggest that more attention
and resources should be devoted to costing out
the implementation requirements of proposed
rules and to calculating their costs and benefits. The multiagency Integrated Framework
for Trade-Related Technical Assistance could
be used to support this objective in LDCs.
Developing-country think tanks and policy
research networks—for example, the Global
Development Network—also have an important role to play in assisting governments withthe required assessments at the national level,
supported by bilateral and multilateral development institutions.
Dispute settlement
Whatever agreements eventually emerge fromthe Doha Round, enforcement will be important. But how well can low-income countries
defend their rights in the WTO? During 1995–
2002, 305 bilateral disputes were brought tothe WTO, entailing over 1,800 “grievances”—
specific allegations of violation of a WTO provision (Horn and Mavroidis 2003). Developing
countries brought 123 of the 305 disputes,
about one-third. Most of these complainants
were middle-income economies. Low-income
countries (defined by Horn and Mavroidis as
those with a per capita income below $800)
were complainants in only 18 cases and respondents in only 21. LDCs did not participate at
all—they never acted as complainant or respondent. Thus, well over half of the WTO membership does not participate in WTO disputesettlement.22
That many developing countries have notparticipated in WTO dispute settlement reflects the manifold challenges of such participation. A first challenge to defending rights
through the WTO is obtaining knowledge thata WTO provision may have been violated bya partner government. A second is convincing
the government to bring the case forward—
enterprises alone have no legal standing before
the WTO. A third is expectation of a positive
payoff from bringing a case—a function of theremedy available and the likelihood that thetrading partner will actually implement it.

225

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Small countries cannot credibly threaten retaliation—the ultimate threat that can be madeagainst a member that does not comply with a
WTO panel recommendation—because raising
import barriers will have little impact on thetarget market, while being costly in welfare
terms.23 Thus, pressure to comply with panel
rulings is largely moral. In practice, the systemhas worked rather well, in that recourse to retaliation has rarely been required to enforce
multilateral dispute-settlement decisions. Thisis a reflection of the repeated nature of WTO
interactions and the resulting value that governments attach to maintaining a good reputation. Nonetheless, asymmetry in enforcement
ability can affect incentives to use the system.
The classic recommendation by economists toaddress the problem is to change the rules sothat nonimplementation of panel recommendations would be punished by withdrawal ofmarket-access commitments by all WTO members. But suggestions to this effect have always
been resisted (Hudec 1987, 2002).
Retaliation involves raising barriers to trade,which is generally detrimental to all parties. The
power of retaliation may also be captured byprotectionist interests in an importing country.
A superior approach would be to strengthen
compensation provisions. Developing countries
have proposed, for example, that WTO panels
should be authorized to recommend payment offinancial compensation in cases where a developing country loses its trade in a product as aresult of actions by a developed country that areinconsistent with WTO norms.24 Such suggestions have a long history (Hudec 2002).25 Mexico recently suggested allowing countries thathave won a dispute but where implementation
has not occurred to auction off the resulting retaliation rights.26
While compensation or fines would be lessdistorting than trade sanctions, they may not
be very effective in inducing compliance, as thecosts would disperse among all taxpayers.
Other options should therefore be considered,including stronger surveillance mechanisms
and greater opportunities for interested parties
to bring cases in national forums. Whatever is226

done, it is important to halt the emerging trend
toward escalating retaliation and the use of
trade sanctions.

Aid for trade: addressing
national priorities
Trade capacity is critical in ensuring that
low-income countries are able to benefit fromtrade opportunities. Numerous studies—mostrecently the Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies undertaken in LDCs under the auspicesof the Integrated Framework initiative—haveidentified institutional weaknesses and an adverse investment climate as a major source ofcomparative disadvantage.27
The reports reveal that many countries remain largely without the appropriate institutional frameworks and systems to manage
their trade policy and that trade costs severely
limit the competitiveness of developing-country firms in export markets. Transport costs
are often the single most important componentof cost for exporters in several of the countries.
The transport sectors (air, ports, trucking) areoften plagued by a lack of domestic competition (see chapter 5).
These anticompetitive conditions impinge
directly on the welfare of the poor. In mostLDCs, the majority of poor households derive
their income from agriculture and agroprocessing. Agricultural trade integration cantherefore increase both productivity and rural
incomes by providing better access to modern
inputs and technologies and by encouraging
exports.28 In addition to the fragmentation ofmarkets and the remoteness of many farming
communities, binding constraints include transportation bottlenecks that, combined with numerous informal fees and internal checkpoints,
lead to high transaction costs (in Ethiopia,
Guinea, and Nepal), lack of basic post-harvest
marketing infrastructure (in Ethiopia, Guinea,
Malawi, Mauritania, and Yemen), lack ofwater control infrastructure (in Ethiopia andSenegal), and a pervasive degradation of natural resources (Tsikata 2003). To improve competitiveness and extend the benefits of trade to
the poorer segments of the population, better

D E V E L O P M E N T

domestic market integration should be a key
policy objective in many LDCs.
Development assistance can play an important role in bolstering trade capacity, thereby allowing countries to benefit from liberalized access to international markets. Additional funds
are needed to address both policy and publicinvestment priorities, to help low-income countries adapt to a reduction in trade preferences
following further nondiscriminatory trade liberalization, and to assist poor net-importing
countries to deal with the potential detrimental
effects of a significant increase in world foodprices, should these materialize. The worldcommunity made general commitments to thiseffect at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey inMarch 2002—the need now is to translate the“Monterrey consensus” into identification andfinancing of trade-related investment priorities.
Although more “aid for trade” would be
beneficial, it is important to avoid a situationin which a desire by donor countries to see developing countries implement certain WTO
agreements diverts assistance away from recipients’ own development priorities. This is oneof the risks of suggestions to make technicalassistance a requirement of new WTO rules
and to link implementation of WTO agreements to the provision of such assistance. Ideally, identification and delivery of trade-related
technical assistance should be embedded in thenational policy-setting processes used by governments and the donor community—for example, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.
This would ensure that trade priorities are
considered for funding along with other development priorities.

Putting development into theDoha agendaPutting development into the Doha agenda
requires actions by developing and developed countries alike. Interests and priorities
differ from country to country, but improved
access to markets in agriculture, manufactures, and services would be most beneficial.

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

In fact, liberalized market access on an MFN
basis has the greatest potential payoff, interms of development and poverty reduction,of any issue on the Doha agenda.
Because duty- and quota-free access tomajor markets can help to offset the many disadvantages that confront firms in poor countries, developed countries should continue togrant trade preferences to LDCs and similarly
disadvantaged countries, emulating Europe’s
Everything But Arms initiative. To maximize
the benefits of such deep preferences, concerted action should be taken to minimize thetrade-restricting effect of rules of origin andrelated administrative requirements.
But preferences are best viewed as a transitional instrument. What matters most in any
effort to expand exports on a sustained basis
is a good investment climate, including openness to trade. Indeed, most of the potential
gains from trade reform could be realized byunilateral liberalization.
Traditional forms of preferential treatment
cannot be the primary instruments to enhancethe development-relevance of the WTO. Instead, countries must commit to engage in thereciprocal exchange of market-access concessions. Continuing to exempt developing countries from trade-policy disciplines is not likely
to achieve development goals.
With regard to behind-the-border regulation,
the same principle should apply as with tradepolicy disciplines: ensuring that the rules support development.29 Getting the rules right requires each country to think hard about what
is in its national interest. Even where the potential benefit of an agreement may be clear,poor countries may not have the resources required to implement it immediately, perhaps
because other issues command higher priority
or because complementary policies and institutions must be put in place before implementation will be beneficial. In this regard, a newconcept of special and differential treatment,
one that would establish clear criteria andmechanisms to link implementation to development priorities and capacities, could be
most fruitful.

227

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4

Promoting the trade and development
prospects of low-income countries requires action on many fronts. The key needs—to establish priorities for reforming domestic policy
and enhancing trade-related capacity—growmore acute as MFN trade barriers are reduced,
and the value of preferences is eroded. A precondition for effective use of additional development assistance—whether in the form ofgrants or development loans—is that the necessary priorities are determined appropriately.
In many low-income countries much moreshould be done to integrate trade priorities into
national development strategies and investment allocation decisions.
It should be possible to move rapidly toward providing greater access for all countries
to others’ markets in goods and services. As
far as rule-making is concerned, agreement on
an approach that recognizes the significant
differences among countries will give development a much more solid place in the WTO.
Most important is to address what is by far
the most urgent challenge of expanding tradefor development—identifying and dealing withtrade constraints within countries, whether
those constraints derive from policies, poor infrastructure, or limitations in capacity.

Notes
1. See World Bank (2002), Finger and Schuler(2000), and Hoekman and Kostecki (2001) for a discussion and references to the literature.
2. Hudec (1987) and Finger (1991) review thebackground in some depth, noting that SDT was heavily influenced by foreign policy considerations, especially the Cold War.
3. The full name is Decision on Differential andMore Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries. See Hudec (1987)
for further discussion of the history.
4. This was first documented by Finger (1974,1976).
5. Because WTO rules are often based on those prevailing in OECD countries, implementation costs areasymmetrically distributed. Post-Uruguay Round research—for example, Finger and Schuler (2000) and
Finger (2001)—revealed that the costs associated withcomplying with certain WTO disciplines can be significant. This is in part because of the rules themselves,228

but mostly because of the ancillary investments that are
required to allow the rule to be applied.
6. Note that China and Mexico are included in theEuropean Union’s GSP recipients’ list while they are
excluded from the U.S. list. The United States has a free
trade area agreement (FTA) with Mexico and does notgrant GSP status to China. On the other hand, South
Africa, Turkey, and Eastern European countries have
FTAs with the European Union and, hence, are excluded from its GSP while they receive GSP status fromthe United States.
7. The limit is $13 million if the exporting country
has more than 50 percent market share.
8. For most textile and clothing products, the 20
percent reduction is less than 3.5 percentage points.
9. According to EU Council regulation 2501/2001,
there are some nonsensitive agricultural and foodproducts. According to Annex IV, these are artichokes,
castor oil, frogs’ legs, grapefruit, green tea, inactive
yeasts, licorice extract, malt beer, papayas, pepper, andsweet potatoes.
10. U.S. intellectual property advocacy groups haveused GSP eligibility as an instrument to induce a number of countries (including El Salvador, Honduras,
Panama, Paraguay, Poland, and Turkey) to take actions
in such areas.
11. Rules of origin are intended to prevent trade deflection and to determine where a good originates forduty purposes when two or more countries are involved in the production of a product. The general ruleis that the origin of a product is the one in which thelast substantial transformation took place, that is, thecountry in which significant manufacturing or processing occurred most recently. Significant or substantial isdefined as the level of transformation sufficient to givethe product its essential character. Various criteria canbe used to determine if a substantial transformation
occurred. These include a change in tariff heading (aswhen, as a result of whatever processing was performed the good is classified under another category of
the Harmonized System), the use of specific processing
operations, tests based on the value of additional materials embodied in the transformed product, or theamount of value added in the last country where thegood was transformed.
12. These categories make up around 65–75 percent of the exports of the AGOA and Andean Program
beneficiaries and tend to dominate general patterns
with their volatile prices.
13. A major benefit of Everything But Arms is thatthe preferences are not time-limited.
14. This was the approach used in the GATT before
the creation of the GSP. See Hudec (1987) and Finger(1991).

D E V E L O P M E N T

15. Given that many developing countries either
have not bound tariffs at all or have high tariff bindings, this will automatically imply that credit will begiven for past reductions in applied tariffs and—provided formulas are used—that autonomous liberalization (reduction in applied tariff rates) will not prejudice
future WTO negotiations. See Francois and Martin(2003) for an in-depth analysis of alternative formulabased approaches.
16. This section draws in part on Hoekman,
Michalopoulos, and Winters (2003).
17. See, for example, Hoekman, Michalopoulos,
and Winters (2003), Noland and Pack (2003), Irwin(2001, 2003), and Hausmann and Rodrik (2002).
18. Research on the effects of TRIPS suggests thatnet transfers from low- to high-income countries could
be substantial (World Bank 2001).
19. For example, despite remarkable reductions incustoms clearance times that have been achieved bysome LDCs (sometimes from weeks to days or hours,
as in Senegal), the customs regimes in many participating countries are characterized by long clearance times,
a plethora of informal fees, and inadequate performance monitoring indicators (see chapter 5). Many
countries are struggling to implement the Agreement
on Customs Valuation and to work with and reform
other institutions whose actions impinge on customs
efficiency such as security and enforcement.
20. These options are discussed further in Stevens(2002), Prowse (2002), Wang and Winters (1999), andHoekman, Michalopoulos, and Winters (2003).
21. Declaration on the Contribution of the World
Trade Organization to Achieving Greater Coherence in
Global Economic Policymaking, December 15, 1993.
22. Busch and Reinhardt (2002) found that developing countries accounted for around 30 percent ofcomplaints under both GATT and WTO, but that theshare of cases against developing countries had risen
from 8 percent to 37 percent during the period coveredby their study. This suggests that the shift to theWTO—with the associated expansion of disciplines ondeveloping countries—has given rise to a significant increase in the probability of engaging in dispute settlement. However, Holmes, Rollo, and Young (2002)concluded that the simple hypothesis that disputes will
be proportionate to trade shares is not borne out by thedata. They also found that income per head or measures of openness did not help to explain the incidenceof disputes, suggesting that there is no significant bias
between small and large countries, or between richer
and poorer countries, in terms of participation in thesystem as complainants or respondents. Horn, Mavroidis, and Nordström (1999) similarly conclude that theevidence for “bias” is not particularly strong once one
controls for the fact that disputes should be correlated

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

with the number of incompatible measures a country’s
exporters encounter and the volume of trade, and takes
into account that there is likely to be a threshold below
which it is not worth bringing a case.
23. See Bown (2002) for a recent analysis and references to the relevant literature.
24. WT/GC/W/162
25. For a discussion of a proposal by Brazil and
Uruguay to reform the dispute settlement system to include financial compensation, see Dam (1970, 368–73).
26. In their analysis of this proposal, Bagwell,
Staiger, and Mavroidis (2003) conclude that the probability of the winning country being compensated ishighest if such rights extend to the losing party.
27. The Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS)
is an analytical tool developed to reexamine the policy
and institutional constraints to trade for LDCs, and to
identify technical assistance needs for the purpose ofenhancing LDCs’ integration into the global economy.
As of July 2003, DTIS reports had been completed
for Burundi, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Senegal, and Yemen. See www.worldbank.org/trade.
28. Increasing productivity in agriculture is critical
for the transformation of these economies. Reducing
the price of food products increases the real income of
the whole population and allows higher householdspending in nonagricultural products, thus favoring
diversification.
29. The GATT/WTO may have it right when it
comes to rules on the use of trade policy; for example,
the ban on the use of quotas and the focus on binding
tariffs. This is much less clear when it comes to otheragreements, such as TRIPS. The solution in such cases
is to reopen existing agreements, something that canreadily be done. Many of the agreements are alreadysubject to ongoing negotiations.

References
Bagwell, K., R. Staiger, and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2003.
“The Case for Auctioning Countermeasures in the
WTO.” Mimeo, Columbia University, New York.
Beghin, John, and M. Ataman Aksoy. 2003. “Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round: Preliminary
Lessons from Commodity Studies.” Mimeo.
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Bhagwati, Jagdish. 1988. Protectionism. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Bown, Chad. 2002. “The Economics of Trade Disputes, the GATT’s Article XXIII and the WTO’s
Dispute Settlement Understanding.” Economics
and Politics 14: 283–323.
Brenton, Paul. 2003. “Integrating the Least Developed
Countries into the World Trading System: The

229

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2 0 0 4Current Impact of EU Preferences under Everything But Arms.” Policy Research Working Paper
3018. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Brenton, Paul, and M. Manchin. 2002. “Making EU
Trade Agreements Work: The Role of Rules ofOrigin.” CEPS Working Document 183. Brussels.
Busch, M., and E. Reinhardt. 2003. “Developing Countries and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement.” Mimeo. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Dam, Kenneth. 1970. The GATT: Law and the International Economic Organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Evenett, Simon. Editor. 2003. The Singapore Issues
and the World Trading System. Berne: State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.
Finger, J. Michael. 1974. “GATT Tariff Concessions
and the Exports of Developing Countries: UnitedStates Concessions at the Dillon Round.” Economic Journal 84 (335).
———. 1976. “Effects of the Kennedy Round Tariff
Concessions on the Exports of Developing Countries.” Economic Journal 86 (341).
———. 1991. “Development Economics and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.” In J. de
Melo and André Sapir, eds., Trade Theory andEconomic Reform: North, South, and East. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
———. 2001. “Implementing the Uruguay Round
Agreements: Problems for Developing Countries.” The World Economy 24 (9): 1097–1108.
Finger, J. M. 2002. “The Doha Agenda and Development: A View From the Uruguay Round,”Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Finger, J. Michael, and Philip Schuler. 2000. “Implementation of Uruguay Round Commitments: The
Development Challenge.” The World Economy 23:
511–25.
Francois, J., and Will Martin. 2003. “Formula Approaches for Market Access Negotiations.” The
World Economy 26: 1–28.
Hausmann, R., and Dani Rodrik. 2002. “Economic
Development as Self-Discovery.” CEPR Discussion Paper 3356, Center for Economic Policy Research, London.
Hoekman, Bernard. 2002. “Strengthening the Global
Trade Architecture for Development.” World Trade
Review 1: 23–46.
Hoekman, Bernard, and Michel Kostecki. 2001. The
Political Economy of the World Trading System.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Hoekman, Bernard, Aaditya Mattoo, and Philip English,
eds. 2002. Development, Trade and the WTO: A
Handbook. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

230

Hoekman, Bernard, Constantine Michalopoulos, and
L. Alan Winters. 2003. “Development and MoreFavorable and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries.” Mimeo, Development ResearchGroup, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Hoekman, Bernard, Francis Ng, and Marcelo Olarreaga. 2002. “Tariff Peaks in the Quad and Least
Developed Country Exports.” World Bank Economic Review 16: 1–22.
Holmes, P., J. Rollo, and A. Young. 2002. “Emerging
Trends in WTO Dispute Settlement: Back to the
GATT?” Mimeo. University of Sussex, U.K.
Horn, Henrik, and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2003. “WhichWTO Provisions are Invoked by and Against Developing Countries?” Mimeo. Institute for International Economics, Stockholm.
Horn, Henrik, Petros C. Mavroidis, and Hakan Nordström. 1999. “Is the Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?” CEPR Discussion Paper,
Center for Economic Policy Research, London.
Hudec, Robert. 1987. Developing Countries in the
GATT Legal System. London: Trade Policy Research Centre.
———. 2002. “The Adequacy of WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: A Developing Country Perspective.” In Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya Mattoo, andPhilip English, eds., Development, Trade, and the
WTO: A Handbook. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2002. “Financingof Losses Due to Preference Erosion.” Washington, D.C. Mimeo.
Inama, Stefano. 2003. “Trade Preferences and the
WTO Negotiations on Market Access.” Mimeo.
United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva.
Irwin, Douglas. 2002. Free Trade Under Fire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2003. “Interpreting the Tariff-Growth Correlation of the Late Nineteenth Century.” American
Economic Review 91 (May 2002): 165–69.
Keck, Alexander, and Patrick Low. 2003. “Special andDifferential Treatment.” Mimeo. World Trade Institute, Berne.
Laird, Sam, Raed Safadi, and Alessandro Turini. 2003.
“The WTO and Development.” Mimeo. United
Nations Commission on Trade and Development(UNCTAD), Geneva.
Mattoo, Aaditya. 2003. “Shaping Future Rules for
Trade in Services: Lessons from the GATS.” In
Takatoshi Ito and Anne O. Krueger, eds., Tradein Services in the Asia Pacific Region. NBER.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

D E V E L O P M E N T

Mitchell, Donald. 2003. “Sugar Policies: Opportunity
for Change.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
McCulloch, N., L. Alan Winters, and Xavier Cirera.
2001. Trade Liberalization and Poverty: A
Handbook. London: Center for Economic Policy
Research.
Noland, Marcus, and Howard Pack. 2003. Industrial
Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons from
Asia. Washington, D.C.: Institute of International
Economics.
Ozden, Caglar, and E. Reinhardt. 2003a. “The Perversity of Preferences.” Policy Research Working Paper 2955, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
———. 2003b. “First Do No Harm: GSP and the Effect of Trade Preferences on Developing Country
Exports.” Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Panagariya, A. 2002. “EU Preferential Trade Policies
and Developing Countries.” The World Economy
25 (10): 1415–32.
Prowse, Susan. 2002. “The Role of International andNational Agencies in Trade-Related Capacity
Building.” The World Economy (9): 1235–61.
Rodrik, Dani, ed. 2003. In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Ruffer, Tim, S. Jones, and S. Akroyd. 2002. “Development Box Proposals and Their Potential Effecton Developing Countries.” Mimeo. Report for
U.K. Department for International Development,
London.
Sapir, André. 1997. “The Political Economy of EC
Regionalism.” European Economic Review 42:
717–32.
Schiff, M., and L. Alan Winters. 2003. Regional Integration and Development. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press and Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.
Stern, Nicholas. 2002. A Strategy for Development.
Washington D.C.: World Bank.

A N D

T H E

D O H AA G E N D A

Stevens, Christopher. 2002. “The Future of SDT for
Developing Countries in the WTO.” Mimeo. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, U.K. May.
Tangermann, S. 2002. “The Future of Preferential
Trade Arrangements for Developing Countries
and the Current Round of WTO Negotiations on
Agriculture.” Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Tarr, David. 2002. “Arguments For and Against Uniform Tariffs.” In Bernard Hoekman, Aaditya
Mattoo, and Philip English, eds., Development,
Trade, and the WTO: A Handbook. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
Tsikata, Yvonne. 2003. “Integrating into the Global
Economy: Challenges, Experiences and Policy
Lessons from the Integrated Framework.” Mimeo.
World Bank.
USTR (United States Trade Representative). 2002.
“Report on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa and Implementation of
the African Growth and Opportunity Act.” Report Submitted by the President to the Congress,
Washington, D.C.
Wang, Z. K., and L. Alan Winters. 2000. “Putting‘Humpty’ Together Again: Including Developing
Countries in a Consensus for the WTO.” CEPR
Policy Paper 4. London. March.
Winters, L. Alan. 2002. “Doha and the World Poverty
Targets.” Paper presented at the Annual Bank
Conference on Development Economics, World
Bank, Washington, D.C. April.
World Bank. 2001. Global Economic Prospects and theDeveloping Countries 2002: Making Trade Workfor the Poor. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank. 2002. Global Economic Prospects and theDeveloping Countries 2003: Investing to Unlock
Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

231

Appendix 1
Regional Economic Prospects

East Asia and Pacific
Recent developmentsT

HE YEAR 2002 was one of solid recovery
in much of East Asia. GDP growth indeveloping East Asia rose from 5.5 percent in 2001 to 6.7 percent in 2002. However,
the renewed economic slowdown in the developed world, relatively high oil prices in thefirst part of 2003, and the SARS outbreak in
the region, dampened the pace of the regional
recovery in the first half of 2003. However,East Asian growth is expected to rebound progressively, as economies get beyond the shortrun impact of SARS, oil prices wane, andglobal growth revives.
A smart rebound in exports was one important driver in the regional recovery in 2002—
regional exports rose nearly 14 percent in dollar terms, after having been flat in 2001 as aresult of the global slowdown and the deep recession in world high-tech demand. Intraregional exports were especially strong, in particular to China, which is emerging as a major
hub for regional production and trade networks. Robust household consumption provided further support for the recovery, and, inseveral cases, the year saw the start of astronger trend in fixed investment as well. But
the regional picture was not uniformly upbeat,with more modest growth rates, or even continued outright recession in some of the smaller
or lower-income economies.

As has been the case for some years,
growth in 2002 was strongest in the transition
economies, China and Vietnam, where sustained strength in exports, consumption, andinvestment pushed 2002 GDP growth to 8
percent and 7 percent, respectively. But growth
also strengthened in several of the countries
that had been hardest hit by 2001’s fall inworld-trade growth and high-tech demand,
exceeding 6 percent in Korea, 5 percent inThailand, and 4 percent in both Malaysia andthe Philippines. Prompt policy action helped
mute the impact of the Bali terrorist attack on
Indonesia’s economy, which nevertheless managed only 3–4 percent growth for a second
year. Overall, the robust performance supported continued reductions in poverty.
The strong growth momentum of 2002
became more diffused in the first quarter of
2003, continuing in some countries, waning
in others, and falling sharply in yet others.
The strongest performances were in China andThailand, where year-on-year first-quarter
growth reached 9.9 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively, supported by both domestic demandand export growth. First-quarter growth was
4.5 percent in the Philippines—at the higher
end of expectations. However, some signs of adownshift were already emerging in Malaysia,
where first-quarter growth dipped to 4 percent
from over 5 percent in the latter part of 2002,
while in Indonesia growth continued at a modest 3.4 percent pace (figure A1.1).

233

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.1 Some slowing of growth
into the first quarter of 2003
Real GDP, percent change, year/year
7

Thailand6Philippines

5



4



3

Indonesia

2
1

Malaysia

0
–1
Q1
2001

Q3
2001

Q1
2002

Q3
2002

Q1
2003

Source: National agencies.

Second-quarter data for China, at 6.7 percent growth, shows the domestic effects of
SARS quite clearly. An increased deceleration
was observed in the high-income or newly industrializing economies (NIEs) of the region.
GDP in the first quarter fell by 1–2 percent
in Korea and Hong Kong (at a quarter-onquarter seasonally adjusted annual rate),
while it rose at only 0.7 percent in Singapore(on the same basis). In Korea, policy efforts torestrict excessive growth in consumer borrowing and the impact of security concerns withregard to North Korea, contributed to a fall in
consumer spending and machinery and equipment investment. Exports also slowed fromthe end of 2002, though they increased
strongly year-on-year in dollar terms. The
weaker trends in GDP growth and trade for
the NIEs continued into the second quarter.
Among the factors contributing to slower
East Asian growth in 2003 was the downturnin growth in most parts of the developed worldin the last quarter of 2002 and early 2003. The
still hesitant and uncertain pace of recovery in
the global high-tech industry, to which East
Asia is a key supplier, has been another factor
affecting exports. World semiconductor sales,
which had slumped 31 percent in 2001, inched234

forward by about 1 percent in dollar terms for2002 as a whole, despite a strong rebound on
a quarter-to-quarter basis during much of
2002. However, global semiconductor sales
peaked in the three months prior to November
2002, and trended lower in December andearly 2003. These erratic developments inglobal and sectoral demand have had some impact in slowing East Asian export growth in
the first part of 2003. Exports for East Asia asa whole started the year strongly, up 20 percent over year ago (oya) in the first quarter indollar terms, but by April–May dollar export
growth rates had slowed to below 10 percent
in the majority of cases, or even below 5 percent in some. China and Thailand were theonly countries where dollar exports continued
to grow at rates of over 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
The World Health Organization’s Marchalert about SARS sparked extraordinary public concern throughout East Asia and aroundthe world. The number of cases worldwide
rose from very few in mid-March to 8,360 by
the end of May (most of which were in China
and Hong Kong, with smaller numbers in Taiwan, China, and Singapore), and then leveled
off at around 8,465 by mid-June, indicatingthat the outbreak had been brought undercontrol, at least for the time being. Most of theeconomic impacts of the outbreak were the result of public perceptions and fears about thedisease, and from precautions taken against it,
rather than from the disease itself. The principal way SARS appears to spread is throughdroplet transmission, and so worst affected
were service industries, which depend on faceto-face interaction between service providers
and customers, especially tourism, and related
sectors such as restaurants and hotels, retailsales, business travel, and transportation.
April tourist arrivals in Hong Kong and Singapore were down by 65–70 percent from yearearlier levels, for example, while passenger traffic in all Asia-Pacific air carriers fell by 45
percent in that month. With fears about SARS
being at their height in April and May, before
easing substantially in June, the economic im-

R E G I O N A L

pacts will likely be concentrated in the second
quarter, especially in economies with large
tourism sectors, such as Hong Kong (China),
Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia. As noted,
there was a significant impact in China, which
had the largest number of SARS cases, though
growth there is still expected to reach 7–8 percent for the year as a whole, because of the verystrong momentum of the economy going into
2003, and the relatively small role of tourism.

Short-run outlook
Developing East Asian growth is expected to
dip to around 6.1 percent in 2003 from 6.7
percent in 2002, before picking up pace in2004 and later years. That is, the impacts of
SARS and the global slowdown are expected
to be modest. Several factors should support
regional activity in the near term. For one
thing, China is an increasingly important market for other East Asian countries, and continued growth there should provide some support for other East Asian economies’ exports,
despite the disruption caused by SARS. Chinese imports were still rising at a 30–40 percent year-on-year dollar rate in April-May.
Exports in several Southeast Asian countries have been boosted by higher prices for
Table A1.1

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

agricultural primary commodities such as rice,rubber, palm oil, coconut products, and lumber from late 2001 on. International capital
markets had been afflicted by high levels ofvolatility and risk aversion through much of
2002, but were showing intriguing signs ofa turnaround late in 2002 and early 2003.
Spreads on emerging market and high-yieldcorporate debt fell sharply, while flows to
emerging market funds began to increase. Of
course many East Asian countries already had
achieved low spreads because of the dramaticincrease in their foreign reserves and the large
fall in their net foreign indebtedness in recent
years. However, the improvement in generalemerging market sentiment will be good news
for countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia, which tend to face higher spreads because of their more precarious fiscal positions.
At the level of domestic policy, low inflation, a shift to greater exchange rate flexibility,
and a marked improvement in external balance
sheets have all enhanced the ability of central
banks to implement supportive monetary policies in many East Asian countries. Real interest
rates have fallen to historically low levels in recent years and this should provide an environment conducive to growth. Most regional stock

East Asia and Pacific forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
population
Gross Domestic Investment/GDPa
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP

7.7
5.5
6.4
1.2
28.8
6.8
–0.9
8.3
11.5
–0.1
0.4

5.5
4.1
4.5
0.9
30.5
2.6
–3.3
–2.2
2.7
0.1
2.7

6.7
6.1
5.8
0.9
33.0
3.3
–3.4
3.9
15.7
–0.1
3.2

6.1
5.3
5.2
0.9
33.7
3.7
–3.4
6.9
14.6
0.6
1.9

6.7
6.5
5.8
0.9
34.4
4.6
–3.2
8.2
13.7
–0.7
2.1

6.6
6.5
5.7
0.8
35.2
2.8
–2.9
8.1
11.3
–1.1
1.2

6.2
5.8
5.4
0.8
30.4

Memorandum items
East Asia excluding China

4.6

2.3

4.4

3.9

5.0

5.4

4.9

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non-factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.

235

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

markets rebounded quite sharply between lateMarch (precisely when the SARS crisis wasstarting) and June, indicating that financial
markets were looking beyond the near-term
disruptions while currencies in most flexible
exchange rate economies have also appreciatedagainst the dollar. In several countries governments also felt able to undertake small programs of fiscal stimulus to bolster economic activity during the temporary SARS shock, inparticular in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore,and Korea.

Long-term outlook
The years since the 1997 financial crisis
have been ones of extraordinary volatility anduncertainty in the world economy. East Asian
economies have actually come through this period reasonably well. Simple average growth in
the five crisis countries was 4.6 percent in
1999–2002, while including China and Vietnam it reached 5.1 percent. Contributing tothis reasonably positive experience has been abroad array of efforts at policy reform—albeit
often gradual and incomplete—accompanied
by a gradual strengthening of domestic demand. Robust household consumer spending
helped underpin growth during 2001’s export
slowdown, and it also continued to bolster theregional recovery through much of 2002. Efforts to recapitalize and restructure the financial sector have been successful enough forbanks to foster the emergence of new consumer credit markets, a positive developmentfrom a long-run standpoint, although bankmanagement and regulators will need to ensure
it does not become a source of vulnerability.
Investment spending has been strong in
China and Vietnam, but in general it has remained erratic and, on the whole, still relatively weak in the crisis countries. But even
here, there were some signs of an emerging
pickup in 2002, for example in housing construction. A number of factors should support
a stronger investment revival in due course, including continued domestic economic growth,
improvement in corporate profitability and reduction in corporate indebtedness, the running236

down of overcapacity, and continued macroeconomic stability. And structural and institutional reform efforts to improve the investment
climate will also be important. These include
reducing barriers to foreign direct investment
in services; strengthening infrastructure andthe provision of other public services important for business; and improving the regulatory, legal, and judicial frameworks. Also
important will be continued financial andcorporate sector restructuring and reform, including reforms to improve financial supervision and regulation, and strengthen corporate
governance.
While some governments have undertaken
counter-cyclical fiscal policies in 2003, given
the significant public debt built up after thecrisis, policy attention in the medium term is
becoming more focused on the need for fiscal
consolidation, and also, to some extent, on
better addressing the risks of implicit or contingent liabilities. Looking forward, there is
scope to focus on better public administrationand financial accountability, improve public
service delivery, and address questions ofgovernance more broadly—that is, to provide
growing volumes of critical public goods
while maintaining sound fiscal positions. Developing East Asia is expected to achieve percapita growth of close to 5.5 percent in themedium to longer term, given continued
steady efforts to improve structural policies
and the quality of institutions.

South Asia
Recent developments

G

DP GROWTH in the South Asia region
declined to 4.2 percent in 2002 from
4.9 percent in 2001, a downward revision from our previous estimate of an acceleration of growth as published in Global
Development Finance—2003. The slowdown
largely reflects adverse weather conditions
and a decline in agricultural output in India,
Nepal, and near stagnation in Bangladesh.
Additionally, Nepal experienced a plunge inR E G I O N A L

Figure A1.2 Industrial production in
selected South Asian countries
3-month moving average, percentage change, year/year
20

Pakistan
15



India
10



5
0
–5



–10

BangladeshJan.
1
Ju 998
ly
19
98
Ja
n.
19
Ju 99
ly
19
99
Ja
n.
20
Ju 00
ly
20
00
Ja
n.
20
Ju 01
ly
20
01
Ja
n.
20
Ju 02
ly
20
02
Ja
n.
20
03

–15

Source: National agencies.

tourism receipts and a sharp decline in manufacturing output, as the domestic insurgency
intensified. Pakistan and Sri Lanka both enjoyed a rise in growth rates in 2002 over
2001, because of strong government consumption in Pakistan and a recovery in theservices sector—along with improved politicalstability tied to progress on peace talks and a
yearlong cease-fire—in Sri Lanka.
Industrial production in the main economies continued to register gains of 5–10 percent entering 2003 (figure A1.2). Driven largely
by a recovery in India’s exports, export volume growth accelerated for the region on average—despite sluggish external demand—
thus reducing the region’s net trade deficit.
Current account balances in the two largest
economies, India and Pakistan, posted surpluses, and the region’s aggregate external balance strengthened. But exports from Nepal
declined significantly, because of weak external demand and heightened competition.
A number of regional economies experienced a significant increase in remittances
during 2002 over 2001, notably Bangladesh,
India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. In
Bangladesh, the reported increase in inflows

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

of remittances is a reflection of incentives introduced by the government to channel remittances through official sources. In Pakistan
and Sri Lanka, increases in remittances arelargely attributed to the improvements in theirdomestic security situations and to progressin macroeconomic stabilization. High interest
rate differentials in India may have contributed to a rise in banking transfers there.
While net FDI inflows to Pakistan rosemarkedly in 2002, attracted by increased
macroeconomic stabilization and progress inreforms, net inflows to India declined. In
Bangladesh, FDI inflows fell by over 60 percent, mainly reflecting the determination of anabsence of export markets (gas exploration)and the lack of progress in reforms of the infrastructure sector, such as in ports, power,
and telecommunications.
India’s and Pakistan’s nominal exchange
rates appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar
during 2002, while the exchange rates ofBangladesh and Sri Lanka remained relatively
flat. Nepal’s exchange rate is pegged to the Indian rupee. Throughout much of South Asia,
inflation remained broadly stable, as feedthrough effects of higher oil prices were offset
by easing price pressures tied to generally
weaker domestic demand conditions. In Sri
Lanka, inflationary pressures were reduced
from 2001, but remained close to 10 percent
on average in 2002.
There was some progress in the consolidation of persistent fiscal deficits, which areprevalent throughout the region (in large part
because of weak revenue collection). By containing outlays and raising revenues, Bangladesh reduced its budget deficit to 4.7 percent
of GDP in 2002 from just below 6 percent of
GDP in 2001. It improved its financing profile
by reducing its reliance on more expensive domestic financial markets and increasing its reliance on external financing sources. Sri Lanka
also achieved a two-point reduction in its budget deficit, from 10.8 percent of GDP in 2001
to 8.8 percent in 2002, and was able to shift
the composition of its financing to longer-term
instruments. Pakistan brought its underlying

237

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

budget deficit down slightly to 5.1 percent of
GDP. India’s general government fiscal deficit
was little changed from 11 percent of GDP (including both central and state deficits), despite
increased revenue collection.

Near-term outlook
Growth is forecast to accelerate throughout
the region in 2003, up to an average of 5.4
percent, assuming a return to trend agricultural production, a recovery in external demand, and continued improvements in political stability and regional security. Domestic
demand, especially private consumption and
fixed investment, is expected to accelerate,
spurred by recovery in agricultural incomes.
Growth in government spending is expectedto accelerate less strongly. A projection ofhigher growth in India underpins this forecast,as it represents nearly 80 percent of the region’s aggregate GDP. Aside from a recovery
in agricultural output, growth in India is likely
to be supported by continued strong expansion in the services sector especially in information technologies now burgeoning in the
Bangalore area. A continued recovery in Pakistan’s gross fixed investment rates, coupled
Table A1.2

with a forecasted acceleration of private consumption growth, is projected to support
growth in 2003. With higher domestic demand, import volume growth is forecast to accelerate on aggregate for the region in 2003,
leading to a narrowing of the current accountsurplus.

Medium-term prospects
South Asian growth is expected to maintain an average of close to 5.4 percent overthe medium term, assuming normal weather
conditions—leading to recovery and acceleration of agricultural output—and a continued
recovery in external demand. Declining oil
prices, both in nominal and real terms, should
reduce pressures on current account balances
for the region, which is overwhelmingly a net
energy importer. India should benefit from a
recovery in domestic demand (particularly inthe manufacturing sector) and firming export
volume growth. Bangladesh is expected towitness strengthening domestic demand andrecovering exports, and on the supply side, astrong performance of SMEs and export-oriented manufacturing units (provided proposed
structural reforms are carried out). Both Pak-

South Asia forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
population
Gross Domestic Investment/GDPa
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP
Memorandum items
GDP growth: South Asia
excluding India

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

5.2
2.0
3.3
1.9
21.3
7.8
–10.5
7.7
11.5
–0.1
–1.5

4.9
3.5
3.1
1.7
22.0
3.0
–8.3
0.2
9.1
0.0
–0.5

4.2
1.5
2.5
1.7
22.8
1.8
–9.8
2.9
3.5
0.5
0.5

5.4
2.9
3.7
1.6
22.7
5.1
–9.7
6.0
5.9
0.7
0.4

5.4
3.3
3.7
1.6
22.5
5.8
–9.3
7.5
7.4
0.4
0.2

5.4
3.5
3.8
1.5
22.3
4.7
–8.5
7.3
8.0
0.1
–0.1

5.4
3.3
4.1
1.3
25.0

4.4

3.2

3.6

4.8

5.3

5.6

5.2

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non-factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.

238

R E G I O N A L

istan and Sri Lanka are projected to benefit
from continued macroeconomic stability andan associated acceleration of growth. The
peace process is expected to yield significant
economic gains in Sri Lanka. Similarly, Nepal
is likely to experience strengthening growth,
assuming continued improvement in the security situation there, with a recovery in domestic demand, exports, and in tourism receipts.
Further, recent steps toward improving relations between India and Pakistan may lead togreater stability in the sub-region, paving theway for increased business confidence and stability. Throughout the region, growth should
be underpinned by continued firm expansion
in services and industrial production.
Recovery in external demand and a gradual
return to lower oil prices is likely to be morethan offset by generally firming import demand, which is expected to lead to a moderatedecrease in the region’s aggregate current account surplus to an average balance near zeroas a share of GDP over the medium term
(2004–05). At the individual country level,
India and Pakistan’s projected current accountsurpluses are expected to roughly balance theprojected deficits in Bangladesh, Nepal, andSri Lanka.
The fiscal positions of the South Asian
economies are forecast to improve moderately,
assuming some progress in raising budget revenues and in the management of government
expenditures. Inflation is projected to increase
somewhat, albeit still at generally moderatelevels, because of the assumed pick-up in
growth and assumptions of a more accommodative monetary stance in a number ofcountries, though falling oil prices are expected to partially offset these factors.

Long-term outlook
Long-term growth in South Asia is forecast
to average about 5.4 percent, in line with the
GEP 2003 growth forecast. This forecast issomewhat higher than the 5.2 percent averagereal growth posted during the 1990s. The
higher projected growth over the coming
decade through 2015 reflects a number of

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

underlying assumptions, not least of which is alarger contribution to growth by the private
sector. This in turn reflects the expectation ofprogress with fiscal consolidation and continued structural reforms, including reforms in
trade, banking, privatization, and infrastructure. These factors, combined with the improvement in human capital indicators in recent years—such as rising literacy rates andschool enrollments and declining infant mortality rates—will lead to an increase in productivity. Despite a projection of declining infantmortality rates, overall the South Asian population growth rate is projected to decelerate as
birth rates are expected to decline at fasterrates. Lower population growth in the coming
decade, along with the forecast growth rates,
implies that per capita GDP growth will beclose to 4.0 percent per year.

Risks
There are a number of risks to the forecast.
Persistent fiscal deficits continue to be a risk
in a number of the region’s economies, India
in particular, as they can undermine fiscal sustainability, contribute to a growing debt-toGDP ratio, and lead to higher interest rates,
thereby crowding out private investment anddiverging public outlays from investment tointerest payments and limiting the scope forboth fiscal and monetary policies. Fiscal consolidation is required, which would not only
mitigate such vulnerabilities, but also provide
for broader scope of action in macroeconomic
policies to pursue sustained higher growth.
The forthcoming phase-out of the Multi-Fibre
Arrangement (MFA) in 2005 will imply greater
competition for the region’s textile exporters.
While India and Pakistan appear to be gearing
up for the impending increase in competition,
the impact of the MFA phase-out on other
South Asian regional economies is more uncertain, particularly in Bangladesh, Nepal,
and Sri Lanka (where garment exports represent about 75 percent, 25 percent, and justover 50 percent of total merchandise exports,
respectively). Given the importance of the
agricultural sector to the region, the threat of239

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

severe weather conditions and associated poor
harvests remain a significant risk to growth
outcomes. Political risks and uncertainties
also remain a concern, because of both internal and external factors. Heightened domestic
and regional instability could undermine
growth prospects and slow the pace of economic reforms. Remittances could be affectedby increased instability in the Middle East.
And significantly higher-than-forecast energy
prices would pose an additional burden on
current account positions.

Latin America and the Caribbean
Recent developmentsT

he Latin American region has begun torecover from last year’s recession. The
upturn this year reflects the tentative recovery in Argentina and Uruguay as well as
calming of pre-election jitters in Brazil at theend of 2002. As a result, regional growth in2003 is projected to reach 1.8 percent, compared to last year’s contraction of 0.8 percent.
Although the region is on a favorable recovery
path, its growth rate remains well below potential and below that of other regions. In addition
to Argentina and Uruguay, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, countries with generally
stronger policy frameworks, registered a somewhat improved growth performance.
The fact that the 2002 recession was relatively short reflects both domestic structural
policy, renewed confidence, and external factors. Domestic macropolicies have improved
significantly: the region managed to reduce inflation to single-digit figures (for 2003–Q1,
the regional inflation rate was 8.3 percent),
proving that the commitment of central banks
to low inflation is, although not universal,
quite widespread across the region. Similarly,
balanced fiscal policies have been applied andthe expected 2003 regional public deficit
should be about 2 percent of GDP. For example, the new president of Brazil has reiterated the country’s commitment to balanced

240

macropolicies, and this has rapidly thwarted
negative expectations for the future.
A second domestic factor explaining the region’s enhanced resilience to crisis is found in
the substitution of inward-oriented development policies (through the maintenance ofhigh trade barriers and other perverse price incentives) by more liberal trade and marketfriendly policies. This shift has helped theeconomies to diversify and has broadened theregional export base while diminishing its
dependency on a narrow set of commodity
prices. As shown in figure A1.3a, during the1970s, exports of agricultural products, oiland other natural resources for the region as awhole, accounted for about one-quarter andone-fifth, respectively, of total exports; twodecades later, both sectors accounted forabout one-tenth of total exports, and manufacturing has become an important source of
foreign exchange.
Additional important elements contributing to the success of this outward-oriented
development strategy have been the NAFTA
agreement—that directly benefited Mexico,
but generated spillovers to other countries—
and increased intraregional integration. Indeed, the revamping of Mercosur and othersub-regional integration arrangements arebeing discussed in Latin America, together
with the plans for a hemispheric free-tradearea. Chile and Mexico suffered least from the
2001–2 economic downturn, thanks to theireffective integration in the global economy
and good macroeconomic policies. Chile recently signed an FTA with the United Statesthat is anticipated to be ratified by the two
governments by end-2003, and become operational in 2004: the FTA grants free access to
87 percent of Chilean exports to U.S. markets.
A final factor is the achievement of healthier current account positions. The Latin American region has witnessed a drop of more than
3.5 points in the ratio of the current accountbalance to GDP (from –4.4 percent in 1998 to–0.8 percent in 2002) resulting from a reduction of the region’s borrowing needs and theR E G I O N A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.3a Sectoral export shares (selected countries)
Agriculture

Shares in percent of total exports
70
60
50

1970s

40

1980s

26
1990s

18



20



30

10



10
0
Latin America
and theCaribbean

Argentina

BrazilMexicoChile

Colombia

Peru

Venezuela

MexicoChile

Colombia

Peru

Venezuela

Oil and other natural resources

Shares in percent of total exports
70
60
50
40
1980s

1970s

1990s



11



20

21 22

10



30

0
Latin America
and theCaribbean

Argentina

BrazilSource: World Bank, DECPG estimates from GTAP 5 databases.

reluctance of global investors to enter emerging markets. The adoption of more flexible exchange rate regimes is probably an important
structural change. Anticipated increases in GDP
growth are not expected to directly translate
into large unsustainable current accountdeficits.
Despite the sluggish global economy, somespecific improvements in the external environment are also contributing to recovery in theregion. A weaker U.S. dollar is the first of these
improvements: servicing the region’s dollardenominated external debt becomes less oner-ous, net oil importers suffer less from oil pricesurges, and usually non-oil commodity prices
surge with a falling dollar. Moreover, the weakening of the dollar against the euro should help
manufacturing exporters with currencies following the dollar by raising the competitiveness of their goods in the euro zone and enabling their share of exports to the EU to rise.
The recent dramatic reduction of spreads onyields of foreign sovereign debt for the region
is another favorable global financial development. The reduction in spreads—highlighted infigure A1.3b (in Brazil spreads narrowed from241

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.3b Latin American yield spreads
EMBI Global, Jan. 2000 = 100
160
BrazilDominican Republic

Latin America
and the Caribbean

Chile
MexicoVenezuela




100



120



140

Argentina





80
60

03

03

20
ne

Ju

03
M

ay

20

03

20
ril
Ap

03

20

20

.
ar

b.
Fe

M

03

2

20
n.

Ja

00

.2
ec
D

.2
ov
N

00

2

2
00

2
.2

ct
O

pt
Se

.2

00

02
20

02
Au

ly
Ju

g.

20

02

02

20

20

ne

20

ay
M

ril
Ap

Ju

02

02
20

02
M

ar

.

20

b.
Fe

Ja

n.

20

02

40

Source: World Bank, DECPG estimates from J.P. Morgan-Chase data.

a peak of 2,067 bp in October 2002 to 754 bp
in April 2003, Mexican spreads have reached
an all-time low, those of Peru and Colombia
are at their lowest levels since 1998 and 2000,
respectively)—has not yet been accompaniedby large capital inflows. For Latin America,
average monthly flows during the first half of2003 registered $5.3 billion, modestly above
the $4.3 billion average of the same period in
2002. In fact the bond price rally may be tied
to an excess of global investors’ demand forhigher yield instruments over the supply of
new issues by borrowers. However, it shouldbe mentioned that Mexico has been quite active in international capital markets and thateven Brazil has already been able to place issues twice this year.

Near-term outlook
Improving world trade growth coupled withincreased OECD economic growth led by theUnited States should further boost the exportled recovery of Latin America in 2004–05.
Also, by 2004, the region’s largest economies
will have surpassed the worst of their crises(Argentina and Uruguay) or potential for crises

242(Brazil and Colombia) and, with some exceptions, all countries should experience a recovery of domestic demand and record positive
rates of growth. The regional average growthrate should climb to 3.7 percent in 2004 andto 3.8 percent in 2005. Even if current accountdeficits increase in most of the expanding
economies of the region, low world interest
rates, lower perceived risks for Latin American assets (bonds, equities, or direct investments), the continuation of fiscal prudence inthe region, and flexible exchange rates should
maintain a cap on these incipient deficits.
Even though the 2003 –0.5 percent ratio ofcurrent account deficit to GDP for the regionis unlikely to be maintained, external deficit
ratios are not foreseen anywhere near the
1995–99 average of more than 3 percent, butrather a modest –0.7 percent for 2004 and –1
percent for 2005.
Clearly some uncertainty remains, giventhat these projections assume that no (domestic or external) adverse development reverses
the easing of financial pressure on the region’s
most vulnerable countries. High levels of debt
still burden fiscal authorities and tight mone-

R E G I O N A L

tary policies required to keep inflation undercontrol may limit expansion. This is especiallytrue for Brazil; however, thanks to its enhanced credibility, the central bank in thiscountry may be able to ease its stance in thenear future.
Furthermore, some country risks persist.
Several challenges await Argentina: a) restructuring the banking system to reactivate credit(which is still contracting); b) replacing inefficient taxes, including on export and savings, with new efficient taxes; c) building asolid regulatory and institutional framework
to protect property rights and deal with othergovernance issues; d) renegotiating public utilities tariffs that have been held well below therate of inflation; and e) eventual restructuringof the defaulted debt. The Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela started to export oil again,
but its political crisis is not over and macroeconomic instability, price controls, and otherdistortions need to be addressed. Recently, thegovernment endorsed an Economic Stability
agreement that pledges to make every effort toimprove its external accounts by reestablishing the level of oil income and implementing
the necessary adjustments to the currency control regime; however, previous similar attempts have failed.
The Caribbean countries, and this also applies to some small Central American countries, are still facing the difficult transition
from being tropical agriculture export-oriented
economies to becoming more diversified. Theirpreferential trade agreements are expiring or
are severely eroded, and their successful attempts at diversifying toward tourism and financial services received a severe set-back in
2002 from which they have not yet recovered.

Long-term prospects
In the longer term, Latin American countries
could achieve higher growth rates if they overcome several critical structural constraints(table A1.3). On the external front, a numberof countries rely heavily on the United States

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

as a source of imports, as a destination for exports, and as a source of external finance. As
shown in figure A1.3c, the United States has
become the region’s major export market destination, increasing from 36 percent of totalexports in the 1970s to almost 50 percent in
the 1990s.
Given the lackluster growth forecasts for
the Euro zone, a stronger link to the UnitedStates may be considered positive; however,geographical diversification may reduce risks.
In particular, European markets have lost importance for Latin American exporters andthis may be corrected by pushing for more bilateral agreements and a more comprehensive lift of European restrictions to market
access.
The rising share of intraregional trade is apositive sign and may help Latin Americancountries negotiate trade and other integration agreements as a block, vis-à-vis OECD
countries. In fact, trade integration should bea priority among the long-term development
policies—Latin America, compared to East
Asia, shows much lower trade-to-GDP ratios—and deeper trade integration agreements
bring additional benefits in terms of increased
foreign investment and also boost credibility
to sound macro policies.
On the internal front, some of the major
impediments of the past, such as large fiscal
imbalances and perverse price incentives, havebeen removed (though not consistently in all
countries). However, smaller fiscal deficits
have been obtained mainly through expenditure restraints, with potential long-term issues
on infrastructure development and poverty
eradication, and most countries still have relatively (with respect to more developed countries) low tax revenues to GDP ratios. Low tax
revenues result from a strong reduction of international trade duties (in itself a positive development), inefficient collection, evasion, andother governance issues. Low revenues havebeen compensated by recurring to unstablenon-tax revenues (oil royalties or other natural resources form of taxation, privatiza-

243

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.3c Export shares by destination market (selected countries)
United States

Shares in percent of total exports

1980s

48
1970s


Latin America
and theCaribbean

Argentina

1990s


40
30
20
10
0

44
36



80
70
60
50

BrazilMexicoChile

Colombia

Venezuela

MexicoChile

Colombia

Venezuela

European Union

Shares in percent of total exports
1970s

1980s




29

1990s


50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

25
15

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Argentina

BrazilIntra-Regional

Shares in percent of total exports

1970s

16



12

Latin America
and theCaribbean

1980s


20

Argentina

BrazilMexico

Chile

1990s



50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Colombia

Venezuela

Source: World Bank, DECPG estimates from GTAP 5 databases.

tion), generating a situation of inadequate andvolatile government income.
In the long term, beyond macroeconomic
stability and commitment to sound fiscal andmonetary policies, LAC countries will have totackle governance issues, attempt to correct a

244

skewed income distribution, and develop mature financial markets necessary to generateenough resources to become less dependent on
foreign finance, allowing important investments in physical infrastructure and humancapital to be financed domestically.

R E G I O N A L

Table A1.3

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Latin America and the Caribbean forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
population
Gross Domestic Investmenta
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP

3.4
2.4
1.7
1.7
19.8
12.0
–3.0
9.4
8.7
1.7
–2.7

0.3
–0.9
–1.2
1.6
19.1
5.5
–1.8
–1.2
1.0
–0.2
–2.7

–0.8
–3.5
–2.3
1.5
18.0
4.7
–2.9
0.5
2.2
0.1
–0.8

1.8
–0.1
0.4
1.4
17.6
4.1
–2.0
5.0
9.2
–0.4
–0.5

3.7
1.8
2.3
1.4
18.4
4.0
–1.0
8.6
11.2
0.1
–0.7

3.8
1.9
2.5
1.3
18.4
4.0
–0.6
7.2
10.2
–0.7
–1.0

3.8
2.3
2.5
1.2
22.6

Memorandum items
GDP growth: LAC excluding
Argentina
Central America
Caribbean

3.2
4.4
4.0

1.2
1.5
3.1

1.0
1.9
3.0

1.5
2.4
0.9

3.6
3.1
2.4

3.9
3.8
4.1

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non-factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Recent developments

G

DP IS NOW estimated to have expanded

by 4.6 percent in 2002 for ECA, an
upward revision from the 4.1 percent
projected in the last forecast presented in
Global Development Finance 2003 (WorldBank 2003). Growth prospects proved to be
more resilient than previously anticipated, primarily because of the strength of domestic demand, which was more than able to offset
lackluster growth in the region’s main export
markets. The firming of ECA regional economic growth in 2002—over the 2.2 percent
growth posted in 2001—was driven by thehuge 15 percentage point swing in Turkey’s
performance (from a contraction of 7.4 percent in 2001, following the financial crisis, toan upswing of 7.8 percent in 2002). The ECA
average growth excluding Turkey registereda slowing to 3.9 percent in 2002, contrasted
with 4.5 percent in 2001. This latter trend
largely reflected the aggregate slowdown in
the CIS region.

Growth in the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), excluding Turkey,
was unchanged in 2002 relative to 2001 at 2.9
percent. Including Turkey, GDP growth averaged 4.5 percent for the group, swinging up
sharply from a 0.8 percent contraction posted
in 2001. Regional growth was underpinned byexpanding domestic demand, often spurredby fiscal policy (Hungary, Czech Republic,
Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia) and/or easing
monetary policies (Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania). Furthermore, despite
tepid external demand, export growth remained firm in many of the CEECs.
In the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), GDP growth continued to slow to
an average of 4.7 percent in 2002, down from
5.8 percent in 2001, and following the spike in
CIS average growth of 8.4 percent posted in
2000. The slowdown largely reflects a deceleration of growth in Russia, as the effects of thedevaluation of the 1998 crisis and the rents
from high energy prices eroded. Diminished
import demand from Russia—representing animportant export market for the remaining CIS

245

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.4 Industrial production in
selected ECA countries
3-month moving average, percentage change, year/year
3060

Turkey [right scale]countries—contributed to the easing of growthin the rest of the region. In addition, growth
decelerated in Turkmenistan, because of a poorcotton harvest and slower growth of natural
gas exports (the result of pipeline constraints),
and suffered a decline in Kyrgyz Republic, tied
to an accident at its largest gold mine anda temporary decline in exports. The South
Caucasus countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, andGeorgia) and Belarus, however, experienced an
acceleration of growth.

45

20

30
10
Poland15

G L O B A L

0
0

246

–10

–15


Russia
–20

–30

20
01
Au
g.
20
01
N
ov
.2
00
Fe
1
b.
20
0
M
2
ay
20
0
Au
2
g.
20
02
N
ov
.2
00
Fe
2
b.
20
03
M
ay
20
03

ECA aggregate growth is forecast to slow
moderately to 4.3 percent in 2003. This projected growth rate for 2003 is higher than anticipated in GDF 2003, and reflects stronger
than expected growth in a number of countries, particularly in Russia, which has exhibited firming domestic demand during the firstquarter of 2003 (figure A1.4). The deceleration of ECA aggregate growth between 2002
and 2003 is primarily because of a projectedmoderation of growth in Turkey following the
sharp upswing in 2002.
Growth in Turkey is projected to deceleratelargely because of base effects following thestrong recovery in 2002. Other factors affecting
Turkey’s near-term outlook include the continued required fiscal consolidation, the expected
slowdown in inventory building, weaker tourism revenues because of the Iraq conflict, andlimited foreign investment. The current accountdeficit has been rising rapidly, driven by rising
imports, the recovery in domestic demand, andhigher oil prices. Export growth has remained
relatively robust despite the recent real appreciation of the lira and weak external demand. Asof end-April, the Turkish government appearedon track for the Fund’s program, but the paceof reforms will need to accelerate to sustain
growth.
In the CEECs, excluding Turkey, growth in2003 is projected to accelerate moderately (by0.5 percentage points) because of continued
penetration in new export markets and an expected boost to consumer confidence becauseof progress in the EU accession process.1 In

M
ay

Near-term outlook

Source: National agencies.

particular, growth is projected to acceleratemoderately in Albania, the Czech Republic,
Poland (which represents 13 percent of the region’s GDP), and Slovenia. Growth in the remaining economies is forecast to either remain
flat or decelerate moderately.
In the CIS, growth is projected tostrengthen in 2003, as domestic demand has
begun to accelerate in Russia, underpinninggrowth there, which in turn should support
growth in other CIS countries dependent on
Russia’s import demand. First-quarter data for2003 show strong growth in energy exports
and industrial activity in Russia, spurringstronger investment, especially in the energy
sector. This, coupled with an increase in private consumption—boosted by strong growth
in real incomes and falling unemployment—isleading to higher output. Further, the recent
appreciation of the euro against the dollar has
led to increased import prices for Russian imports from Europe, relative to US dollardenominated oil export revenues, which in turnis stimulating increased demand for cheaper
domestic products. While oil prices have declined in recent months, they are still high relative to the average over the last few years andR E G I O N A L

are projected to average $26.5/bbl in 2003
(given the spike during the first quarter), up
from $24.9/bbl in 2002 (and well above the$21/bbl reference price used for the Russianbudget). The southern-tier energy exporters of
Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are expected tocontinue to post high growth rates, driven by
the ongoing oil sector investment boom, andsupported by strong FDI inflows. Manufacturing and services related to investment in the oil
sector are expected to continue to expand as
well. GDP growth in most other CIS economies is anticipated to either remain flat or decelerate in 2003, with the exceptions of Georgia, where a rise in investment is projected,
linked to the construction of oil and gas transit pipelines, and the Kyrgyz Republic, which
is anticipated to benefit from a revival in its
gold production.

Medium-term prospects
ECA regional growth is expected to firstaccelerate to 4.5 percent in 2004, and then to
decelerate to 4.1 percent in 2005, reflecting divergent trends at the sub-regional levels: accelerating growth in the CEECs and slowing activity in the CIS.
Growth in the CEECs (including Turkey) is
projected to accelerate from 3.5 percent in2003 to 4.3 and 4.7 percent in 2004 and 2005,
respectively, in part because of a gradualbuildup in external demand. The first round of
new EU members, in particular, is expected tocontinue to receive significant inflows of FDI(in addition to EU transfers)—which will remain an important source of external financeand support for long-term growth. Sustained
growth in Turkey assumes the country will remain committed to the Fund’s program, andthat structural reforms will contribute to a correction in internal and external balances. These
factors, along with the assumption of declining
interest rates, are expected to help spur domestic demand in Turkey.
Growth is expected to slow in the CIS from
5.3 percent in 2003 to 4.6 and 3.4 percent in2004 and 2005, respectively, assuming significant decline in oil price in both 2004 andE C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

2005—from $26.5/bbl in 2003 to $22/bbl and$20/bbl in 2004 and 2005, respectively—and acorresponding decline in the growth impetus
through fiscal linkages.

Long-term prospects
Higher investment rates and ongoing restructuring of the capital base are expected to contribute to stronger growth in the CEE countries
during the second decade of transition thanposted during the previous decade. Further,
continued improvements in the policy environment, including greater macroeconomic stability, are expected to underpin the projected
higher growth rates. The EU accession process
and coming membership will continue to act asan anchor for structural reforms and will help
attract significant inflows of FDI. While structural reforms are being pursued in many CIS
countries, in general, implementation is not as
advanced or as widespread as in the CEE subregion’s economies, and in some cases there issignificant resistance to structural reforms.
This implies lower long-run growth in comparison. The recent boom in hydrocarbon
rents has provided an impetus to growth, facilitating the introduction of a number of reforms
to oil-exporting countries, and contributing toan increase in investment outlays (particularlyin the energy sector). However, given thevolatility of energy market prices, these
economies will not be able to sustain recently
achieved higher growth rates until diversification from energy becomes more broadly based.
Given the degree of energy dependence inmany of the CIS economies, particularly Russia, the projected softening of oil prices—to an
average nominal price of about $19 per barrel
for the 2005–10 period, in the underlying forecast—implies a ratcheting down of the subregion’s growth from recent high rates.

Risks
There are three main risks to the forecast:• Global trade and growth prospects:
More sluggish than anticipated world
growth prospects, and/or a delayed re-247

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table A1.4

P R O S P E C T S

Europe and Central Asia forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
Population
Gross Domestic Investment/GDPa
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP

–1.6
0.0
–1.8
0.2
24.6
76.0
–4.0
6.6
10.0
0.8
–2.5

2.2
3.2
2.0
0.1
21.7
6.1
–8.4
4.6
5.5
0.9
–1.4

4.6
5.4
4.5
0.1
20.8
4.0
–9.3
2.4
6.7
–1.6
1.1

4.3
5.1
4.3
0.1
21.1
5.8
–8.4
8.2
8.1
1.7
0.6

4.5
4.8
4.4
0.1
21.5
6.5
–7.1
7.2
8.5
0.0
0.1

4.1
4.5
4.0
0.1
22.0
2.7
–6.2
7.4
8.4
–0.3
–0.5

3.4
3.1
3.3
0.1
28.8

Memorandum items
GDP growth: transition countriesf
Central and Eastern Europef
CIS

–2.5
0.6
–4.4

4.5
2.9
5.8

3.9
2.9
4.7

4.5
3.4
5.3

4.4
4.2
4.6

3.8
4.4
3.4

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non-factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
f. Excluding Turkey.
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.

covery, especially in the EU, could undermine or reduce the export led componentof growth, especially for the CEECs;• Domestic policies and investor confidence: Delays in fiscal consolidation incountries with large budget deficits(Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic), which would risk diminished useof automatic stabilizers; skewed fiscal andmonetary policies (as witnessed in Poland,for example); crowding out of private investment; and a slowdown of structuralreforms. In Turkey, failure to achieve substantial decline in real interest rates would
result in significantly lower growth outturns. For the EU accession candidate
countries with large fiscal deficits, overall
fiscal consolidation as well as public expenditure restructuring will be necessary
to join the European exchange rate mechanism and to absorb EU transfers, which
require national co-financing; the growth
outlook will also partly depend on a recovery in external demand, which could
cushion the adjustment process. Countries with large twin fiscal and external
deficits (Turkey, Croatia, etc.) could un-248

dermine confidence of foreign investors
and result in difficulties in maintaining access to financing;• Energy prices: A sharper decline in oil
price (induced, for example, by low world
growth outcomes), could translate into amarked deceleration in growth for both
CIS energy exporters and countries dependent on Russia’s consumer markets.
For the ECA region’s energy exporters, effective management of large government
oil revenues and continued structural reforms are required to pave the way forsustained long-term growth, economic diversification, and employment creation.
Medium- and long-term prospects depend largely on rapid diversification of
the production base and exports.

Sub-Saharan Africa
Recent developmentsA

SUBDUED EXTERNAL environment, together with poor weather and homegrown problems of governance andcivil strife, held real growth in Sub-Saharan

R E G I O N A L

P R O S P E C T S

per up 13 percent, cotton up 24 percent, andcocoa up a sharp 107 percent. Year over year,
agricultural export prices gained an average of
20.5 percent and though metals and minerals
declined a further 2.3 percent, the exportweighted average price of non-energy commodities for the region was up 13.5 percent,while non-oil exporters’ terms of trade strengthened by 4.2 percent. Moreover, higher frequency data on metals indicate signs of recent
strength as well. No sustained upward trend isanticipated given highly competitive new suppliers coming on stream, but at least key export
markets appear to be stabilizing around present
levels (figure A1.5a).
Tourism has been affected not only by
weak income growth in the OECD, especiallyEurope, but also by security concerns arisingfrom the September 2001 terrorist attacks andthe run-up to the Iraq war. If the rest of theworld needed a reminder that travel to the region is risky, it came in the form of a terrorist
attack in Kenya in November 2002 that left
fifteen dead, including three Israeli tourists.
Barring further negative shocks, the low point
for tourism was likely reached at the time of
the Iraq war when travel to SSA was down bynearly one-quarter compared to the year before. Nevertheless, that virtually guarantees a

Figure A1.5a SSA commodity priceoutlook favors non-oil exporters
Prices in US$, indices 2002 = 100
115.0

Metals andminerals

Agriculture

105.0

95.0


Africa (SSA) to 2.8 percent in 2002, downfrom 3.2 percent in 2001. Faced with Europe’s
faltering economy and rising geopolitical uncertainty, real export growth slumped to just
0.7 percent, the worst outcome in a decade,while net exports contributed –0.8 percent to
GDP growth. Meanwhile, domestic absorption was flat at 3.6 percent. Notably, investment spending was relatively resilient, especially in South Africa and a number of oil
exporters. Early indications from the first halfof 2003 are that performance will be similar in
the current year and growth in SSA is expected
to remain at 2.8–3 percent.
In domestic economies, adverse weather
compounded by civil strife has seriously disrupted food production for more than half theregion’s population, and as many as 40 million persons are facing acute hunger.2 Droughthas been particularly severe in the horn ofAfrica, comprising Ethiopia and Eritrea andparts of the Sudan, leaving over 15 million urgently in need of food aid. But disruptions
have occurred in numerous other countries aswell because of weather or civil strife, including Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic ofCongo, the Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania,
Senegal, and Zimbabwe. Apart from the humanitarian crises, with agriculture representing nearly one-fifth of GDP—over one-quarter
excluding South Africa—the macroeconomic
impact is to reduce household incomes andexpenditure. On average, consumption grewby just 2.4 percent in 2002 (0.1 percent percapita), down from 3.1 percent in 2001.
For the region as a whole, the terms of tradestrengthened in 2002, thanks both to gains inexport prices and a decline in the cost of manufactured imports. Oil prices were up 2.4 percent over 2001 which, with net energy exports
accounting for some 8 percent of GDP, contributed 0.2 percent to incomes. Non-energy
commodities are also enjoying a significant rebound, albeit from very low levels after the
dizzying declines of the late 1990s. This rebound is primarily the result of supply constraints rather than growth in demand. Compared to low points reached since 2000, theprice of gold in 2002 was up 14 percent, cop-

E C O N O M I C

Energy

85.0

75.0
2002

2003

2004

2005

Source: DECPG Commodities Group.

249

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

mediocre year at best and the World Travel
and Tourism Council (WTTC) forecasts aslight decline of 0.2 percent in GDP and employment in the tourism sector in 2003. At thesame time, however, South Africa was theworld’s fastest growing tourist destination in
2002, with 20 percent growth in arrivals over
the year before, and the momentum continued
into 2003, though the pace is likely to slow
with the stronger rand. Thus, superimposedon the overall pattern of growth has been asouthward shift in the industry’s center ofgravity. Whether this will be reversed remains
to be seen.
In spite of the overall disappointing results,
there were some positive developments. Average per capita income rose for a fourth successive year in 2002, which is the longest sustained
increase in over two decades. Moreover, theslowdown was largely attributable to a small
group of poor performers. In Nigeria, a lower
OPEC quota and budget gridlock offset muchof the potential gain from higher oil prices,
Ethiopia and Eritrea suffered through anotheryear of increasingly savage drought, and deepening political crises paralyzed Côte d’Ivoire
and Zimbabwe. For this group of countries—
representing around one-third of the region’s
population and GDP—growth fell by twothirds, from 1.7 percent to 0.6 percent in theyear. This same group also contributed to mostof the retrenchment in exports. By contrast,
elsewhere in the region, GDP growth slowed
only marginally. As usual, politics played an
overarching role and countries in conflict or experiencing civil disruption were at the bottomof the league. Even here there is a glimmer ofhope, though, in the growing institutional
strength of initiatives such as the African Union,
NEPAD, and the East African Community.
Also encouraging is further evidence ofAfrica’s potential competitiveness, given theright incentives and opportunities. An impressive recent example is the growth of nontraditional exports under the U.S. African Growthand Opportunity Act (AGOA), which extends
preferential access to imports from a growing
list of eligible countries. So far, there have250

been relatively few beneficiaries—Nigeria,
South Africa, Gabon, Lesotho, and Kenya account for nearly 93 percent of U.S. imports
under AGOA preferences—and three-quartersof the total consists of oil. But non-oil exports
grew rapidly in 2002. Despite a slump in the
U.S. economy that led to an overall decline ofnearly 16 percent in AGOA exports, nontraditional exports were sharply higher—textiles
and apparel more than doubled from 2001,
while transportation equipment and agricultural products were up 80 percent and 38 percent respectively.3
In South Africa, the sharp fall of the rand beginning in 2000 provided a strong stimulus to
growth, but much of that was reversed through2002 and into 2003 as the currency bounced
back because of tight money and the unwindingof the Reserve Bank’s net open forward position
which had unnerved investors. Growth in 2002
was a still-robust 3.0 percent, though the contribution to growth from trade declined to negative territory, while domestic demand soaredby 4.1 percent. Though the domestic economy
slowed in the first quarter of 2003, growth remained relatively strong at 3.5 percent (saar),particularly investment, which was up an impressive 8 percent. Given the momentum evident in the first quarter, domestic demandshould remain relatively strong, though withthe rand remaining firm, net exports will be a
drag on growth and GDP is expected to growonly around 2.8 percent. Especially worthy ofnote is an auspicious turnaround in the labormarket in 2002, with formal sector payrolls increasing after seven straight years of decline,
even though the increase of 70,000 jobs is small
compared to the official estimate of 4.8 million
unemployed.
In Nigeria, slower growth in 2002 reflected
OPEC production constraints and the impact
of budget gridlock that limited spillovers fromoil production to the rest of the economy inspite of strong prices. Hydrocarbons constitutealmost all Nigerian exports, but gas is taking
an increasing share, and in 2002 a one-third increase in liquid natural gas (LNG) production
partially offset a 6 percent fall in oil. Produc-

R E G I O N A L

tion in the first quarter of 2003 was up around
5 percent from 2002, somewhat below the average increase for OPEC as a whole.4 Nigeria
would like an increase in its quota from thecurrent level of 2.1mb/d that is well below capacity. But a significant rise in the near term isunlikely, as slow growth in the industrial economies will constrain the global sector. Nevertheless, higher production in 2003 in addition
to further growth in LNG and continuing pricestrength, will underpin a stronger performance
this year. The most encouraging recent news
from Nigeria concerned the presidential election which has strengthened the fragile politicalprocess. But, equally important, meaningfulprogress on economic reform has been frustratingly slow. On balance, growth this year
and in the medium term is likely to be only
moderate.

Near-term outlook
Though the forecast calls for world economic
growth to accelerate in the second half of2003, the pace of recovery is expected to remain sluggish, especially in Europe where theeconomy stalled in the first quarter and therisk of outright recession has risen. Even witha pickup in momentum going into the second
half, the EU is expected to grow by only 0.9
percent in 2003 and 1.9 percent in 2004. SSA
should benefit from a more rapid expansion ofEuropean imports thanks to the appreciationof the euro, but the 4.1 percent increase in EU
import demand anticipated over the next two
years is barely half the pace of the late 1990s.
Moreover, travel and tourism will continue toreflect security concerns, fanned recently by
the UK government’s decision in May (since retracted) to ban commercial flights to Kenya,
though, as noted, there will be differences
within the region. However, for SSA overall
the external environment will provide only
modest support for growth in the current year,with exports rising 2.9 percent. A further acceleration to 4.9 percent is expected in 2004 as
the recovery continues to build.
The forecast anticipates stronger growth forboth energy and non-energy exporters in the

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

medium term as the global recovery consolidates. Energy sectors are expected to contributesignificantly to regional growth, especially witha moderate rebound in Nigeria from a weak
performance in 2002. But, more generally,
West Africa is emerging as an energy hot spot,with mainly offshore exploration and development activities underway from Angola throughthe Gulf of Guinea, and extending to nontraditional energy producers from São Tomé andPrincipe, to Mauritania. Major energy-related
infrastructure projects including the West
African Gas Pipeline and Nigeria’s plan to end
gas flaring by 2004 will also have a direct impact on investment and incomes. Though linkages to non-energy sectors are generally weak,increased fiscal revenues will permit relatively
expansionary fiscal policies. Overall, oil exporters’ growth is expected to reach 3.6 percent
in 2003 and accelerate further to 3.9 percent by
2005. Despite some retrenchment in non-oil
commodity prices in the second quarter, nonoil exporters will benefit from better terms oftrade in the current year and relative stability
after that. Policy improvements are expected tohave a cumulative impact on competitivenessand will help attract investment. Realistically,
though, this is a slow process and many of thebenefits will be realized only in the longer term
(figure A1.5b).

Long-term prospects
In the longer run, SSA will continue to faceformidable obstacles to growth from low savings and investment rates, limited quantityand quality of infrastructure and human capital, and especially HIV/AIDS. As a result of
the growing severity of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, population growth for the region has
been revised downward by 0.3 percent to 1.9
percent per annum. Total GDP growth has
been lowered by the same amount. The expectation is that per capita GDP growth will remain at 1.6 percent. This expectation may be
optimistic given the long-run performance ofthe region, but even so it is barely half of whatis needed to achieve the MDGs. There is little
doubt that SSA will continue to lag behind251G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.5b Non-oil exporters
increasingly drive SSA growth
GDP growth, percent
5.0
Non-oil exporters X RSA

Oil exporters
4.0



3.0


2.0

1.0

0.0
2002

2003

2004

2005

Note: RSA = Republic of South Africa.
Source: World Bank staff simulations.

other developing regions over the forecast period, with outcomes well behind best practicein other regions.
The expectation of a reversal of SSA’s
lengthy downward spiral hinges on strong assumptions about ending conflicts and improvTable A1.5

ing governance and policymaking in general.
For the region as a whole, real per capita income in absolute terms peaked in 1974, declining since then at an average annual rate of
0.7 percent. Yet differences across the region
are striking. The worst performances have inevitably been associated with failed states andcivil conflict, including Sierra Leone where
growth has averaged –3.0 percent over the period, Democratic Republic of Congo at –5.6
percent, and Liberia at –5.8 percent. But, at theother end of the spectrum, long-term growth
averaged 4.4 percent in Mauritius and 5.6 percent in Botswana. In between, there are successstories of spectacular turnarounds. Mozambique, after a protracted civil war and average
growth of –1.8 percent during the 1980s, averaged 5.6 percent from 1992–2001. AlreadyMozambique, and other countries such as
Uganda and Tanzania, have made substantial
progress and have results to show for it, while
many others are at an earlier stage of theprocess. By early 2003 almost all countries in
the region were participating in the PRSP
process, with 15 having completed PRSPs and

Sub-Saharan Africa forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
Population
Gross Domestic Investment/GDPa
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP

2.3
–0.3
–0.3
2.6
17.4
10.5
–4.5
7.3
4.5
0.1
–2.0

3.2
0.6
0.8
2.4
19.3
5.8
–1.6
0.4
3.8
–1.5
–2.2

2.8
0.1
0.5
2.3
19.8
4.2
–1.0
2.0
0.7
0.5
–2.2

2.8
0.5
0.5
2.3
20.2
3.7
–1.6
5.0
2.9
–0.4
–2.7

3.5
0.8
1.3
2.2
20.0
4.2
–1.6
7.3
4.9
–0.8
–2.5

3.8
1.1
1.6
2.2
20.1
4.7
–1.7
7.1
5.4
–0.5
–2.6

3.5
1.2
1.6
1.9
20.8

Memorandum items
GDP growth: SSA excluding South
AfricaOil exporters
CFA countries

2.9
2.6
2.6

3.6
4.3
3.1

2.7
3.0
1.9

2.8
3.6
2.2

3.8
3.8
3.1

4.3
3.9
3.5

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non-factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.
SSA is Sub–Saharan Africa. CFA is Communaute Financiere Africaine.

252

R E G I O N A L

another 25 having I-PRSPs. Meanwhile, regional initiatives are enhancing the credibilityof governments and strengthening intraregional cooperation. At the same time, however, deep-seated conflicts in West and Central
Africa remain to be resolved and in many areas
political processes remain fragile.
In principle, higher standards of governance and improved policies will encourage
higher savings and investment, and raise productivity and growth. Yet, at the same time itwill remain a struggle to overcome low levelsof human and physical capital, poor infrastructure, HIV/AIDS, and negative perceptions of international investors. Moreover, theregion remains highly dependent on primarycommodity exports, hence exposed to high external volatility. While these factors indicate
downside risks to the projections, achieving
the moderate improvement in performanceenvisaged by the forecast seems a plausible
baseline expectation.

Middle East and North Africa
Recent developmentsT

HE OVERARCHING event in the Middle

East and North Africa in 2002–03 was
the buildup toward the war in Iraq,
provoking continued high oil prices, further
shocks to the tourism sector, and declining
confidence in the private sector. Uncertainty
before the war had an even larger impact than
the war itself. However, the economic shocks
resulting from the conflict highlighted several
weaknesses in regional economies—the slackening of the investment climate, weakness inthe private sector, and the relatively poor
prospects for new foreign direct investment.
In the rise of uncertainty surrounding thesituation in the Gulf in 2002 and early 2003,
oil prices surged and oil exporters lifted oil
production. Combined with fiscal expansion
programs, it led to an acceleration of output
growth to 3.2 percent in oil-exporting countries in 2002. High oil prices helped to keep
current account balances in surplus in 2002

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

for oil exporters at $20 billion, 4.8 percent of
GDP. Algeria continued expenditures under
the PSRE (Programme de soutien a la relanceéconomique), boosting the construction andservices sectors and offsetting weakness in the
agricultural sector, which was affected by asevere drought, particularly devastating for
cereal crops. Private sector growth in Saudi
Arabia and several Gulf countries is expected
to remain weak as a result of the disruption
caused by the war in Iraq, but companies from
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will benefit fromsubcontracting work associated with the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure. In Iran,the lifting of import restrictions in the past
year has allowed the non-oil industrial andmanufacturing sector to raise production, anddomestic demand has been a strong driver for
growth.
Developments were more adverse for diversified exporters, particularly those in the Middle East. The prospects for war in Iraq led tocontinued stagnation of tourism, which had
not fully recovered from the events of September 11. These factors and the waning of external demand, particularly in Europe in late2002, drought conditions in several countries,
and a weak investment climate in several
North Africa countries all contributed to a fallin growth from 3.8 percent in 2001 to 2.8 percent in 2002. Growth in Egypt appeared set
for recovery in late 2002 with a recovery intourist arrivals and increasing business confidence, but tourist arrivals fell in the first halfof 2003. The Egyptian exchange rate wasfloated in January 2003, but the central bankis maintaining higher interest rates to prevent
further depreciation of the pound, curbing private investment. Production in Jordan plummeted over late 2002 and into early 2003
(figure A1.6). Contraction in the agricultural
sector was caused by drought conditions in
Tunisia, the fourth consecutive year of
drought. Exports, particularly from the manufacturing sector, were adversely affected by thewaning of demand from the European Union
in late 2002. A tighter fiscal stance, in the faceof a widening current account deficit, also con-

253

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A1.6 Some diversified economies
hard-hit by events leading to Iraq war
Percent change
30.0
Jordan IP (ch% y/y)


20.0
10.0
0.0



–10.0
Egypt: Remittances(ch% y/y)



–20.0
–30.0

Egypt: Tourism receipts(ch% y/y)

20
03
Q
1

20
02
Q
4

20
02
Q
3

20
02
Q
2

20
02
Q
1

20
01
Q
4

Q
3

20
01

–40.0

Source: Egypt, Ministry of Foreign trade; Haver Analytics.

strained growth. However, Tunisia continued
to pursue reforms in the financial sector andcontinued to attract FDI in 2002 thanks to theaward of a second GSM license when global
flows to developing countries were shrinking.
Conversely, Morocco had positive agricultural
growth in 2002, but the industrial modernization program under the Euro-Med Association
Agreement and the privatization programs
have tended to stagnate. The exception to thisgenerally gloomy picture is Jordan, with buoyant GDP and export growth despite a slowdown in export market growth and a stagnating tourism sector.

Short-term prospects
Prospects in 2003–04 will be shaped by thepath of oil prices and public expenditures inoil-exporting countries; the recovery of external demand; the speed of recovery in the
tourism, trade, and transportation sectors in
the Middle East post-war; weather conditions;and the policy response to slackening of theinvestment climate in the diversified exporters.
Growth in the region is expected to rise slightly
in 2003 to 3.3 percent as oil exporters increase
production and exports and diversified ex-

254porters recover from the adverse impacts ofslowing external demand and drought conditions. The diversified exporters should begin
to recover in 2004 as external demand improves and as growth in oil exporters isbuoyed by further fiscal expansion, somewhat
offsetting the impacts of lower oil prices andproduction.
Most of the acceleration in 2003 will occur
in the oil-exporting countries, which are expected to grow more quickly in 2003 as a result of fiscal pump-priming and increased oil
production quotas. GDP growth in oil exporters should reach 3.9 percent in 2003–04.
Oil production levels for the oil exporters in2003 will be higher than 2002, ensuring thatthe oil sector will make large, positive contributions to GDP volume growth. High profitability in oil, and in services sectors, such as
telecommunications and banking, has led tosurges in stock markets in Iran and Saudi
Arabia, particularly as a result of thin markets. Firms in the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC) countries are expected to benefit fromcontracting agreements as the reconstructionof Iraq gets underway in the second half of2003, helping to boost the weak private sector. Evidence is also emerging that citizensof oil-exporting countries, particularly in theGulf, are traveling less and boosting domestic
consumption.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have begun to pushthrough needed reforms in several sectors suchas mining, capital markets, and insurance, as
well as privatizing state concerns to encourage
foreign investment in the oil sector. But Algeria has abandoned proposed hydrocarbons reforms. Moving into 2004, the impetus to
growth from the oil sector should wane inthese countries as oil prices and production
fall, but continued fiscal stimulus and a rebound in private sector activity should maintain GDP growth. Growth in Algeria will besupported in 2004 by the online debut of amajor gas project, but fiscal stimulus under
the PSRE is being absorbed more slowly than
expected.

R E G I O N A L

Growth in the diversified exporters is forecast to remain sluggish in 2003 at 2.4 percent,caused by stagnation in tourism in the first halfof the year because of the Iraq war. The agricultural sector in Tunisia will expand in thewake of good rains, and agricultural expansion
will continue in Morocco, but slow import demand in Europe will keep the manufacturingsectors depressed. The countries most affectedby the Iraq war were border nations Syria andJordan. Both countries have extensive trade
links with Iraq, and Jordan sourced its oil from
Iraq at concessional rates. Prior to the war, Jordan’s exports to Iraq were growing strongly.
The disruption to oil supplies from Iraq and tohaulage routes through Iraq has meant that
output growth in the first half of 2003 in thesecountries was adversely affected. The Jordanian government has decreased fuel subsidies
and broadened the tax base to ease the impact
on the fiscal accounts of higher oil prices,
affecting the current balance. Jordanian exports to other destinations, particularly to theUnited States through the “Qualified Industrial
Zones,” are unaffected by the disruption
caused by the conflict, but uncertainty in theprivate sector has decreased confidence.
In response to this range of negative
growth factors, central banks in several countries (Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia) have reduced
interest rates to stimulate domestic demand.
Growth conditions should improve later in2003 and into 2004 as confidence returns to
the tourism market, the European economy
rebounds, and the effects of lower interest
rates filter through to domestic investment.
Diversified economies are expected to grow
3.7 percent in 2004. This is below the averageof the diversified exporters during the 1990s,
where GDP growth achieved annual growthof 4.2 percent. The lackluster investment climate in these countries requires further attention in the reform process.

Long-term prospects
Reducing unemployment through higher GDP
growth remains the key challenge for the re-E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

gion, particularly given the very high rates ofgrowth expected in the labor force, as the age
structure of the population shifts to reducethe dependency ratio, constituting a “demographic gift.” The region has achieved macroeconomic stability for the most part, with low
inflation and stable external debt positions,but growth in the region is not reaching its potential, with many countries still stuck withper capita GDP growth of around 1.5 percent.
Prospects for growth and sustainable employment can be improved through reforms in
trade regimes and a strengthened investment
climate. Traditional trade liberalization, suchas lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers, isvital considering that the Middle East andNorth African (MENA) region is one of themore highly protected developing regions.
While MENA’s export products (excluding oil)are not highly integrated into global trade
markets, the region has strong potential for
non-energy exports. The Mediterranean countries are well on the way to trade reforms
through their commitments over the coming
decade to the Euro-Med agreements, bilateral
trade agreements, and WTO membership. But
trade reforms must also include ‘behind theborder’ reforms (trade facilitation, services liberalization, and improved competitiveness) designed to increase productive efficiency.
Reform of the investment climate is needed
to ensure sustainable employment growth, because trade reforms increase growth only when
they stimulate new investment. Much of theimpetus to growth in recent years in many
countries has come from the public sector, andmuch of the FDI flowing into the region is targeted to extractive industries or parastatals thathave been privatized. To capture greater benefits from trade and financial market integration, policy-makers in the region should focus
on structural and microeconomic impediments
to efficient resource allocation and to improve
competition. Policy reforms are required to ensure a sound regulatory environment in product and factor markets. Improving governance,
improving the quality of public institutions,255

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

Table A1.6

P R O S P E C T S

Middle East and North Africa forecast summary

Growth rates/ratios (percent)

1991–2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006–15

Real GDP growth
Consumption per capita
GDP per capita
Population
Gross Domestic Investment/GDPa
Inflationb
General gvt. budget balance/GDP
Export Market Growthc
Export volumed
Terms of trade/GDPe
Current account/GDP

3.4
0.2
1.2
2.2
21.4
7.5
–1.2
7.5
5.7
0.3
–1.9

3.2
4.8
1.3
1.9
21.3
2.6
–0.8
–1.1
3.6
–1.8
4.2

3.1
1.8
1.1
1.9
21.6
3.8
–3.0
2.2
1.2
0.1
3.5

3.3
1.0
1.3
1.9
21.8
4.0
–2.3
8.3
4.2
–2.2
0.3

3.9
1.3
1.9
1.9
22.0
4.0
–3.2
8.1
5.5
–1.7
–1.5

3.5
1.3
1.5
1.9
22.1
4.0
–2.2
7.9
5.2
–1.1
–2.6

4.3
2.3
2.5
1.7
26.2

Memorandum items
GDP growth: Oil exporters
Diversified exporters

3.0
4.2

2.9
3.8

3.2
2.8

3.9
2.4

3.9
3.7

3.3
3.8

a. Fixed investment, measured in real terms.
b. Local currency GDP deflator, median.
c. Weighted average growth of import demand in export markets.
d. Goods and non–factor services.
e. Change in terms of trade, measured as a proportion of GDP (percentage).
Source: World Bank baseline forecast July 2003.

and enforcing public accountability are necessary if a vibrant public sector is to evolve. Combating bureaucratic delays and inefficiency, improving the quality of infrastructure services,and fighting corruption are also essential elements of a better investment climate.
With only one-third of the labor force active
today, women represent a huge untapped resource in the region. Experience from aroundthe world suggests that women, particularly theyoung and well-educated, can reap gains fromtrade and investment climate reforms. Thesegains are already evident in the garment andtextile industry in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, andTunisia. Provided that economic and social barriers to women are dismantled, women canmore widely participate in economic life,
thereby boosting economic growth and productivity in the region.

256

Notes
1. In April 2003, eight transition countries signed
the accession treaty to join the EU in May 2004, alongwith Malta and Cyprus.
2. The UN’s FAO’s Global Information and Early
Warning System identifies 25 countries representing 56
percent of total Sub-Saharan population where agricultural production has been seriously disrupted. (ftp://ftp.
fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y9304e/y9304e00.pdf) According to the UN WFP, 40 million persons in SSA are facing acute hunger because of drought, disease, and conflict (http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=3).
3. http://www.agoa.gov/resources/TRDPROFL03.
pdf. AGOA rules of origin are to be tightened in 2004
and it remains to be seen how long lasting the benefits
will be.
4. According to data from the Energy Information
Agency of the US Department of Energy. See http://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t11a.xls.

Appendix 2
Global Commodity Price Prospects

C

ommodity prices increased significantly from the lows reached shortly
after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (figure A2.1). Crude oil pricesrose 78 percent from the December 2001 lows
to the highs in February 2003, just prior to thestart of the war in Iraq, but have since declined. Agricultural prices were up 29 percent
from the lows to recent monthly highs, while
metals and minerals prices rose 15 percent.
The decline of the dollar since early 2002 (10percent on a real-trade weighted basis) contributed to the rise in commodity prices. Petroleum and most agricultural prices are now
expected to decline on rising supplies, while
metals and minerals prices are expected tocontinue their recovery because of higher demand in the foreseen economic recovery.
The increase in crude oil prices resulted
from strong OPEC production discipline, extremely low inventories, cold winter weather,and supply disruptions in Venezuela, Iraq, andNigeria. Higher output from other OPEC
members leading up to the war in Iraq prevented prices from spiking sharply higher, anduse of strategic stocks was not required. Crude
oil stocks remain low and the return of Iraqi
exports has been delayed, thus prices are likely
to remain relatively firm for the balance of2003. The return of Iraqi exports and rising
capacity in both OPEC and non-OPEC countries is expected to lead to lower prices in2004 and beyond. Large increases in production are expected in a number of regions in the

coming years, in particular the Caspian, Russia, West Africa, and several deepwater locations. Much of the moderate growth in world
oil demand is expected to be captured by nonOPEC producers, thus rising supply competition, both inside and outside OPEC, is expected to lead to lower prices.
The rise in agricultural prices since October
2001 was caused mostly by reduced supplies
from earlier low prices and severe El Niñorelated droughts in 2002 (in Australia, Canada, the Middle East, and the U.S.), which
reduced grain and oilseed production. Cocoa
supplies were disrupted by conflict in Côte
d’Ivoire, while production was reduced fornatural rubber, robusta coffee, cotton, andvegetable oils because of earlier low prices.
Most of the sharp agricultural price increases
in 2002 and 2003 are expected to be reversed
as surplus production capacity once again results from higher prices. More rapid economic
growth would strengthen demand somewhat
and moderate the price declines. However, income elasticities for most agricultural commodities are low, and with weak demand growth
agricultural prices are expected to decrease.
Fertilizer prices generally increased in 2003
along with the recovery in agricultural commodity prices. Higher prices for natural gas—a key input in nitrogen fertilizer production—
caused nitrogen fertilizer prices to rise sharply.
In addition, production capacity utilization in
the fertilizer industry increased to five-year
highs and further contributed to the price in-257

P R O S P E C T S

258

Beverages
The World Bank’s index of beverage prices(composed of coffee, cocoa, and tea prices) is

Figure A2.2 Real commodity prices
Index, 1990 = 100
250
Forecast
Crude oil
200

150

Agriculture100

Metals andminerals

50

Source: World Bank.

15

10

20

05

0
20

creases. The recent downturn in agriculturalcommodity prices is expected to be reflected inlower fertilizer prices in 2004 and 2005.
The modest recovery in metals and minerals prices resulted from production cuts beginning in 2001, and weakening of the U.S.
dollar. Demand growth has been weak, andstocks of most metals remain high. The one
exception is nickel, where strong demand forstainless steel, low inventories, and tight supplies, caused prices to almost double since thelows in 2001. A recovery in metals demand is
expected to send most metals markets into
deficit and allow prices to increase over the
next several years. If global economic growth
accelerates more quickly than projected, metals and minerals prices would increase more
rapidly in the near term. Over the longer term,
real prices are expected to decline as production costs continue to fall because of new technologies and improved managerial practices.
There is also little constraint on primary resource availability.
Real commodity prices declined significantly
from 1980 to 2002, with the World Bank’s
index of agricultural prices down 47 percent,crude oil prices down 43 percent, and metals
and minerals prices down 35 percent (figure00

Source: World Bank.

20

Jan. July
2003 2003

95

Jan. July
2002 2002

20

Jan. July
2001 2001

90

Jan. July
2000 2000

19

60



Metals and minerals

85Agriculture

19

80



80

100

19



120

75

Crude oil

19

140

70

Index, January 2000 = 100

A2.2). Such declines in commodity prices relative to manufactures prices pose real challenges
for developing countries that depend on primary commodities for a substantial share of
their export revenues. For example, 57 percent
of merchandise exports from Sub-SaharanAfrica in 2000 came from primary commodities and fuels. The situation is not expected to
improve, with real non-oil commodity prices
expected to increase only modestly through2015 and crude oil prices expected to decline
by 23 percent from 2002 levels. Multilateral
trade negotiations could lead to higher agricultural prices if reforms reduce production subsidies and tariffs in major consuming and producing countries; however, little progress onreforms has thus far been achieved. (Specificcommodity prices and price indices forecasts
for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010, and 2015 in current and constant dollars are given in appendix
tables A2.14–16. The forecasts do not reflect
the effects of a multilateral trade agreement because of the uncertainty of such an agreement.)

19

Figure A2.1 Commodity price trends

19

E C O N O M I CG L O B A L

G L O B A L

Figure A2.3 Beverage prices
US cents per kilogram600

Arabica coffee
500

400

300

Tea


200


100

Cocoa


Robusta coffee
0
Jan.
1997

Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Jan.
2000

Jan.
2001

Jan.
2002

Jan.
2003

Sources: International Coffee Organization, International
Cocoa Organization, International Tea Committee.

expected to increase by about 6 percent in
2003, largely reflecting coffee price increases(arabica up 7 percent and robusta up 33 percent) in response to reduced output from
Brazil (figure A2.3). Cocoa prices, which havebeen (and are likely to be) extremely volatile
because of the political unrest in Côte d’Ivoire,are expected to remain unchanged. Fears thattea prices might suffer a major setback resulting from the military conflict in Iraq did notmaterialize and the three-auction average for2003 is expected to remain at its 2002 level.

Coffee.

Despite the increase in coffee prices
expected in 2003, (robusta up US$0.22 to
US$0.88/kg and arabica up US$0.10 to
US$1.46/kg) prices will remain near historicallows—at about one-third of their 1960 reallevels. Low coffee prices reflect both the surge
in supplies and weak demand. During the past
five seasons, global coffee production has averaged 114 million 60 kg bags, compared to
99 million bags during the five prior seasons
when coffee prices peaked. Per capita consumption in the major importing countries has
been stagnant at 4.6 kgs of green coffee equivalent during the past ten years.

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

Surpluses over the past four seasons have
kept the coffee market depressed, and this situation has often been referred to as the “coffee
crisis” by the popular press. Attempts to deal
with the surpluses have either been largely unsuccessful or abandoned. The Association ofCoffee Producing Countries (ACPC), whichurged coffee-producing countries to join its export retention scheme, ceased operating lastyear. The International Coffee Organization(ICO), in an effort to reduce coffee availability
and thus push prices higher, called for the removal of low-quality coffee beans. This plan
too has met resistance because there is no welldefined compensation mechanism in place.
In addition, improved roasting methods havemade it easier to remove the harsh taste of natural arabicas and robustas, enabling roasters
to produce the same coffee quality with lowerquality green beans, thus putting into question
ICO’s proposal.
Global coffee production during the
2003–04 season is expected to be about 107
million bags, down from last season’s 123 million bags (table A2.1). Almost all of the reduction is because of reduced Brazilian output(from 52 million bags in 2002 to 34 million
bags in 2003), which is partly because of lessfavorable weather conditions and partly because of the strength of the Brazilian currency.
Still, Brazil will account for one-third ofglobal coffee output while Colombia and Vietnam are expected to reach 12 and 11 million
bags, respectively, and be the second and thirdlargest coffee suppliers of arabica and robusta,
respectively.
Coffee prices are projected to increase in
2004, with arabica up 9 percent and robusta
up 5 percent. Over the longer term, real coffee
prices are expected to increase relative to the2002 depressed levels but remain well below
the historical highs of the 1970s and more recent highs of the mid-1990s. By 2015, realarabica and robusta prices are projected to increase about 50 and 70 percent, respectively,
over their 2002 levels. Prices would still be
only about half of their 1990s peaks.

259

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.1 Coffee production in selected countries(million bags)

BrazilColombia
VietnamIndonesia
MéxicoGuatemalaEthiopia
Uganda
World

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

35.6
10.9
7.5
7.0
5.0
4.3
3.9
3.6
108.4

30.8
9.5
11.0
6.7
6.2
4.4
3.8
3.1
113.4

34.1
10.5
15.3
6.5
4.8
4.6
3.7
3.2
116.6

35.1
12.0
12.3
6.2
4.2
3.5
3.8
3.5
110.1

51.6
10.9
10.3
6.0
4.4
3.8
3.0
3.1
122.8

33.6
11.8
10.8
6.1
4.7
3.8
3.3
3.2
107.1

Note: Years refer to crop years beginning in April.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

the increase is expected to come from Ghana,
the world’s second-largest cocoa supplier (from341 to 450 thousand tons). Côte d’Ivoire’s
share is expected to remain largely unchanged
at 1.26 million tons. Cocoa prices for 2003 are
expected to remain at their 2002 levels, but asmall decline is expected in 2004 as production
continues to increase, an assessment which isbased on the assumption that the strong prices
enjoyed during the last two seasons will provide further incentives to cocoa growers tomaintain their trees and increase production.
The degree of volatility in cocoa prices is likely
to remain high until the political unrest in Côte
d’Ivoire is settled.

Cocoa.

Cocoa prices have staged a remarkable recovery, going from a 30-year low of
US$0.86/kg in February 2000 to a 16-year
high of US$2.28/kg in February 2003. Prices
have been extremely volatile, especially during
the last two years, with month-to-month pricechanges often exceeding 10 percentage points.
While the recovery in prices is a result of the
return to normal supply levels, the volatility isa reflection of the political instability in Côte
d’Ivoire, the world’s dominant supplier.
Global cocoa production is expected toreach 3 million tons during the marketing season ending in September 2003, up from lastseason’s 2.85 million tons (table A2.2). All of

Table A2.2 Beverages global balances
Annual growth rates (percent)
1970

1980

1990

1999

2000

2001

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Coffee (Thousand bags)
Production
Consumption
Exports

64,161
71,53654,186

86,174
79,10060,996100,181
96,30076,163

116,581
106,343
90,394

110,104
108,186
86,823

122,759
110,750
88,974

2.1
1.0
0.8

1.4
2.0
2.4

1.2
0.2
1.7

Cocoa (Thousand tons)
Production
Grindings
Stocks

1,554
1,418
497

1,695
1,556
675

2,506
2,335
1,791

2,812
3,014
1,111

2,850
2,858
1,137

2,996
2,976
1,127

0.5
0.2
2.4

4.6
4.5
13.9

1.2
2.6
–4.7

Tea (Thousand tons)
Production
Exports

1,286
752

1,848
859

2,516
1,132

2,895
1,330

3,021
1,391

3,000
1,419

4.1
24

2.9
2.4

1.5
1.6

Notes: Time reference for coffee (production and exports) and cocoa are based on crop years (October to September for cocoa
and April to March for coffee). For coffee consumption and tea time is calendar year.
Sources: US Department of Agriculture, International Coffee Organization, International Cocoa Organization, International Tea
Committee, and World Bank.

260

G L O B A L

Tea. The three-auction average tea price is
expected to remain largely unchanged in 2003
vs. 2002 at about US$1.50/kg and therefore
not to recover from the 20 percent decline between 2000 and 2002. The weakness in tea
prices is expected to persist because of oversupply and a trend of slow growth of consumption. Production in 2002 was about thesame as in 2001, but production is expected toincrease in 2003. The rapid increase in production in Vietnam has contributed to already
ample supplies and threatens to depress prices.
Vietnam has doubled production since 1990.
Tea prices have been volatile because of theuncertainties associated with the war in Iraq
and concerns that imports would be disrupted.
In addition, excessive rains in Sri Lanka, thelargest exporter, disrupted supplies. By 2015
real tea prices are expected to be slightly lower
than in 2002.
Food
The World Bank’s food price index is expected
to rise 4.3 percent in 2003 and be up 11.2 percent from the low in 2000. However, the index
is still well below highs reached in 1997 (figureA2.4). Following recent increases, the index is
expected to decline 2.4 percent in 2004 and an
Figure A2.4 Food prices
Index, 1990 = 100130120

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

additional 2.1 percent in 2005 as grain andoilseed prices decline from recent highs. Grains
prices have increased almost 15 percent fromthe lows in 2001 and fats and oils prices haveincreased 26 percent. Over the longer term,
real food prices are projected to decline 2.7
percent from 2003 to 2015.

Fats and oils.

Prices of fats and oils are expected to increase almost 7 percent in 2003,
which gives a cumulative increase of 20 percent since 2001. However, prices have recovered less than half of the decline experienced
from 1997 to 2001. The price increase is expected to be greatest in groundnut oil (up 60
percent). Price increases are expected to be lessin the two major oilseed crops, soybean andpalm, with soybean oil up 16 percent and palm
oil up 9 percent.
Global production of the 17 major fats andoils is expected to increase by 1.4 percent in
the season starting October 2003, following
last season’s increase of 2.5 percent. Demandin 2003–04, to be fueled by increased imports
by China and India, is projected to outpace
production by at least 1 percentage point.
Global soybean production has increasedby more than 5 percent per year since 1990,
with the most rapid increase in Brazil andArgentina (table A2.3). Argentina and Brazil
have been increasing production at nearly 10
percent per year since 1990.
Global palm oil production has doubled
every eight years during the past three decadeswith the largest increases coming from Indonesia and Malaysia (table A2.4).

110

Table A2.3 Soybean production
100(millions of tons)

90

Year

Argentina

BrazilUnitedStates

World

80

1990
1995
2000
2001
2002

11.5
12.4
27.8
30.0
35.0

15.8
24.2
39.0
43.5
51.0

52.4
59.2
75.1
78.7
74.3

104.1
124.9
175.1
184.3
194.0

70
Jan.
1997

Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Source: World Bank.

Jan.
2000

Jan.
2001

Jan.
2002

Jan.
2003

Note: Argentina, Brazil, and the U.S. account for about 83
percent of global production.
Source: USDA.

261

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.4 Palm oil production(million tons)
Year

Indonesia

Malaysia

Nigeria

World

1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003

0.69
1.24
2.41
4.22
7.05
8.03
9.02
9.60

2.58
4.13
6.10
7.81
10.8
11.8
11.9
12.7

0.43
0.39
0.58
0.66
0.74
0.77
0.78
0.79

4.59
7.04
11.03
15.22
21.87
23.92
25.03
26.59

Source: Oil World.

Grains.

Global grain stocks, relative to use,are expected to recover slightly from lastyear’s lows (excluding China where data isvery uncertain). However, stocks remain low
and there is still a risk that prices could rise
sharply if yields in the coming crop year are
significantly below trends. If yields are neartrend, then prices should decline and stocks
should continue to rebuild.
Maize prices are projected to rise 6.7 percent in 2003 and then decline 5.7 percent in2004 as production increases and stocks rebuild (table A2.5). Production in the U.S., themajor producer with 40 percent of world production, is projected to increase 12 percent in
2003–04 compared to the previous year. Realprices are projected to decline about 4 percent
from 2003 to 2015 as yields continue to growfaster than consumption, as was the case during the 1990s.

Rice prices are projected to rise about 4
percent in 2003 and an additional 3.0 percent
by 2005. Rice prices are well below historicalnorms relative to other food grains, and thisshould increase import demand for rice relative to wheat. Lower Indian exports this year
because of drought will also contribute to theprice increases. Global rice stocks are low andprices could increase significantly if a poor
crop reduces stocks further. Over the longer
term, real rice prices are projected to rise 4.6
percent by 2015 vs. 2003, while most othergrains prices are projected to decline.
Wheat prices are expected to decline in
2003–05 as production recovers from severe
drought. Prices increased from US$112/ton in1999 to US$148/ton in 2002, but are expected
to decline to US$133/ton by 2005. Productionin the major exporters (U.S., EU, Canada,
Australia, and Argentina) is expected to increase 20 percent in the 2003–04 crop year
and stocks are expected to increase 17 percent. However, global wheat stocks remainlow (table A2.5) and there is a substantial riskthat prices could rise if the drought persists.

Sugar. Sugar prices averaged 15.2 cents/
kilogram in 2002 (figure A2.5). They are ex-

Figure A2.5 Sugar prices
U.S. cents per kilogram
30

25

Table A2.5 Global grain stocks-to-use
percentages (excluding China)

1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
90s Low

Maize

Rice

Wheat

Total grains

10.1
11.5
11.4
11.6
10.4
6.3
8.9
6.1

9.3
10.2
11.8
13.6
13.1
10.0
10.2
8.6

16.5
18.0
17.1
18.6
20.4
15.8
16.9
13.9

13.0
14.0
13.6
14.4
14.9
12.0
12.5
9.8

Note: Data for 2003–04 is the USDA’s May 2003 estimate forwheat and maize and World Bank estimate for rice.
Source: USDA.

262

20

15

10

5

0
Jan.
1997

Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Jan.
2000

Jan.
2001

Source: International Sugar Organization.

Jan.
2002

Jan.
2003

G L O B A L

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.6 Foods global balances(million tons)
Annual growth rates (percent)
1970

1980

1990

2000

2001

2002

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Grains
Production
Consumption
Exports
Stocks

1,079
1,114
119
193

1,430
1,451
212
309

1,769
1,717
206
490

1,839
1,862
233
536

1,872
1,902
237
506

1,807
1,906
237
407

2.88
2.58
6.35
7.24

1.55
1.78
0.13
3.83

1.04
1.02
0.94
–0.56

Soybeans
Production
Consumption
Exports
Stocks

42.1
46.0
12.3
3.4

62.2
68.1
20.8
10.3

104.1
104.3
25.4
20.6

175.1
172.2
55.5
30.6

184.3
182.3
55.1
32.0

194.0
194.2
63.2
31.0

6.84
6.53
5.24
13.83

1.87
2.04
0.80
–0.66

5.08
4.99
2.88
0.20

Sugar (raw equivalent)
Production
Consumption
Exports
Stocks

70.9
65.4
21.9
19.6

84.7
91.1
27.6
19.5

109.4
106.8
34.1
19.3

130.4
130.3
37.7
37.3

134.7
134.9
40.7
34.0

143.3
136.6
46.6
32.2

2.80
3.30
3.26
3.96

1.59
1.40
0.83
–0.77

3.26
3.00
3.12
4.52

Fats and oils
Production
Consumption
Exports
Stocks

39.8
39.8
8.8
5.2

58.1
56.8
17.8
9.3

80.8
80.9
26.9
12.2

117.2
116.8
38.3
14.8

120.1
120.9
41.0
13.6

121.8
123.8
42.2
12.1

3.68
3.55
7.05
7.09

3.54
3.69
4.19
2.44

3.70
3.64
3.39
0.69

Notes: Time references for grains, soybeans and sugar are based on marketing years, shown under the year in which production
began, and vary by country; for fats and oils, crop years begin in September. Fats and oils includes the 17 major fats and oils.
Sources: USDA and Oil World.

pected to increase slightly in 2003 and 2004
as supplies are curtailed and stocks reduced.
High crude oil prices have contributed to theprice increase by diverting sugar cane production to ethanol production in Brazil for use
as vehicle fuel. Prices are projected to average
about US$0.16/kg in 2003 and 2004, and riseslightly in 2005. The longer-term price prospects are not encouraging for producers unlessglobal policy reforms are agreed in the current
round of multilateral trade negotiations. Without reforms, nominal prices are expected to remain low except when supplies are reduced bydrought in a major producing country.
Brazil, the world’s lowest cost and largest
sugar exporter, with about one-third of world
sugar exports, has increased production andexports dramatically since 1990 and is expected to continue expanding. This has put
downward pressure on prices, as Brazilian
exports have increased from 1.3 million tons
in 1990–91 to 14.2 million tons in 2002–03.

Global consumption grew by 3.0 percent per
annum during the 1990s (table A2.6).

Raw Materials
The index of agricultural raw materials prices(composed of tropical hardwoods, cotton, andnatural rubber) declined sharply during the
Asia crisis and then stabilized before declining
again as supplies of commodities continued
to increase (figure A2.6). Prices reached a low
in 2001 and have since recovered because ofhigher cotton and natural rubber prices. Nominal prices are projected to increase an additional 6 percent by 2005 from 2003 levels,
while real prices are projected to rise 10 percent from 2003 to 2015.

Cotton.

Cotton prices are expected to increase 28 percent in 2003, following declines
in the two previous years that took prices to30-year lows. The price recovery is due mostly
to an 11 percent reduction in supplies in the263

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

The A Index cotton price is expected to average US$1.30/kg during 2003 and remain at
approximately the same level during the next
two seasons, as the market appears to havereached a balance. By 2015, real prices areprojected to increase 30 percent relative to2002 levels.

Figure A2.6 Raw materials
Index, 1990 = 100
130
120
110

Natural Rubber.

Rubber prices are expected to increase 23 percent in 2003, after
falling to historical lows in 2001 following the
Asian financial crisis. The recent strength inrubber prices reflects increased demand as wellas supply controls by Thailand and Indonesia,
the dominant natural rubber suppliers with a
combined 60 percent of global output. Consumption in 2002 increased 3.6 percent over2001 and preliminary figures for 2003 indicatethat it will stay strong. China, the world’s
dominant natural rubber consumer, has been
the major source of increased demand (tableA2.8). In the 12-month period ending May
2003, Chinese rubber demand increased 7 percent. Strong demand was also present by othermain buyers, notably the U.S., Japan, and Germany. The demand for natural rubber has also
been aided by lower demand for synthetic rubber, whose prices increased considerably because of high crude oil prices (crude oil is amajor cost component of synthetic rubber).
Natural rubber prices are expected to remain above US$0.90/kg for the next two to
three years. Over the longer term, real prices
are projected to increase slightly over the 2002
levels.

100
90
80
70
60
Jan.
1997

Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Jan.
2000

Jan.
2001

Jan.
2002

Jan.
2003

Source: World Bank.

2002–03 marketing season (table A2.7). Mostof the reduction came from China and the
U.S., the world’s two dominant cotton suppliers, which account for over 40 percent of
global output.
The 2003 increase in cotton prices is expected to lead to a strong supply response, according to the International Cotton Advisory
Committee. They estimate the 2003–04 global
cotton production will be 9 percent higher
than this season’s crop. Most of the increase is
expected to come from China (almost 1 million tons). Global consumption is expected tostay slightly higher than production, causing
stocks to fall for a second consecutive season.

Table A2.7 Cotton production in selected countries(million tons)

China
United States
India
PakistanUzbekistan
Franc Zone
World

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

4.50
3.03
2.71
1.48
1.00
0.90
18.55

3.83
3.69
2.65
1.91
1.13
0.93
19.09

4.42
3.74
2.38
1.82
0.98
0.70
19.46

5.32
4.42
2.69
1.80
1.06
1.03
21.51

4.92
3.75
2.35
1.70
1.03
0.93
19.20

5.80
3.71
2.68
1.80
0.99
0.95
20.96

Notes: Years refer to crop years that begin in August.
Source: International Cotton Advisory Committee.

264

G L O B A L

Table A2.8 Natural rubber consumption

China
United States
Japan
India
Korea, Rep. of
Germany
France
World

2000

2001

2002

997
1,116
733
617
325
226
253
6,771

1,123
1,142
753
638
331
250
262
7,129

1,224
1,010
729
631
327
245
262
6,973

1,332
1,046
774
675
321
254
241
7,223

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

ing Japan, and has become a significant plywood producer and exporter. The partial ban
on log exports from Asian and African exporters, intended to increase domestic processing, has raised the prices of logs, andsomewhat restricted supplies, while depressing
prices of sawnwood and plywood relative tologs. However, the bans have not been totallyeffective and illegal exports continue. Tropicaltimber prices are expected to continue to recover, up 3 percent in 2004 and up 7 percent
in 2005, with demand in China, Japan, andEurope important factors determining the rateof price increase. Real tropical timber prices
are projected to increase 28 percent from2003 to 2015, but stay below the highs of the
1990s as new technology allows better utilization of timber.

(thousand tons)
1999

C O M M O D I T Y

Sources: LMC International, International Rubber Study
Group.

Tropical Timber. Tropical timber prices recovered in 2002 and 2003 from sharp declines
in 2001, with nominal prices up 9 percent in2002 and expected to be up an additional 5
percent in 2003. The initial price increases
were supported by the decline of the dollar vs.
the Yen and Euro, but the price recovery appears to have stalled in 2003 as demand has
weakened in Asia and Europe. China has become the largest tropical log importer, displac-

Fertilizers

F

ertilizer prices generally increased in 2003
as demand increased because of the risein agricultural commodity prices. Among theTable A2.9 Raw materials global balances
Annual growth rates (percent)
1970

1980

1990

2000

2001

2002

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Cotton (thousand tons)
Production
Consumption
Exports
Stocks

11,74012,173
3,875
4,605

13,832
14,215
4,414
4,895

18,97018,576
5,081
6,645

19,461
19,886
5,857
9,637

21,51020,194
6,496
10,585

19,20021,000
6,500
8,780

1.2
1.1
0.9
1.7

3.1
3.1
2.8
2.8

0.8
0.2
0.5
1.4

Natural rubber(thousand tons)
Production
Consumption
Net Exports
Stocks

3,140
3,090
2,820
1,440

3,820
3,770
3,280
1,1480

5,080
5,190
3,950
1,500

6,730
7,340
4,930
1,930

7,190
7,080
5,140
2,040

7,110
7,390
5,040
1,760

1.8
1.6
1.3
0.6

3.2
3.2
2.1
0.2

3.1
3.3
1.8
3.7

Tropical timber(thousand cubic meters)
Logs, production
Logs, imports
Sawnwood, production
Sawnwood, imports
Plywood, production
Plywood, imports

210
36.1
98.5
7.1
33.4
4.9

262
42.2
115.8
13.2
39.4
6.0

300
25.1
131.8
16.1
48.2
14.9

279.5
18.6
109.1
23.1
58.1
19.0

283.3
17.9
106.2
22.5
55.5
19.2

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

1.5
0.2
1.2
5.0
1.2
0.7

1.7
5.1
1.7
2.6
2.0
9.1

0.5
5.4
2.0
3.3
0.5
3.6

n.a. = Not available.
Notes: Time reference for cotton is based on crop year beginning in August; for natural rubber and tropical timber, time refers tocalendar year.
Sources: International Cotton Advisory Committee, International Study Rubber Group, FAO, and World Bank.

265

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Potash prices, as represented by muriate ofpotash (MOP), remained constant because
prices are set by annual contracts, and havenot kept up with changed market fundamentals. Fertilizer demand is expected to fall in2004 and 2005 in response to the recent
downturn in agricultural prices and thisshould cause most fertilizer prices to weaken.
Urea prices rose about 38 percent in 2003
due partly to higher prices for natural gas.
Demand increased by an estimated 4 percent
resulting from higher planted crop area andhigher application rates. Nitrogen production
capacity utilization increased to about 85 percent in 2002 from about 81 percent in 2001,
and is at the highest level in several years. In
response to higher prices and demand, global
production and exports both increased about
4 percent in 2002 after declining in the previous year. Prices are expected to decline about
4 percent per year in 2004 and 2005 as demand weakens and natural gas prices begin to
decline resulting from lower crude oil prices.
By 2015, real urea prices are expected to fall
9.5 percent from 2003 levels as the industry
expands production capacity more rapidly thandemand.
MOP prices remained unchanged in 2003,
but new contract prices are likely to increase in

Figure A2.7 Fertilizer prices
US$s per ton
210

TSP


170

130


MOP



90
Urea
50
Jan.
1997

Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Jan.
2000

Jan.
2001

Jan.
2002

Jan.
2003

Source: Fertilizer Week.

three major types of fertilizer, nitrogen prices(as represented by urea) increased most rapidly
because of higher prices of natural gas used in
production in addition to demand increases.
Phosphate fertilizer prices, as represented bytriple super phosphate (TSP), increased after
falling for several years as demand increased
and production capacity utilization increased.
Table A2.10 Fertilizers global balances(million tons

Annual growth rates (%)
1970

1980

1990

1999

2000

Est. 2001

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Nitrogen
Production
Consumption
Exports

33.30
31.76
6.77

62.78
60.78
13.15

82.28
77.18
19.59

87.75
84.95
23.94

84.62
81.62
24.70

82.3
n.a.
24.6

6.53
6.86
7.23

3.12
2.60
5.10

0.28
0.56
2.34

Phosphate
Production
Consumption
Exports

22.04
21.12
2.92

34.51
31.70
7.51

39.18
35.90
10.50

32.51
33.46
12.70

31.70
32.65
12.11

30.7
n.a.
n.a.

3.72
3.85
8.37

1.70
1.39
5.01

–2.10
–0.90
1.44

Potash
Production
Consumption
Exports

17.59
16.43
9.45

27.46
24.24
16.72

26.82
24.68
19.82

25.01
22.12
22.65

25.54
22.16
23.41

25.9
n.a.
23.2

3.97
3.93
4.89

–0.03
0.05
0.73

–0.49
–1.07
1.68

n.a. = Not available.
Notes: All data are in marketing years.
Source: FAO. The data for 2001 are estimated by World Bank staff from industry sources.

266

G L O B A L

M

etals and minerals prices have rallied anumber of times since the lows of October 2001, often on investor expectations
that a global economic recovery would lead tohigher demand for metals. However, prospects
for a strong economic recovery have kept
being pushed back and the price rallies havebeen short-lived. Yet the index for metals andminerals is up 13 percent since October 2001
on improving fundamentals—notably producer cutbacks, some modest reduction of inventories, and weakening of the U.S. dollar.
As major producers and consumers do nothave their currencies linked to the dollar, themetal prices in dollars fluctuate with the value

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A2.8 Index: Metals prices andexchange rates
Index, January 1990 = 100
130
120


$/Euro

110
100
90
80
70

Metals &minerals

60
Jan. Jan.
1990 1992



Metals and Minerals

P R I C E

2004 in response to improved demand and thehighest capacity utilization rates in five years.
Production rose about 3 percent in 2002, withmost of the increase coming from Canada,
which accounts for 40 percent of world exports and one-third of production. Prices are
expected to increase by about 3 percent in2004 and remain at the higher level in 2005.
Increased domestic production in China, alongwith large surplus global production capacity,
is expected to keep price increases small. By
2015, real prices are projected to fall 3.5 percent compared to 2003.
TSP prices increased 7 percent in 2003
after falling 23 percent from 1998 to 2001
and increasing 6 percent in 2002. Production
increased by about 7 percent in 2002, withproduction in the U.S.—the world’s largest
producer with a 30 percent share—increasing
by 13 percent, according to industry sources.
Exports declined because of a sharp drop in
Chinese imports, which were replaced by increased domestic production. TSP prices are
expected to decrease marginally in 2004 and2005 as demand weakens; however, surplus
production capacity is smaller than for othermajor fertilizers and is expected to remaintight over the next several years. Thus real
prices are projected to remain about constant
between 2003 and 2015.

C O M M O D I T Y$/Aus$
Jan.
1994

Jan. Jan.
1996 1998

Jan. Jan. Jan.
2000 2002 2004

Source: World Bank, Datastream.

of the U.S. dollar, rising when the Euro orAustralian dollar appreciate and falling in the
opposite case (figure A2.8).
Most metals markets are expected to remain in surplus or a balanced position in
2003, and slip into deficit in 2004 as demand
recovers. During the upturn of the next economic cycle metals prices could rise significantly, as is typical during a recovery. However, higher prices will induce development of
new capacity and the restart of idle facilities,
and prices will eventually recede. Real prices
are expected to decline in the longer term (figure A2.9), as production costs continue to fallfrom new technologies and improved managerial practices, and there is little constraint on
primary resource availability. The one exception is nickel, where new supply prospects overthe next few years are quite limited, which
could lead to much higher prices.

Aluminum
Aluminum prices have been relatively steadythe past year (figure A2.10), despite extremely
high inventories and a market in surplus.
Three main factors have limited an expected
widening surplus and supported prices. First,

267

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A2.9 Index: Metals and minerals
Index, 1990 = 100
160
1990$


140

120

100

80

60


Nominal
40

20
19

60 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 000 005 110 115
2
2
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Source: World Bank.

several production cuts have occurred in
North America and elsewhere because of electric power-related difficulties. Second, tightness in alumina supplies has resulted in highalumina prices, which may slow Chinese alu-

Figure A2.10 Aluminum price andLME stocks
$/ton

tons

1,800

1,400,000

Copper

Stocks[right scale]

1,700



1,600

1,200,000

Price[left scale]
1,000,000



1,500
800,000
1,400
600,000
1,300
1,200

400,000

1,100
200,000
Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Sources: Platts Metals Week, London Metal Exchange.

268

minum production growth—where much of
the recent increase has occurred—as it is alarge importer of alumina. Finally, tightness in
scrap supplies has generated higher demandfor primary aluminum.
If these conditions continue into 2004, thelarge surplus that had been forecast may notoccur. This may limit the price declines thatsome had forecast. However, world aluminumproduction in May was the highest on record,with Chinese production up 29 percent for the
first five months of this year. There is also
the possibility that shut-in capacity could berestarted.
The aluminum market is expected to moveinto deficit in 2005, but there are a number of
uncertainties in the near term, e.g., the extent
of demand growth, reactivation of idle capacity, and the size of Chinese net exports. Realprices for primary aluminum are expected toslightly decline in the long term following amodest recovery during the next economic
cycle. New low-cost capacity in a number ofcountries, e.g. Canada and the Middle East, is
expected to meet the relatively strong growthin demand, although new investment will continue to require low-cost power supplies.
There is not expected to be any constraint on
alumina supply over the forecast period, andseveral new alumina capacity expansions areunderway, e.g., Australia and Brazil.

Copper prices have risen more than 20 percent
from the lows of October 2001, largely because of a number of production cutbacks andcurtailments that began in 2001. This hashelped reduce the large surplus that emergedin 2001, and LME copper stocks have fallen
about 30 percent from the peak in 2001—yetthey remain relatively high (figure A2.11). In
the first quarter of 2003, the global copper
market moved into deficit according to the International Copper Study Group, because oflower world production and relatively strong
demand, particularly in China where consumption rose more than 20 percent from ayear earlier.

G L O B A L

tons

2,800

Price
[left scale]

2,400



2,600

1,000,000

Stocks[right scale]

900,000
800,000
700,000



2,200
600,000
2,000
500,000
1,800
400,000
1,600
1,400

300,000
200,000

1,200
100,000
Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Sources: Platts Metals Week, London Metal Exchange.

Demand outside of China and neighboring
Asian countries remains relatively weak, andthe market could remain in surplus in 2003.
Much will depend on the extent of the economic recovery and continuation of production cuts in Latin America and the U.S. The
market is expected to move into deficit in2004 as demand recovers, which will put upward pressure on prices. However, the restartof idled capacity in Chile and the U.S. could
prevent prices from moving sharply higher.
In the medium term, the market is expected
to return to balance as new capacity is expected to meet the projected growth in global
consumption of around 3.5 percent per year,
which will be mainly driven by strong growthin China and other Asian countries. Over the
longer term, increases in new low-cost capacity are expected to result in a continued decline of real prices. A major uncertainty overthe forecast period will be the volume of Chinese imports.

P R O S P E C T S

stocks, strong demand for stainless steel, andtight supplies. A strike at Inco’s operations in
Sudbury, Canada, on June 1, 2003, briefly sent
prices above US$9,500/ton, but prices receded
after Russia’s Norilsk agreed to release 24,000
tons from inventory. This followed an announcement by the company in April to release
16,000 tons.
Demand for nickel rose 6 percent in 2002
because of strong growth of stainless steel production, led by China, which increased stainless steel output by around 20 percent. Growthfor both stainless steel and nickel is expected to
weaken slightly this year, mainly because of theslowdown in Europe, before strengthening in
2004. The nickel market is expected to slip
into deficit this year and remain so in 2004 and2005, mainly because of a dearth of major new
projects to come on stream over this period.
Nickel producers have had a number of
setbacks with pressure acid leach (PAL) technology at new laterite deposits (a high proportion of potential new developments havethis type of ore-body). Technical problems andsubstantial cost overruns have significantly

Figure A2.12 Nickel price and LME
stocks$/ton

tons
Stocks[right scale]

11,00070,000$/ton

P R I C E

10,00060,0009,000

50,000

8,000

Price
[left scale]

40,0007,000

Figure A2.11 Copper price andLME stocks

C O M M O D I T Y

30,0006,000

20,0005,000

10,0004,000

0Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

NickelNickel prices have risen about 75 percent from
October 2001 (figure A2.12), because of low

Sources: Platts Metals Week, London Metal Exchange.

269

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.11 Metals and minerals global balances(thousand tons)
Annual growth rates (%)
1970

1980

1990

2000

2001

2002

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Aluminum
Production
Consumption
LME Ending Stocks

10,257
9,996
n.a.

16,027
14,771
68

19,362
19,244311

24,48524,903322

24,47723,561
821

26,09924,944
1241

3.2
3.2
n.a.

1.9
1.8
–0.3

2.4
2.6
0.3

CopperProduction
Consumption
LME Ending Stocks

7,583
7,294
72

9,242
9,400
123

10,80910,780179

14,82015,176357

15,88914,876799

15,336
14,963
856

1.9
2.5
7.4

1.1
1
–5.6

3.2
3.5
7.1

Nickel
Production
Consumption
LME Ending Stocks

n.a.
n.a.
2

717
742
5

842
858
4

1,107
1,172
10

1,145
1,178
19

1,177
1,206
22

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

1.6
1.5
–0.5

2.8
3.2
9.6

n.a. = Not available.
Sources: World Bureau of Metal Statistics, London Metal Exchange, and World Bank.

In 2002, gold prices climbed above their fouryear trading range of roughly US$250–$300/
toz, largely because of the buyback of hedged
positions by gold producers (referred to as de-270

Figure A2.13 Gold price and $/euroIndex, January 1997 = 100
1.20

375

1.15

$/Eur [right scale]
350



Gold

hedging). In addition, increased investment
demand resulting from declining equity markets and the U.S. dollar helped support prices.
More recently, much of the movement in gold
prices seems to have been largely currency related (figure A2.13).
Producer dehedging totaled about 4.5 million ounces in the first quarter of 2003 (6 per-

1.10
Gold [left scale]

325

1.05



limited the expected ramp-up of production at
new projects in Australia. In addition, Inco
has temporarily suspended some construction
work at its US$1.4 billion Goro project in
New Caledonia, after costs escalated by 30–45
percent. The company’s current review of the
project may delay start-up of production into
2006. These difficulties at laterite projects will
likely impact development of forthcoming PAL
operations. Cost estimates for future developments are being raised, which will likely resultin higher long-term nickel prices.
With no new major greenfield projects on
the immediate horizon, nickel prices could
jump significantly over the next couple ofyears before new supplies bring the market
back into balance. Over the longer term, large
new projects are planned for development,
and a new generation of technology and operational practices may help to reduce costs. In
addition to the risks of higher costs, a major
uncertainty for the nickel market is the pace ofdemand growth in China.

1.00
300

0.95
0.90

275
0.85
0.80

250
Jan. Jan.
1997 1998

Jan. Jan. Jan.
1999 2000 2001

Jan. Jan.
2002 2003

Sources: Platts Metals Week, Datastream.

G L O B A L

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.12 Gold global balance(tons)

Jewelry
Other Fabrication
Bar Hoarding
Net Producer Hedging
Implied Net Investment
Total Demand
Mine Production
Official Sector Sales
Old Gold Scrap
Implied Net
Disinvestment
Total Supply

2001

2002

2002
(% y/y.)

1Q02

2Q02

3Q03

4Q04

1Q03

1Q03
(% y/y.)

3,037
476
248
151
–
3,912
2,623
529
708

2,688
485
252
423
130
3,978
2,587
556
835

–11.5
1.9
1.6
180.1
n.a.
1.7
–1.4
5.1
17.9

655
125
80
31
40
931
570
163
198

638
117
53
104
48
960
637
118
205

657
117
61
149
24
1,008
727
83
198

738
126
58
139
17
1,078
653
191
234

586
151
35
145
64
970
572
151
248

–10.5
20.8
–56.3
367.7
60.0
4.2
0.4
–7.4
25.3

52
3,912

–
3,978

n.a.
1.7

–
931

–
960

–
1008

–
1078

–
970

4.2

n.a. = Not available.
Sources: Gold Field Minerals Service and World Bank.

cent of producer hedges), about the same levelof reduction that occurred in each of the thirdand fourth quarters of 2002, according toGold Field Mineral Services. Many companies
have indicated a desire to further reduce theirhedges, and shareholder sentiment generally
appears to be against hedging. This was evidenced in the first quarter of 2003 when, despite high prices, little new hedging took place.
However, hedging of gold is unattractive atcurrent low interest rates.
It is expected that producer dehedging willslow in the second half of this year and in
2004, and remove much of the support undergold prices. And at some point, higher interest
rates may trigger another bout of hedging.
Higher gold prices have had a negative impact on consumer demand. In the first quarterof 2003, jewelry demand fell by more than 10
percent (table A2.12), with declines in bothdeveloping and developed regions. In thelargest consuming country, India, demand fell
13 percent, following a 20 percent drop in
2002. High prices will continue to weaken theprice-sensitive jewelry demand market, andstimulate investment in new production, andfrom scrap. Over the medium term prices are
expected to fall below US$300/toz as supplies
from all sources exceed demand. Even below
US$300/toz, mine production is expected tocontinue to increase moderately as new lowcost operations come on stream.

Finally, official central bank sales continue
to take place. An important determinant of
medium-term prices will be the decision by
central banks whether to further stem official
gold sales when the Washington Agreement
expires in 2004 (the European Central Bankand 14 European central banks agreed in September 1999 to sell only 400 tons of gold peryear, and not more than 2,000 tons in total,
for the subsequent five years).

PetroleumS

ince late 1999, the average oil price (forBrent, Dubai, and WTI) has generally been
above US$25/bbl, with the exception of theslump following the September 11, 2001, attacks (figure A2.14). Excluding the slump, oilprices averaged about US$27.1/bbl, compared
to US$17.6/bbl over the 1986–99 period. The
higher prices are mainly because of strong
production discipline by OPEC, but have also
been supported by periods of low stocks, supply disruptions, and cold weather.
Following the collapse of prices in 1998,
OPEC began adjusting production quotas asrequired to maintain prices within a band of
US$22–$28/bbl for its basket of crudes. By andlarge the organization has been successful,though its market share has slowly eroded. For
OPEC-10 (excluding Iraq), its crude oil production as a share of total world oil supply fell

271

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Figure A2.14 Oil price and OECD stocks$bbl

mil bbl35

2,800
WB price


2,750

30

2,700
2,650

25

2,600
2,550

20

2,500
2,450


Stocks
15

2,400
2,350

10
Jan.
1997

2,300
Jan.
1998

Jan.
1999

Jan.
2000

Jan. Jan. Jan.
2001 2002 2003

Sources: International Energy Agency, World Bank.

from 35 percent in 1996–97 to 30 percent in
2002.
The escalation of prices in 2002 resulted
from large OPEC production cuts (figure
A2.15), augmented by expectations of supply
disruption as the U.S.-led coalition prepared
for war in Iraq. The physical market tightenedin the second half of 2002 from lower OPEC

output, and then oil inventories fell precipitously after Venezuela’s oil exports ceased in
December because of strikes, and as cold
weather raised peak-winter demand. At endwinter 2003, oil inventories were near historic
lows.
With the loss of Venezuela’s production
and impending loss of Iraq’s exports, other
OPEC producers raised production significantly, particularly from the Gulf. Saudi Arabia’s production rose from 7.7 mb/d in the
fourth quarter of 2002 to more than 9.0 mb/dby March 2003, and the rest of OPEC (excluding Venezuela and Iraq) added more than
1 mb/d over this period, with the largest increases from Kuwait, UAE, and Algeria. At
the same time, Venezuela’s production began
to recover, although it appears that some 0.4
mb/d of capacity was permanently lost as a result of the strikes.
The disruption to oil supplies from the war
in Iraq was limited to Iraqi exports of about
2 mb/d. Higher output from other OPEC
members was sufficient to prevent a sharp
spike in prices, and emergency stocks in consuming countries were not withdrawn. Oilprices peaked in early March just before theconflict commenced at US$34.2/bbl.

Figure A2.15 OPEC-10 production and quotas
mb/d30
Plus Iraq production

29



28
27
26

OPEC-10production

OPEC-10
quotas


24



25

23
22
21
Jan. 1997

Jan. 1998

Jan. 1999

Sources: International Energy Agency, OPECNA.

272

Jan. 2000

Jan. 2001

Jan. 2002

Jan. 2003

G L O B A L

Iraq’s exports did not restart soon after the
war ended because of widespread looting andproblems with pumping facilities and pipelines. Because of broader problems with electricity, water, and other facilities that service
the oil sector, it is unlikely that Iraq’s pre-war
production of around 2.5 mb/d will be reachedthis year.
The delay in resumption of Iraqi exports
and the low level of oil inventories eases thetask for OPEC this year of maintaining prices
within its band. However, the difficulty managing oil prices is expected to deepen in 2004,
as Iraq oil exports exceed pre-war levels.
OPEC will have to absorb Iraq back into its
quota system at some point, and quotas for all
members may need to be adjusted. A numberof OPEC members are raising capacity andwill likely request higher quotas, e.g., Algeria
and Nigeria. The expansion of OPEC capacity
will occur when non-OPEC producers are expected to capture virtually all of the growth inworld oil demand. Consequently, oil prices are
expected to fall to the lower end of OPEC’s
price band in 2004.
Downward pressures on oil prices are expected to continue in subsequent years, asmuch of the moderate growth in world oil de-C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

mand, about 1.5 mb/d, will be captured bystrong gains in non-OPEC supply of morethan 1 mb/d per year. Large increases are expected from Russia, the Caspian Sea, West
Africa, and the Western Hemisphere, including the U.S. because of significant developments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. BP reports that between 2002 and 2007, 5 mb/d of
new supply are likely to come on stream fromthese regions alone.
This will leave little room for growth in
OPEC production. With the build-up of new
capacity in many OPEC countries, including
Iraq, oil prices are expected to decline. By
2006–07, oil prices are expected to fall to
US$18/bbl (figure A2.16) as significant volumes of new production begin from the Caspian, and as production and export capacity
increase more broadly from the FSU, West
Africa, and other regions.
A risk to the forecast is that OPEC will
maintain strong production discipline over the
next few years to keep prices at or above
US$25/bbl. If successful, it would further impact oil demand growth and stimulate evengreater supplies from competing sources. It is
felt that OPEC would only prolong a decline
in oil prices that is expected by mid-decade.

Figure A2.16 World Bank oil price
$/bbl
50
45
40

1990$


35
30
25
20


15

Nominal

10
5
0
1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2019

2015

Source: World Bank.

273

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.13 Petroleum global balance(million barrels per day)Million barrels per day

Annual growth rates (%)

1970

1980

1990

2000

2002

2003

1970–80

1980–90

1990–00

Consumption
OECD
FSU
Other non-OECD
Total

34.0
5.0
6.8
45.7

41.5
8.9
12.3
62.6

41.5
8.4
16.1
66.0

47.8
3.6
24.8
76.2

47.6
3.7
25.6
76.9

48.2
3.8
25.9
77.9

2.0
5.9
6.1
3.2

0.0
–0.6
2.7
0.5

1.3
–7.2
4.1
1.3

Production
OPEC
FSU
Other non-OPEC
Total
Stock Change, Misc.

23.5
7.1
17.4
48.0
2.3

27.2
12.1
24.6
63.9
1.3

24.5
11.5
30.9
66.9
0.9

30.7
7.9
38.0
76.6
0.4

28.6
9.4
38.6
76.5
–0.3

29.8
10.2
39.1
79.1
1.2

1.5
5.4
3.5
2.9

–1.0
–0.5
2.3
0.5

1.9
–2.6
1.9
1.3

Sources: British Petroleum, International Energy Agency, and World Bank.

In the longer term, demand growth will
only be moderate, as it has been the past two
decades (table A2.13), but new technologies,
environmental pressures, and government policies could further reduce this growth. Prices
below US$20/bbl are sufficiently high to generate ample development of conventional andnon-conventional oil supplies, and there are noapparent resource constraints far into the fu-

274

ture. In addition, new areas continue to be developed (e.g., deep water offshore), and development costs are expected to continue to fallfrom new technologies (shifting supply curves
outward). In addition, OPEC countries are increasing capacity, and will add to the supply
competition in coming years. Consequently,
real oil prices are expected to continue theirlong-term decline.

G L O B A L

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.14 Commodity prices and price projections in current dollars
ActualCommodity

Projections

Unit

1970

1980

1990

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2015

EnergyCoal, Australia
Crude oil, average
Natural gas, Europe
Natural gas, US

$/mt
$/bbl
$/mmbtu$/mmbtu

n.a.
1.21
n.a.
0.17

n.a.
36.87
3.40
1.55

39.67
22.88
2.55
1.70

26.25
28.23
3.86
4.31

27.06
24.93
3.05
3.35

26.00
26.50
3.75
5.25

26.50
22.00
3.00
3.75

27.00
20.00
2.65
3.50

29.50
19.50
2.75
3.25

32.00
22.00
3.00
3.50

Non-Energy Commodities
Agriculture
Beverages
Cocoa
Coffee, other milds
Coffee, robusta
Tea, auctions (3) average

c/kg
c/kg
c/kg
c/kg

67.5
114.7
91.4
83.5

260.4
346.6
324.3
165.9

126.7
197.2
118.2
205.8

90.6
192.0
91.3
187.6

177.8
135.7
66.2
150.6

177.0
145.5
88.2
150.0

172.0
158.7
92.6
155.0

167.0
165.4
92.6
160.0

160.0
210.1
104.7
170.0

150.0
230.4
125.0
170.0

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

397.2
224.8
378.6
260.1
102.6
286.3
116.9

673.8
452.7
858.8
583.7
262.4
597.6
296.2

336.5
230.7
963.7
289.8
200.2
447.3
246.8

450.3
304.8
713.7
310.3
189.2
338.1
211.8

421.0
266.3
687.1
390.3
175.2
454.3
212.7

442.0
305.0
1100.0
425.0
193.0
527.0
241.0

460.0
380.0
1000.0
415.0
183.0
485.0
225.0

470.0
420.0
890.0
415.0
175.0
450.0
210.0

500.0
450.0
795.0
420.0
185.0
460.0
225.0

530.0
475.0
796.0
445.0
195.0
480.0
235.0

Grains
Maize
Rice, Thailand, 5%
Sorghum
Wheat, US, HRW

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

58.4
126.3
51.8
54.9

125.3
410.7
128.9
172.7

109.3
270.9
103.9
135.5

88.5
202.4
88.0
114.1

99.3
191.9
101.7
148.1

106.0
199.0
106.0
143.0

100.0
202.0
100.0
135.0

95.0
205.0
95.0
130.0

105.0
220.0
105.0
145.0

112.0
230.0
112.0
155.0

Other foodBananas, US
Beef, US
Oranges
Shrimp, Mexico
Sugar, world

$/mt
c/kg
$/mt
c/kg
c/kg

166.1
130.4
168.0
n.a.
8.2

377.3
276.0
400.2
1,152
63.16

540.9
256.3
531.1
1,069
27.67

424.0
193.2
363.2
1,513
18.04

528.6
212.7
555.0
1,052
15.18

410.0
211.6
645.0
1,200
16.00

425.0
218.2
550.0
1,275
15.40

440.0
220.5
500.0
1,350
15.00

530.0
222.0
510.0
1,550
19.00

555.0
220.0
530.0
1,650
21.00

Agricultural raw materials
TimberLogs, Cameroon
Logs, Malaysia
Sawnwood, Malaysia

$/cum
$/cum
$/cum

43.0
43.1
175.0

251.7
195.5
396.0

343.5
177.2
533.0

275.4
190.0
594.7

n.a.
163.4
526.5

275.0
185.0
550.0

280.0
188.0
570.0

285.0
205.0
610.0

320.0
245.0
700.0

350.0
265.0
780.0

Other raw materials
CottonRubber, RSS1, Malaysia
Tobacco

c/kg
c/kg
$/mt

67.6
40.7
1,076

206.2
142.5
2,276

181.9
86.5
3,392

130.2
69.1
2,976

101.9
77.1
2,740

130.1
95.0
2,700

129.0
90.0
2,750

132.3
94.8
2,800

141.1
88.2
2,950

143.3
90.4
3,000

Fertilizers
DAP
Phosphate rock
Potassium chloride
TSP
Urea, E. Europe, bagged

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

54.0
11.00
32.0
43.0
n.a.

222.2
46.71
115.7
180.3
n.a.

171.4
40.50
98.1
131.8
119.3

154.2
43.75
122.5
137.7
101.1

157.5
40.38
113.3
133.1
94.4

177.0
38.00
112.5
142.0
130.0

175.0
38.00
115.0
140.0
128.0

170.0
38.00
116.0
140.0
126.7

170.0
40.00
118.0
146.0
125.0

175.0
42.00
120.0
154.0
130.0

Metals and minerals
Aluminum
CopperGold
Iron ore, Carajas
Lead
NickelSilver
Tin
Zinc

$/mt
$/mt
$/toz
c/dmtu
c/kg
$/mt
c/toz
c/kg
c/kg

556
1,416
35.9
9.84
30.3
2,846
177.0
367.3
29.6

1,456
2,182
607.9
28.09
90.6
6,519
2,064
1,677
76.1

1,639
2,661
383.5
32.50
81.1
8,864
482.0
608.5
151.4

1,549
1,813
279.0
28.79
45.4
8,638
499.9
543.6
112.8

1,350
1,559
310.0
29.31
45.3
6,772
462.5
406.1
77.9

1,390
1,650
330.0
31.95
47.0
8,200
460.0
470.0
80.0

1,425
1,800
300.0
32.00
51.0
8,500
480.0
500.0
92.0

1,500
1,900
280.0
31.00
55.0
8,000
500.0
525.0
100.0

1,600
2,000
300.0
32.00
60.0
6,700
525.0
540.0
105.0

1,700
2,050
300.0
32.50
62.5
6,800
550.0
550.0
110.0

Food
Fats and oils
Coconut oil
Copra
Groundnut oil
Palm oilSoybean meal
Soybean oil
Soybeans

n.a. = Not available.
Note: Projections as of June 24, 2003
Source: World Bank, Development Prospects Group.

275

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.15 Commodity prices and price projections in constant 1990 dollars
ActualCommodity

Projections

Unit

1970

1980

1990

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2015

EnergyCoal, Australia
Crude oil, average
Natural gas, Europe
Natural gas, US

$/mt
$/bbl
$/mmbtu$/mmbtu

n.a.
4.31
n.a.
0.61

n.a.
46.80
4.32
1.97

39.67
22.88
2.55
1.70

26.97
29.01
3.96
4.43

28.06
25.84
3.16
3.48

26.87
27.39
3.88
5.43

27.49
22.82
3.11
3.89

27.59
20.44
2.71
3.58

28.84
19.06
2.69
3.18

29.93
20.58
2.81
3.27

Non-Energy Commodities
Agriculture
Beverages
Cocoa
Coffee, other milds
Coffee, robusta
Tea, auctions (3) average

c/kg
c/kg
c/kg
c/kg

240.6
408.8
325.7
297.7

330.5
440.0
411.7
210.6

126.7
197.2
118.2
205.8

93.1
197.3
93.8
192.8

184.3
140.7
68.6
156.1

183.0
150.4
91.2
155.0

178.4
164.7
96.1
160.8

170.6
169.0
94.6
163.5

156.4
205.4
102.4
166.2

140.3
215.5
116.9
159.0

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

1416.0801.61349.5927.1
365.7
1020.8
416.8

855.3
574.7
1090.1
740.9
333.1
758.6
376.0

336.5
230.7
963.7
289.8
200.2
447.3
246.8

462.7
313.1
733.3
318.8
194.4
347.4
217.7

436.5
276.1
712.4
404.6
181.6
471.0
220.5

456.9
315.3
1137.0
439.3
199.5
544.7
249.1

477.2
394.2
1037.5
430.5
189.9
503.2
233.4

480.2
429.1
909.4
424.0
178.8
459.8
214.6

488.8
439.9
777.1
410.6
180.8
449.7
219.9

495.7
444.3
744.6
416.2
182.4
449.0
219.8

Grains
Maize
Rice, Thailand, 5%
Sorghum
Wheat, US, HRW

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

208.2
450.3
184.7
195.7

159.0
521.4
163.6
219.3

109.3
270.9
103.9
135.5

91.0
208.0
90.4
117.2

102.9
198.9
105.5
153.5

109.6
205.7
109.6
147.8

103.8
209.6
103.8
140.1

97.1
209.5
97.1
132.8

102.6
215.1
102.6
141.7

104.8
215.1
104.8
145.0

Other foodBananas, US
Beef, US
Oranges
Shrimp, Mexico
Sugar, world

$/mt
c/kg
$/mt
c/kg
c/kg

592.1
465.0
599.1
n.a.
29.32

478.9
350.3
508.0
1,462
80.17

540.9
256.3
531.1
1,069
27.67

435.7
198.5
373.2
1,554
18.5

548.0
220.6
575.5
1,090
15.7

423.8
218.7
666.7
1,240
16.5

440.9
226.4
570.6
1,323
16.0

449.6
225.3
510.9
1,379
15.3

518.1
217.0
498.5
1,515
18.6

519.1
205.8
495.7
1,543
19.6

Agricultural raw materials
TimberLogs, Cameroon
Logs, Malaysia
Sawnwood, Malaysia

$/cum
$/cum
$/cum

153.3
153.8
623.9

319.5
248.2
502.7

343.5
177.2
533.0

283.0
195.2
611.1

n.a.
169.4
545.9

284.2
191.2
568.5

290.5
195.0
591.4

291.2
209.5
623.3

312.8
239.5
684.3

327.4
247.9
729.6

Other raw materials
CottonRubber, RSS1, Malaysia
Tobacco

c/kg
c/kg
$/mt

241.1
145.2
3,836

261.7
180.8
2,889

181.9
86.5
3,392

133.8
71.0
3,058

105.7
79.9
2,841

134.4
98.2
2,791

133.8
93.4
2,853

135.2
96.9
2,861

137.9
86.2
2,884

134.0
84.6
2,806

Fertilizers
DAP
Phosphate rock
Potassium chloride
TSP
Urea, E. Europe, bulk

$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt
$/mt

192.5
39.2
114.1
153.3
n.a.

282.1
59.3
146.9
228.8
n.a.

171.4
40.5
98.1
131.8
119.3

158.5
45.0
125.9
141.5
103.9

163.3
41.9
117.5
138.0
97.8

183.0
39.3
116.3
146.8
134.4

181.6
39.4
119.3
145.2
132.8

173.7
38.8
118.5
143.1
129.5

166.2
39.1
115.4
142.7
122.2

163.7
39.3
112.2
144.1
121.6

Metals and minerals
Aluminum
CopperGold
Iron ore
Lead
NickelSilver
Tin
Zinc

$/mt
$/mt
$/toz
c/dmtu
c/kg
$/mt
c/toz
c/kg
c/kg

1,982
5,047
128.1
35.1
108.0
10,147631.0
1309.6
105.5

1,848
2,770
771.6
35.7
115.0
8,275
2619.42129.3
96.6

1,639
2,661
383.5
32.5
81.1
8,864
482.0
608.5
151.4

1,592
1,863
286.7
29.6
46.6
8,876
513.7
558.5
115.9

1,400
1,617
321.4
30.4
46.9
7,021
479.5
421.0
80.7

1,437
1,705
341.1
33.0
48.6
8,475
475.5
485.8
82.7

1,478
1,867
311.2
33.2
52.9
8,818
498.0
518.7
95.5

1,533
1,941
286.1
31.7
56.2
8,174
510.9
536.4
102.2

1,564
1,955
293.3
31.3
58.7
6,549
513.2
527.9
102.6

1,590
1,918
280.6
30.4
58.5
6,360
514.5
514.5
102.9

Food
Fats and oils
Coconut oil
Copra
Groundnut oil
Palm oilSoybean meal
Soybean oil
Soybeans

n.a. = Not available.
Note: Projections as of June 24, 2003
Source: World Bank, Development Prospects Group.

276

G L O B A L

C O M M O D I T Y

P R I C E

P R O S P E C T S

Table A2.16 Weighted indices of commodity prices and inflation
Projectionsa

Actual
Index

1970

1980

1990

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2015

Current dollars
PetroleumNon-energy commoditiesb
Agriculture
Beverages
Food
Fats and oils
GrainsOther food
Raw materials
TimberOther Raw Materials
Fertilizers
Metals and minerals

5.3
43.8
45.8
56.9
46.7
64.4
46.7
32.2
36.4
31.8
39.6
30.4
40.4

161.2
125.5
138.1
181.4
139.3
148.7
134.3
134.3
104.6
79.0
122.0
128.9
94.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

123.4
86.9
87.7
88.4
84.5
96.2
79.5
77.7
91.4
111.0
78.0
105.8
83.0

109.0
83.0
86.5
84.6
90.1
101.2
88.1
82.2
83.2
98.1
73.1
100.5
72.8

115.8
88.8
92.7
89.1
94.0
112.4
89.8
81.2
93.6
103.3
86.9
100.5
78.1

96.2
89.7
92.6
92.4
91.7
107.7
87.0
81.2
93.8
106.8
84.9
102.6
81.6

87.4
91.1
93.7
93.6
89.8
104.2
85.0
80.8
98.8
114.6
88.0
101.7
83.6

85.2
97.7
102.0
106.1
96.5
108.4
93.2
88.7
106.1
132.2
88.3
105.4
86.4

96.2
102.6
107.6
111.6
101.1
114.1
98.8
91.8
113.0
146.7
90.0
110.9
89.5

Constant 1990 dollarsc
PetroleumNon-energy commodities
Agriculture
Beverages
Food
Fats and oils
GrainsOther food
Raw materials
TimberOther Raw Materials
Fertilizers
Metals and minerals

18.9
156.3
163.3
202.8
166.5
229.5
166.6
114.9
129.8
113.3
141.1
108.3
143.9

204.5
159.2
175.2
230.2
176.7
188.6
170.4
170.5
132.7
100.3
154.8
163.6
119.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

127.0
89.4
90.3
90.9
87.0
99.0
81.8
80.0
94.0
114.2
80.2
108.9
85.4

117.2
89.3
93.0
91.0
96.9
108.8
94.7
88.4
89.5
105.5
78.6
108.1
78.3

119.7
91.7
95.8
92.1
97.2
116.2
92.8
84.0
96.7
106.8
89.8
103.9
80.7

99.8
93.1
96.0
95.9
95.1
111.7
90.2
84.2
97.3
110.8
88.1
106.5
84.6

89.3
93.1
95.8
95.7
91.8
106.4
86.9
82.5
100.9
117.1
89.9
103.9
85.5

83.3
95.5
99.7
103.7
94.4
105.9
91.1
86.7
103.7
129.2
86.3
103.0
84.5

89.9
96.0
100.7
104.4
94.6
106.7
92.4
85.9
105.7
137.3
84.2
103.7
83.7

28.05

78.81
10.88

100.00
2.41

97.17
-0.29

92.99
–2.18

96.75
4.05

96.39
-0.37

97.87
1.53

102.300.89

106.91
0.88

33.59

65.93
6.98

100.004.25

123.562.14

127.911.75

129.96
1.60

132.692.10

135.872.40

152.832.38

172.07
2.40

Inflation indices, 1990=100d
MUV indexe% change per annum
US GDP deflator% change per annum

a. Commodity price projections as of June 24, 2003.
b. The World Bank primary commodity price indices are computed based on 1987–89 export values in US dollars for low- and middle-income
economies, rebased to 1990. Weights for the sub-group indices expressed as ratios to the non-energy index are as follows in percent: agriculture 69.1,
fertilizers 2.7, metals and minerals 28.2; beverages 16.9, food 29.4, raw materials 22.8; fats and oils 10.1, grains 6.9, other food 12.4; timber 9.3 andother raw mterials 13.6.
c. Computed from unrounded data and deflated by the MUV index
d. Inflation indices for 2002–2015 are projections as of June 10, 2003. MUV for 2001 is an estimate. Growth rates for years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2002,
2005, 2010 and 2015 refer to compound annual rate of change between adjacent end-point years; all others are annual growth rates from the previous
year.
e. Unit value index in US dollar terms of manufactures exported from the G-5 countries (France, Germany, Japan, UK, and US) weighted proportionallyto the countries’ exports to the developing countries
Source: World Bank, Development Prospects Group. Historical US GDP deflator: US Department of Commerce.

277

Appendix 3
Global Economic Indicators

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.1 Growth of Real GDP, 1971–2015
GDP in 1995 prices and exchange rates, average annual growth (percent)
Growth percent

GDP in 2002
(current billionsof dollars)

1971–80

1981–90

1991–00

Estimate
2002

2003

Forecast
2004–2005

2006–2015

World

32,016

3.7

3.0

2.6

1.9

2.0

2.9

3.2

High income economies
Industrial countries
G-7 countries
United StatesJapan
G-4 Europe
GermanyaEuro Area
Non-G-7 industrial
Other high income
Asian NIEs

25,93725,19021,35010,446
3,997
6,172
1,990
6,633
3,840
747
531

3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
4.5
2.9
2.7
3.2
3.2
7.6
9.5

3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
4.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.9
4.9
7.4

2.5
2.4
2.3
3.2
1.4
1.9
1.7
2.0
3.0
5.4
6.0

1.6
1.6
1.4
2.4
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.9
2.4
2.4
3.0

1.5
1.5
1.4
...
...
0.7
...
0.7
1.8
2.1
2.2

2.5
2.4
2.3
...
...
1.9
...
1.9
3.0
4.3
4.6

2.7
2.6
...
...
...
...
...
2.2
...
4.5
...

Low and middle income economies
excluding CE.Eur / CIS
Asia
East Asia and Pacific
China
Indonesia
South Asia
India
Latin America and Caribbean
BrazilMexicoArgentina
Europe and Central Asia
Russian Federationb
TurkeyPolandMiddle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Egypt
Sub-Saharan Africa
Republic of South Africa
Nigeria

6,079
5,147
2,403
1,757
1,237
173
646
515
1,658
452
637
102
1,114
347
183
188
587
193
108
90
316
104
44

5.0
5.6
5.3
6.7
6.2
7.9
3.1
3.0
5.9
8.5
6.7
3.0
3.9
3.9
4.1
5.1
7.0
10.3
2.6
6.6
3.5
3.5
4.7

2.6
3.1
6.9
7.3
9.3
6.4
5.9
6.1
1.1
1.5
1.8
–1.5
1.5
1.5
5.2
–1.7
2.5
0.3
2.7
5.5
1.7
1.3
1.1

3.3
4.7
7.0
7.7
10.1
4.2
5.2
5.4
3.4
2.7
3.5
4.5
–1.6
–4.0
3.6
3.7
3.4
2.3
4.2
4.3
2.3
1.7
2.6

3.3
3.0
6.1
6.7
8.0
3.8
4.2
4.4
–0.8
1.5
1.0
–10.9
4.6
4.3
7.8
1.3
3.1
0.8
6.3
3.0
2.8
3.0
1.9

4.0
4.0
5.9
6.1
...
...
5.4
...
1.8
...
...
...
4.3
...
...
...
3.3
...
...
...
2.8
...
...

4.9
5.0
6.3
6.6
...
...
5.4
...
3.8
...
...
...
4.3
...
...
...
3.7
...
...
...
3.7
...
...

4.6
...
...
6.2
...
...
5.4
...
3.8
...
...
...
3.4
...
...
...
4.3
...
...
...
3.5
...
...

Notes: growth rates over intervals are computed using compound average methods;
a. data prior to 1991 covers West Germanyb. data prior to 1992 covers former Soviet Union

Figure A3.1 Real GDP growth
Percent
8.0

2006–2015

1991–2000


6.0



4.0
2.0
0.0
–2.0
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

South
Asia

Source: World Bank data and staff estimates.

280

Latin America Europe and Middle Eastand theCentral Asia and North
Caribbean
AfricaSubSaharanAfricaG L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Table A3.2 Growth of real per-capita GDP, 1971–2015
GDP in 1995 prices and exchange rates, average annual growth (percent)
Growth percent

GDP per capita
2002 (current
dollars)

1971–80

1981–90

1991–00

Estimate
2002

2003

Forecast
2004–2005

2006–2015

World

5,297

1.8

1.3

1.2

0.7

0.8

1.8

2.2

High income economiesa
Industrial countries
G-7 countries
United StatesJapan
G-4 Europe
Germanyb
Euro Area
Non-G-7 industrial
Other high income
Asian NIEs

27,18527,71030,25636,22431,43723,85624,123
21,721
18,87916,577
15,891

2.6
2.6
2.7
2.2
3.3
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.2
5.0
7.2

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
3.5
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.1
5.9

1.8
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.7
2.4
3.8
4.7

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.7
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.0
1.1
2.0

1.1
1.1
1.1
…
…
0.7
…
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.3

2.1
2.1
2.0
…
…
1.9
…
1.9
2.8
3.1
3.7

2.5
2.4
…
…
…
…
…
2.3
…
4.2
…

Low & middle income economies
excluding CE.Eur / CIS
Asia
East Asia and Pacific
China
Indonesia
South Asia
India
Latin America and Caribbean
BrazilMexicoArgentina
Europe and Central Asia
Russian Federationc
TurkeyPolandMiddle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Egypt
Sub-Saharan Africa
Republic of South Africa
Nigeria

1,194
1,066
742
956
966
817
461
491
3,149
2,593
6,314
2,694
3,374
2,405
2,626
4,859
1,917
8,727
1,641
1,354
460
2,392
328

2.9
3.2
3.0
4.6
4.3
5.4
0.7
0.7
3.3
5.9
3.6
1.3
2.9
3.2
1.7
4.2
4.0
5.1
–0.6
4.4
0.7
1.2
1.7

0.7
1.0
4.9
5.6
7.7
4.4
3.6
3.9
–0.9
–0.4
–0.3
–2.9
0.6
0.9
2.8
–2.4
–0.6
–4.8
–0.7
2.9
–1.1
–1.2
–1.9

1.7
3.0
5.4
6.4
9.0
2.5
3.3
3.6
1.7
1.2
1.7
3.2
–1.8
–3.9
2.0
3.5
1.2
–1.1
2.5
2.4
–0.2
–0.2
–0.2

1.9
1.5
4.8
5.8
7.2
2.4
2.5
2.8
–2.3
0.3
–0.8
–12.0
4.5
4.6
6.3
1.2
1.1
–2.2
4.6
1.4
0.5
1.7
–0.8

2.7
2.5
4.6
5.2
…
…
3.7
…
0.4
…
…
…
4.3
…
…
…
1.3
…
…
…
0.6
…
…

3.6
3.6
5.1
5.7
…
…
3.8
…
2.4
…
…
…
4.2
…
…
…
1.7
…
…
…
1.5
…
…

3.4
…
…
5.4
…
…
4.1
…
2.5
…
…
…
3.3
…
…
…
2.5
…
…
…
1.6
…
…

Notes: growth rates over intervals are computed using compound annual methods;
a. regional aggregates computed as sum(GDPi)/sum(POPi), where “i” indicates country in the region, and are unweighted by population or other measures;
b. data prior to 1991 covers West Germany;c. data prior to 1992 covers former Soviet Union

Figure A3.2 Real per capita GDP growth
Percent
8.0
6.0

1991–2000

2006–2015


4.0



2.0
0.0
–2.0
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

South
Asia

Latin America Europe and Middle Eastand theCentral Asia and North
Caribbean
AfricaSubSaharanAfricaSource: World Bank data and staff estimates.

281

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.3 Inflation: GDP Deflators, 1971–2005
Deflators in local currency units; 1995=100; percentage changea
Growth percent
1971–80

1981–90

1991–00

2001

Estimate
2002

Forecast
2003

2004–2005

World

9.1

5.9

3.7

2.2

1.5

1.6

1.8

High income economies
Industrial countries
G-7 countries
United StatesJapan
G-4 Europe
Germanyb
Euro Area
Non-G-7 industrial

8.9
8.7
8.3
7.0
7.8
9.9
5.3
9.6
11.1

5.3
4.6
4.2
4.3
2.0
5.7
2.6
6.1
7.1

2.0
2.0
1.7
2.1
0.1
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.3

1.5
1.5
1.2
2.4
–1.6
1.9
1.4
2.4
3.1

1.0
1.0
0.8
1.1
–1.6
2.2
1.6
2.3
2.3

1.0
1.0
0.8
1.5
–2.1
1.8
1.2
1.9
2.4

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
–0.5
1.5
0.9
1.5
2.1

Other high income
Asian NIEs

19.6
9.5

33.7
4.7

3.7
2.4

0.1
–0.4

–0.6
–1.4

0.5
–0.7

1.8
1.3

9.8
11.6
10.2
9.8
0.9
20.6
11.9
8.9
15.6
39.7
18.1
117.7
0.2
0.0
32.8
4.4
11.7
23.8
19.3
11.0
10.7
13.3
13.4

8.8
10.7
7.7
6.6
5.4
8.8
9.0
8.5
20.4
330.8
63.7
439.5
1.0
31.6
46.4
72.1
8.4
–3.1
15.6
13.1
10.0
15.1
16.6

11.8
9.4
7.6
6.8
6.3
14.9
7.8
8.0
12.0
206.1
18.1
10.2
76.0
104.5
71.7
24.6
7.5
3.8
26.6
8.7
10.5
9.9
28.6

5.2
4.8
2.9
2.6
0.0
12.6
3.0
3.0
5.5
8.8
5.4
–1.1
6.1
18.0
57.1
3.9
2.6
–2.4
8.8
3.8
5.8
7.6
6.0

4.0
4.1
2.6
3.3
0.4
7.2
1.8
2.6
4.7
8.5
4.9
30.8
4.0
10.7
48.2
–3.5
3.8
2.4
5.2
4.0
4.2
8.5
15.0

4.0
4.0
4.4
3.7
...
...
5.1
...
4.1
...
...
...
5.8
...
...
...
4.0
...
...
...
3.7
...
...

4.1
4.2
4.9
3.7
...
...
5.2
...
4.0
...
...
...
4.6
...
...
...
4.0
...
...
...
4.5
...
...

Low and middle income economies
excluding CE.Eur / CIS
Asia
East Asia and Pacific
China
Indonesia
South Asia
India
Latin America and Caribbean
BrazilMexicoArgentina
Europe and Central Asia
Russian Federationc
TurkeyPolandMiddle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Egypt
Sub-Saharan Africa
Republic of South Africa
Nigeria

Notes: growth rates over intervals are computed using compound annual squares method;a. High-income group inflation rates are GDP-weighted averages of local currency inflation; LMIC groups are medians; world is
GDP-weighted average of the two groups.
b. data prior to 1991 covers West Germanyc. data prior to 1992 covers former Soviet Union.

Figure A3.3 GDP inflation
Percent
15.0

10.0

76%
1991–2000

5.0

2004–2005

0.0
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

South
Asia

Source: World Bank data and staff estimates.

282

Latin America Europe and Middle Eastand theCentral Asia and North
Caribbean
AfricaSubSaharanAfricaG L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Table A3.4 Current Account Balances, 1971–2005
Expressed as shares of GDP (percent)2002 Current
Account(billions of
U.S. dollars)

1971–80

1981–90

1991–00

2001

Estimate
2002

Forecast
2003

2004–2005

Worlda

–106

–0.1

–0.6

–0.2

–0.5

–0.3

–0.5

–0.6

High income economies
Industrial countries
G-7 countries
United StatesJapan
G-4 Europe
Germanyb
Euro Area
Non-G-7 industrial
Other high income
Asian NIEs

–177
–238
–304
–481
112
54
46
54
65
62
62

–0.1
–0.2
–0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.0
–1.1
7.6
1.8

–0.3
–0.5
–0.4
–1.9
2.3
0.3
2.4
0.3
–0.8
6.9
1.2

0.0
–0.1
–0.3
–1.8
2.4
–0.2
–0.9
0.5
1.2
3.2
4.1

–0.6
–0.9
–1.4
–3.9
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
1.9
7.2
9.0

–0.7
–0.9
–1.4
–4.6
2.8
0.9
2.3
0.8
1.7
8.3
11.6

–0.7
–0.9
–1.4
...
...
1.0
...
1.1
1.8
6.8
10.6

–0.7
–0.9
–1.4
...
...
1.1
...
1.3
2.0
6.4
10.5

Low & middle income economies
excluding CE.Eur / FSU
Asia
East Asia and Pacific
China
Indonesia
South Asia
India
Latin America and Caribbean
BrazilMexicoArgentina
Europe and Central Asia
Russian Federationc
TurkeyPolandMiddle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Egypt
Sub-Saharan Africa
Republic of South Africa
Nigeria

70
58
59
56
29
7
3
3
–14
–8
–14
9
13
33
0
–7
20
12
4
–1
–8
0
0

0.2
0.6
–0.3
–0.1
0.1
–2.3
–0.4
0.2
–1.4
–4.4
–3.9
–0.4
–0.8
2.1
–2.1
–0.9
6.8
21.1
11.8
–0.6
–2.1
–1.3
1.5

–1.7
–1.8
–1.7
–1.5
0.2
–3.3
–2.0
–1.7
–1.7
–1.6
–0.8
–2.2
–0.5
3.5
–1.3
–1.4
–1.5
–7.3
–0.4
–2.6
–2.7
0.4
–0.6

–1.6
–1.6
–0.2
0.4
1.6
–0.4
–1.5
–1.1
–2.7
–2.2
–3.7
–3.1
–2.5
4.7
–1.1
–3.7
–1.9
–6.5
1.9
1.5
–2.0
–0.2
–0.2

0.1
0.2
1.8
2.7
1.5
4.7
–0.5
–0.7
–2.7
–4.6
–2.9
–1.7
–1.4
11.3
2.3
–3.0
4.2
7.6
3.5
–0.4
–2.2
–0.3
–0.7

1.2
1.1
2.5
3.2
2.4
4.2
0.5
0.7
–0.8
–1.7
–2.2
8.8
1.1
9.5
0.0
–3.5
3.5
6.2
3.1
–1.3
–2.2
0.3
0.0

0.5
0.3
1.5
1.9
...
...
0.4
...
–0.5
...
...
...
0.6
...
...
...
0.3
...
...
...
–2.7
...
...

–0.1
–0.2
1.2
1.6
...
...
0.0
...
–0.9
...
...
...
–0.2
...
...
...
–2.0
...
...
...
–2.6
...
...

Shares percent

a. Current account as defined in BOP version 5.0, world represents statistical discrepancy; shares over intervals are period averages;
b. data prior to 1991 covers West Germany;c. data prior to 1992 covers former Soviet Union.

Figure A3.4 Current account balances-to-GDP ratio
Percent of GDP
2004–2005
1991–2000


1.0



2.0

0.0
–1.0
–2.0
–3.0
–4.0
High-income
countries

East Asia
and Pacific

South
Asia

Latin America Europe and Middle Eastand theCentral Asia and North
Caribbean
AfricaSubSaharanAfricaSource: World Bank data and staff estimates.

283

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.5 Exports of goods, 2002
Merchandise exports (FOB), millions of dollars; average annual volume growth 1993–2002 (percent); effective market growth (EMG) 1993–2002 (percent)World
All developing
countries

Exports

GrowthEMG26,285,029

6.3

6.6

1,618,770

7.1

7.2

Asia

663,348

11.4

7.0

East Asia
China
Fiji
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam595,377
325,574
511
56,92293,36434,45568,902
16,159

12.0
17.3
3.6
5.1
8.2
10.4
8.0
18.4

7.0
6.8
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.4
7.1
6.9

South Asia
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

67,972
6,374
46,129
733
9,699
5,036

7.1
11.6
7.6
8.2
3.0
7.4

6.9
7.0
6.8
6.4
6.8
7.2

Latin America
Argentina
Bolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican
Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GuatemalaJamaica
MexicoPanamaParaguay
Peru
Trinidad andTobagoUruguay
Venezuela

351,966
25,3481,241
60,362
18,34012,803
5,007

5.6
2.8
7.1
–2.9
5.1
4.5
11.0

7.7
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.7
7.3
7.8

5,142
5,279
2,526
2,850
1,466
160,834
5,778
2,176
7,551

24.5
3.9
17.2
7.4
2.4
13.5
1.2
–0.4
–0.4

7.9
7.7
7.8
8.7
7.7
9.0
7.3
6.3
7.3

4,214
1,850
26,735

7.1
8.4
–0.3

8.2
6.7
8.8

306,543
435
2,333

5.6
2.8
7.1

7.2
5.2
4.3

Europe andCentral Asia
Armenia
Azerbaijan

Exports

Europe andCentral Asia (continued)
Belarus
8,035
Bulgaria
3,512
Czech Republic
26,977
Estonia
5,992
Georgia
748
Hungary
27,305
Kazakstan
10,590Latvia2,718
Lithuania
4,365
Poland36,115
Romania
12,820RussianFederation
79,059Slovak Republic
18,023
Turkey35,904
Ukraine19,260
Uzbekistan
7,005
Middle East and
N. Africa
AlgeriaEgypt,
Arab Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
JordanMoroccoOman
Saudi Arabia
Syrian Arab Rep.
Tunisia
Yemen, Rep.
Sub-SaharanAfricaAngolaCameroon
Côte d’Ivoire
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Madagascar
NigeriaSouth Africa
Sudan
ZambiaZimbabwe

Growth

EMG2

–2.9
5.1
4.5
11.0
24.5
3.9
17.2
7.4
2.4
13.5
1.2

7.8
6.3
6.3
7.6
6.5
6.1
8.0
8.5
7.9
6.0
5.8

–0.4
7.1
8.4
–0.3
4.3

7.9
8.7
6.0
7.5
7.2

161,597
17,648

2.3
2.7

6.6
6.4

7,323
24,203
2,466
7,427
11,50873,691
6,173
7,676
3,483

6.1
–0.3
7.0
3.6
5.0
1.3
5.1
5.0
9.4

6.3
6.4
5.8
6.1
7.9
6.8
5.4
5.5
8.8

91,060
7,582
1,917
4,275
326
2,403
1,402
2,028
962
16,33331,085
1,332
1,057
1,519

3.1
4.4
–1.2
2.8
10.3
–2.1
6.9
5.6
10.9
0.7
2.4
22.1
6.1
–0.4

6.8
8.7
6.2
5.6
5.1
8.3
6.4
5.7
5.9
7.4
6.2
6.3
5.0
6.2

Exports

GrowthEMG2High income
countries

4,666,260

6.1

6.9

Industrial
countries

4,431,191

6.2

6.8

G-7 countries
CanadaFranceGermany
Italy
Japan
United Kingdom
United States

2,857,740
263,777
339,050
592,010284,552
395,662
279,140
703,549

5.4
7.3
6.1
5.9
5.5
3.6
5.4
5.3

7.0
8.9
5.9
6.6
6.2
7.8
6.4
7.0

Other industrial
Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Denmark
Finland
GreeceIceland
Ireland
Korea, Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

1,253,846
64,98869,422200,696
53,531
7,507
3,158
2,150
88,970
162,412
198,624
14,86061,761
26,731
121,572
85,304
92,161

7.4
6.2

6.2
6.5

7.9

5.9

6.7
2.1
7.7
10.8
2.8
9.7
14.4
6.3
3.7
2.8
9.2
7.7
3.7
3.7

5.9
5.8
7.0
5.8
6.3
6.2
7.5
5.8
7.1
6.3
5.6
6.1
6.1
6.1

Other high income
BahrainHong Kong,
China
Israel
KuwaitSingapore
Taiwan, China
United ArabEmirates

554,674
5,529

7.0
3.4

8.3
5.6

200,285
29,435
15,477125,172
130,666

6.3
7.6
6.2
8.8
6.9

10.2
7.3
6.7
7.5
7.1

38,3863.1

5.6

1. Includes Luxembourg.
2. Effective market growth (EMG) is a weighted average of import volume growth in the country’s export markets.
Source: see technical notes.

284

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Figure A3.5a Merchandise exports as share of GDP, 2002
Percent
40

30

World

20

10

0
Industrial
countries

Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Source: World Bank data.

Figure A3.5b Annual growth rate of export volumes, 1993–2002
Percent
15.0

10.0

World
5.0

0.0
Industrial
countries

Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Source: World Bank data.

285

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.6 Imports of goods, 2002
Merchandise imports (CIF), millions of dollars; average annual volume growth 1993–2002 (percent); merchandise imports share of GDP (percent)
Imports

Growth

Share

World

6,232,809

6.6

19.4

All developing
countries

1,441,537

7.5

23.5

Asia
East Asia
China
Fiji
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam

579,5649.6

23.7

501,706613
31,24275,04332,54764,317
16,599

10.2
–0.1
1.2
7.2
7.1
4.8
19.5

28.3
36.2
17.5
78.9
41.8
50.8
44.8

South Asia
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

77,858
8,514
52,114
1,521
9,937
5,772

5.6
9.1
7.0
5.4
–0.8
5.9

11.5
17.0
9.6
27.9
16.6
33.3

Latin America
Argentina
Bolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican
Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GuatemalaJamaica
MexicoPanamaParaguay
Peru
Trinidad andTobagoUruguay
Venezuela

329,697
8,988
1,492
47,237
15,827
12,304
6,533

7.8
–4.7
2.2
8.4
4.9
7.2
11.3

19.7
8.8
17.8
10.4
23.8
14.3
38.7

8,428
6,240
4,702
4,895
3,063
168,731
6,435
2,460
7,271

14.6
11.0
11.8
7.7
7.2
11.0
1.5
0.6
0.6

37.4
32.8
32.7
24.4
38.1
26.6
61.3
34.1
12.5

3,541
2,067
15,204

5.5
13.3
–1.8

38.1
12.1
13.0

318,748
807
1,787

7.2
5.2
4.3

30.5
33.0
26.6

Europe andCentral Asia
Armenia
Azerbaijan

1. Includes Luxembourg.
Source: see technical notes.

286

Imports

Europe andCentral Asia (continued)
Belarus
7,909
Bulgaria
6,106
Czech Republic
40,176
Estonia
4,768
Georgia
885
Hungary
34,619
Kazakstan
7,106
Latvia3,623
Lithuania
6,188
Poland53,993
Romania
15,527
RussianFederation
63,956
Slovak Republic
11,980Turkey29,933
Ukraine
14,079Uzbekistan
3,523

Growth

Share

7.8
6.3
6.3
7.6
6.5
6.1
8.0
8.5
7.9
6.0
5.8

59.4
43.6
65.1
83.6
27.9
62.5
27.8
45.3
47.1
29.6
35.1

7.9
8.7
6.0
7.5
7.2

19.3
49.6
17.5
32.1
32.5

Middle East and
N. Africa
AlgeriaEgypt, Arab Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
JordanMoroccoOman
Saudi Arabia
Syrian Arab Rep.
Tunisia
Yemen, Rep.

114,003
11,37814,364
20,260
4,349
10,6305,614
30,418
4,576
9,864
2,550

1.4
4.2
4.3
–2.1
3.5
3.1
4.1
0.0
4.0
4.5
2.4

17.2
19.8
15.0
16.3
46.2
29.4
24.4
15.8
5.0
47.4
25.9

Sub-SaharanAfricaAngolaCameroon
Côte d’Ivoire
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Madagascar
NigeriaSouth Africa
Sudan
Zambia79,907
3,383
1,866
2,339
1,494
1,113
2,513
3,202
1,076
11,57026,712
1,306
1,021

3.5
4.6
5.7
1.1
5.6
2.5
6.1
6.8
8.3
4.7
3.5
6.5
2.8

25.3
29.4
20.8
22.5
23.0
25.3
45.1
27.4
22.1
24.7
24.8
9.9
27.3

Imports

GrowthShares

798

–7.7

6.4

High income
countries

4,791,272

6.4

18.5

Industrial
countries

4,620,406

6.6

17.6

G-7 countries
CanadaFranceGermany
Italy
Japan
United Kingdom
United States

3,099,228
226,994
316,953
486,062
244,491
302,246
330,862
1,191,620

6.6
6.7
5.8
4.4
4.6
4.8
6.7
9.4

14.5
30.9
22.1
24.4
20.7
7.6
21.1
11.4

Other industrial
Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Denmark
Finland
GreeceIceland
Ireland
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

1,166,814
70,17867,958184,178
46,896
5,277
10,2072,206
52,381
151,768
177,228
13,13235,61939,530155,190
65,80989,257

5.9
8.1
5.3
5.6
2.9
3.8
4.8
3.0
8.7
9.2
6.0
3.8
2.2
3.3
7.9
5.7
2.4

30.4
17.6
33.2
74.8
27.2
4.0
7.8
25.9
42.8
31.8
42.4
23.6
18.6
32.8
23.7
27.5
33.3

525,229
3,972

6.4
–0.8

70.4
46.7

205,337
33,317
7,341
110,256
112,957

6.9
5.8
0.0
6.4
5.9

127.1
29.6
21.6
126.8
40.0

41,882

9.2

104.1

Sub-SaharanAfrica (continued)
Zimbabwe

Other highincomeBahrainHong Kong,
China
Israel
KuwaitSingapore
Taiwan, China
United ArabEmirates

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Figure A3.6a Merchandise imports as share of GDP, 2002
Percent
40

30

World

20

10

0
Industrial
countries

Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Source: World Bank data.

Figure A3.6b Annual growth rate of import volumes, 1993–2002
Percent
15.0

10.0

World

5.0

0.0
Industrial
countries

Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Source: World Bank data.

287

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.7 Direction of merchandise trade, 2002
(percentage of world trade)High-income importers

Low- and middle-income importers

All
industrial

OtherhighincomeAllhighincome

SubSaharanAfrica

East
Asia
and
Pacific

EuropeandSouth Central
Asia
Asia

Latin
Middle America All
East
andlowandtheandNorth Carib- middleAfrica
bean income

Source of exports

UnitedStates

EU-15

Japan

Other
industrial

High-income econ.
Industrial
United States
EU-15
Japan
Other industrial
Other high-income

12.3
10.7
0.0
3.7
2.1
4.3
1.6

27.4
26.2
2.3
20.6
1.0
2.0
1.2

3.0
2.2
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.7

6.5
6.2
3.3
2.2
0.3
0.3
0.3

50.7
46.6
6.9
27.4
3.9
7.1
4.1

5.5
4.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
0.3
1.2

56.2
50.9
7.9
28.7
5.2
7.4
5.3

0.8
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1

6.5
4.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.3
2.3

0.7
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2

3.7
3.5
0.2
3.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

1.5
1.4
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.1

4.0
3.8
2.5
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2

17.1
14.1
3.9
6.5
1.9
0.8
3.1

73.4
65.0
11.8
35.2
7.1
8.2
8.4

6.7
0.3

6.5
0.5

2.2
0.1

1.0
0.0

17.1
0.9

3.1
0.1

20.3
1.0

0.5
0.2

1.7
0.1

0.4
0.0

1.9
0.0

0.5
0.0

1.3
0.1

6.4
0.4

26.6
1.4

2.2
0.3

1.4
0.3

1.5
0.0

0.4
0.0

6.0
0.7

2.4
0.2

8.3
0.8

0.1
0.0

0.9
0.1

0.2
0.0

0.2
0.0

0.2
0.0

0.2
0.0

1.9
0.3

10.2
1.1

0.3

2.8

0.1

0.2

3.4

0.2

3.6

0.0

0.2

0.0

1.5

0.1

0.0

1.9

5.5

0.3

0.8

0.3

0.1

1.7

0.3

2.0

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.6

2.6

3.3

0.7

0.1

0.3

4.4

0.1

4.5

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.9

1.3

5.8

19.0

33.8

5.1

7.5

67.8

8.6

76.5

1.3

8.2

1.1

5.6

2.0

5.3

23.5

100.0

Low and middleincome economies
Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia
and PacificSouth Asia
Europe andCentral Asia
Middle East andNorth Africa
Latin America
and Caribbean
Worlda. Expressed as a share (percent) of total world exports. World merchandise exports in 2002 amounted to some $6,300 billion.
b. Other high-income group includes the Asian newly industrializing economies, several oil exporters in the Gulf region, and Israel.
Source: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.

288

World

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Table A3.8 Growth of current dollar merchandise trade, by direction 1993–2002(average annual percentage growth)High-income importers

Source of exports

High-income econ.
Industrial
United States
EU-15
Japan
Other industrial
Other high-income

Low- and middle-income importers

All
industrial

OtherhighincomeAllhighincome

SubSaharanAfrica

East
Asia
and
Pacific

EuropeandSouth Central
Asia
Asia

Latin
Middle America All
East
andlowandtheandNorth Carib- middleAfrica
bean income

UnitedStates

EU-15

Japan

Other
industrial

5.6
6.2
0.0
7.4
2.2
7.7
2.4

1.2
1.2
1.9
1.1
–1.8
2.4
2.8

1.8
1.4
0.7
2.8
0.0
0.7
3.2

4.0
4.1
5.7
2.6
0.1
4.3
2.6

2.7
2.6
3.5
1.9
1.1
5.3
3.2

3.9
3.5
3.7
4.7
1.6
2.9
5.8

2.8
2.7
3.5
2.0
1.2
5.2
3.7

1.5
1.6
0.8
1.5
–2.9
4.5
1.2

8.3
8.2
8.2
6.6
7.2
6.7
8.3

3.7
2.5
5.2
1.3
–0.5
4.7
7.1

11.1
11.0
2.9
12.1
3.3
7.6
14.7

0.1
0.1
–2.1
0.6
–3.9
3.2
0.6

5.7
5.7
7.1
4.7
–0.3
3.3
5.2

6.5
6.2
6.1
6.4
4.1
5.4
7.5

3.5
3.3
4.3
2.7
1.9
5.2
5.0

11.3
5.6

7.3
5.5

7.4
18.1

12.2
4.2

9.2
6.4

7.6
18.5

8.9
6.9

12.2
11.4

15.8
25.7

9.8
7.6

12.2
15.1

5.7
7.8

9.2
13.7

11.4
13.4

9.5
8.4

14.6
10.8

11.1
4.8

9.5
0.0

14.1
7.5

12.2
7.0

7.4
10.1

10.6
7.5

16.6
11.1

17.4
13.9

14.9
8.1

13.2
5.9

8.8
3.2

19.7
20.1

15.6
9.1

11.3
7.9

17.8

9.7

2.8

12.7

10.2

15.9

10.4

10.0

9.9

8.6

13.4

4.6

9.8

11.8

0.0

World

Low and middleincome economies
Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia
and PacificSouth Asia
Europe andCentral Asia
Middle East andNorth Africa
Latin America
and Caribbean

1.8

2.5

2.9

2.1

3.0

5.3

3.3

15.3

16.3

4.8

0.0

3.9

–0.2

7.3

4.2

11.3

2.5

2.1

16.7

9.2

3.5

9.0

4.6

13.9

11.2

12.8

5.4

8.1

8.6

8.9

World

7.3

2.1

3.8

4.8

3.9

5.1

4.1

4.3

9.4

5.7

11.5

1.2

6.4

7.6

4.8

Note: Growth rates are compound averages.
Source: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.

289

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.9 Structure of long-term debt, 2001
Share of long-term debt (%): concessional debt; nonconcessional debt at variable interest rates; nonconcessional debt at fixed interest
rates
Non-concessional

Non-concessional

Concessional

Variable

Fixed

Concessional

VariableFixed

All developing countries

19.0

48.1

32.9

Asia
East Asia
China
Indonesia
Korea, Rep.
Malaysia
Myanmar
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam

32.0
24.2
20.7
27.4
..
8.3
80.1
34.1
25.1
16.2
73.2

44.5
52.0
45.3
63.8
..
56.9
10.9
55.9
42.5
65.6
11.7

23.5
23.8
34.0
8.8
..
34.8
9.0
9.9
32.4
18.1
15.1

South Asia
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

52.0
96.4
38.9
99.8
68.8
81.7

24.9
0.0
29.4
0.0
24.8
10.2

23.0
3.6
31.7
0.2
6.3
8.1

Europe and Central Asia (continued)
Czech Republic
2.0
Estonia
1.3
Georgia
74.8
Hungary
0.5
Kazakhstan
2.9
Kyrgyz Republic
65.2
Latvia1.6
Lithuania
3.0
Moldova
19.9
Poland11.2
Romania
2.6
Russian Federation
0.4
Slovak Republic
3.3
Tajikistan
85.6
Turkmenistan
19.4
Turkey5.0
Ukraine24.4
Uzbekistan
23.5

72.8
97.6
11.9
63.6
86.1
27.7
82.1
51.7
54.7
76.7
72.4
34.7
48.8
12.5
67.4
50.3
50.8
68.1

25.2
1.1
13.2
35.9
11.0
7.1
16.3
45.3
25.4
12.2
25.0
64.9
47.8
1.9
13.3
44.7
24.8
8.4

Middle East andNorth Africa
AlgeriaEgypt, Arab Rep.
JordanMoroccoOman
Syrian Arab Rep.
Tunisia
Yemen, Rep.

36.1
13.0
77.2
48.4
31.6
18.5
93.0
25.4
94.1

32.8
49.7
6.1
34.1
44.7
64.7
0.0
31.6
2.0

31.1
37.3
16.7
17.5
23.7
16.8
7.0
43.0
4.0

Sub-Saharan Africa
AngolaBotswana
Côte d’Ivoire
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Madagascar
Nigeria
SenegalSouth Africa
Sudan
ZambiaZimbabwe

48.3
21.1
69.0
38.9
58.6
91.4
42.3
78.6
78.4
72.8
4.6
87.0
0.0
50.1
78.5
45.7

15.1
8.5
7.1
46.8
12.2
0.1
8.7
5.4
5.1
5.0
5.6
5.5
55.5
17.9
7.8
20.3

36.6
70.5
23.9
14.3
29.2
8.5
48.9
16.0
16.6
22.2
89.9
7.5
44.5
32.0
13.7
34.0

Latin America andthe Caribbean
Argentina
Bolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GuatemalaJamaica
MexicoNicaragua
PanamaParaguay
Peru
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela, RB

4.6
1.3
54.4
1.4
0.9
2.7
15.1
35.2
15.8
31.8
40.3
19.4
0.8
59.0
4.2
32.7
15.0
0.7
3.0
0.1

59.1
38.5
32.9
72.4
94.1
56.9
23.1
33.0
32.5
35.3
31.7
20.7
62.1
20.0
42.7
47.4
61.5
38.3
47.0
51.9

36.3
60.2
12.7
26.2
5.0
40.4
61.8
31.9
51.7
32.9
27.9
59.9
37.2
21.0
53.1
19.8
23.5
60.9
50.0
48.0

Europe and Central Asia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bulgaria

5.7
74.1
55.4
12.6
4.2

54.3
12.7
41.0
59.7
86.0

40.0
13.2
3.6
27.7
9.8

Note: Nonconcessional debt data are available only for countries which report to the World Bank’s Debtor Reporting System. For
aggregate figures, missing values are assumed to have the same average value as the available data.
Republic of Korea is not included in the aggregate figures.

290

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Figure A3.9a Structure of long-term debt, by group, 2001
Percent

Concessional

100
80



Variable
rate

60
40




20

Fixed
rate

0
Severelyindebted
low-income
countries

Moderately
indebted
low-income
countries

Severelyindebted
middle-income
countries

Moderately
indebted
middle-income
countries

Other
countries

Source: World Bank data.

Figure A3.9b Structure of long-term debt, by region, 2001
Percent
Concessional

100



80
60

Variable
rate

40



20

Fixed
rate



0
Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Europe and Middle East andCentral Asia
North Africa

Source: World Bank data.

Figure A3.9c Top ten ratios of nonconcessional debt to GDP, 2001
Percent
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Liberia
Congo, Rep.
BelizeNigeria
AngolaPanamaKazakhstan
Bulgaria
Côte d’Ivoire
0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Source: World Bank data.

291

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table A3.10 Long-term net resource flows to developing countries, 2001
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Private292

Official

Total
millions $Percent
GDP

Total

Debt flows
(net)

FDI

Portfolio

Total

ODA

All developing countries

207,0633.3

169,003–8,648

171,693

5,958

38,06037,875

184

Asia
East Asia
China
Indonesia
Korea, Rep.
Malaysia
Myanmar
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Thailand
Vietnam

54,52445,02845,635–6,446
9,046
3,004
210
150
2,014
–2,977
1,946

2.4
2.7
3.9
–4.6
2.1
3.4
..
5.2
2.8
–2.6
5.9

40,61636,817
43,238–7,312
9,279
855
145
2
2,077
–3,052710–16,898–15,025–4,017–4,198–4,084
951
–63
–61
–98
–6,891–590

52,97948,91344,241–3,278
3,198
554
208
63
1,792
3,820
1,300

4,535
2,930
3,015
164
10,165
–650
0
0
383
18
0

13,909
8,211
2,396
866
–233
2,149
65
148
–62
76
1,236

12,359
6,649
874
955
–56
1,413
65
78
164
534
1,222

1,550
1,561
1,522
–89
–177
736
0
70
–226
–458
14

South Asia
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

9,496
1,305
4,383
255
1,639
525

1.5
2.8
0.9
4.6
2.8
3.4

3,798
304
3,534
19
–308
243

–1,873230–1,608
0
–561
71

4,066
78
3,403
19
383
172

1,606
–4
1,739
0
–130
0

5,698
1,002
849
236
1,947
282

5,710
1,007
813
236
2,066
271

–12
–5
36
0
–120
11

Latin America
Argentina
Bolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GuatemalaJamaica
MexicoNicaragua
PanamaParaguay
Peru
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela

79,898–2,7701,217
26,159
5,634
4,768
451
1,719
1,549
982
577
1,344
27,429
820
1,806
6
2,317
819
880
1,734

4.2
–1.0
15.3
5.1
8.5
5.8
2.8
8.1
7.4
7.1
2.8
17.3
4.4
..
15.0
0.1
4.3
9.0
4.7
1.4

72,067–3,897637
23,337
5,727
3,597
630
1,729
1,444
674
403
1,385
28,079
13
1,799
–14
1,400
830
796
2,644

500
–7,030–26–1,781
1,470
1,312
176
530
113
406
–52
771
3,198
–119
1,287
–93
294
–5
478
–730

69,3093,214
662
22,636
4,476
2,328
454
1,198
1,330
268
456
614
24,731
132
513
79
1,064
835
318
3,448

2,258
–81
0
2,482
–219
–43
0
0
1
0
0
0
150
0
0
0
42
0
0
–74

7,831
1,127
580
2,823
–93
1,171
–179
–10
105
308
174
–41
–650
807
7
19
917
–11
84
–910

3,495
–225
549
398
8
81
–31
–31
54
132
102
–4
–64
822
–17
–13
184
3
–37
0

4,336
1,353
32
2,424
–101
1,090
–148
21
51
175
71
–38
–586
–15
24
33
733
–14
121
–910

Europe andCentral Asia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
LatviaLithuania
Moldova
PolandRomania
Russian Federation
Slovak Republic
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
TurkeyUkraineUzbekistan

40,319
174
348
87
1,028
5,481
658
307
3,935
5,009
52
977
625
125
6,205
3,002
526
447
179
..
2,329
815
346

4.0
8.2
6.1
0.7
7.6
9.6
11.9
9.6
7.6
22.6
3.4
12.7
5.3
8.4
3.4
7.6
0.2
2.2
17.0
..
1.6
2.1
3.0

36,162
74
216
83
1,043
5,194
625
173
3,952
4,947
–73
880
521
70
9,611
2,633
1,488
303
39
..
906
426
46

5,774
4
–11
–13
360
–346
54
13
1,378
2,128
–78
697
91
–27
4,205
1,468
–1,524–1,17317..
–2,281368–25

30,130
70
227
96
692
4,924
539
160
2,440
2,763
5
177
446
94
5,713
1,157
2,469
1,475
22
..
3,266
792
71

258
0
0
0
–9
616
32
0
134
55
0
6
–16
4
–307
8
543
0
0
..
–79
–734
0

4,157
101
132
5
–15
287
34
134
–17
62
125
97
104
55
–3,406
369
–962
144
141
..
1,423
389
300

7,347
110
140
20
170
150
43
147
31
57
145
80
91
64
462
236
414
63
134
..
–302
126
217

–3,191
–9
–7
–16
–185
137
–9
–13
–48
6
–19
17
14
–9
–3,868133–1,376
81
6
..
1,725
263
83

Middle East & N. Africa
AlgeriaEgypt, Arab Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.

9,543
–595
2,073
1,101

1.4
–1.1
2.1
1.0

7,462
243
2,067
1,049

2,134
–953
1,519
1,016

5,460
1,196
510
33

–132
0
39
0

2,082
–838
5
52

2,553
–143
130
–28

–471
–695
–125
80

Other

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

Table A3.10 Long-term net resource flows to developing countries, 2001 (continued)(millions of U.S. dollars)
PrivateOfficial

Total
millions $Percent
GDP

Total

Debt flows
(net)

FDI

Portfolio

Middle East & N. Africa (continued)
Jordan548
Morocco
2,346
Oman
–557
Syrian Arab Rep.
167
Tunisia
1,568
Yemen, Rep.
–118

6.2
6.9
–2.8
2.1
7.8
–1.3

–114
2,633
–867
204
1,108
–210

–70
–17
–905
–1
666
–5

100
2,658
42
205
457
–205

–145
–8
–3
0
–15
0

662
–286
309
–37
460
92

472
46
9
–25
247
113

190
–332
301
–12
213
–22

Sub-Saharan Africa
AngolaBotswana
Côte d’Ivoire
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Madagascar
Nigeria
SenegalSouth Africa
Sudan
ZambiaZimbabwe

7.2
18.9
0.8
1.6
3.0
13.7
–0.3
15.4
1.6
5.6
–1.1
9.5
6.0
5.7
14.2
0.6

12,697
1,924
55
137
–16
10
170
244
–37
9
920
167
6,627
574
126
–28

–157
–222
–2
–110
–91
–10
–30
154
–43
–2
–184
41
427
0
54
–33

13,815
2,146
57
246
75
20
200
89
5
11
1,104
126
7,162
574
72
5

–961
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
–962
0
0
0

10,081
–131
–14
36
270
847
–182
574
225
248
–1,374
273
215
142
392
84

12,121
–109
8
155
277
860
–45
567
371
247
92
294
211
143
401
71

–2,040
–23
–22
–120
–7
–13
–138
7
–146
1
–1,466
–21
4
–1
–9
13

22,778
1,793
41
173
254
857
–12
818
188
257
–454
439
6,842
716
518
56

Total

ODA

Other

Note: Republic of Korea is not included in the aggregate figures.

Figure A3.10a Distribution of long-term net resource flows, 2001
Percent
100
80

Official

60

Private



40


20
0
Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Source: World Bank data.

Figure A3.10b Change in share of private long-term flows, 1990–2001
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
Sub-SaharanAfricaEast Asia
and PacificSouth Asia

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Europe andCentral Asia

Middle EastandNorth Africa

Source: World Bank data.

293

Technical Notes

The principal sources for the data in this appendix are the World Bank’s central databases
and several International Monetary Fund databases, combined with data sourced fromthe OECD and from Oxford Economics Inc.
(OEF), covering the industrial and other highincome economies. The cut-off date for data
updates was July 16, 2003. Data revisions andnew releases since that time have not been incorporated in the tables. Regional aggregatesare based on the classification of economies byincome group and by region, following theBank’s standard definitions (see country classification tables that follow).
Debt and finance data (tables A3.9 andA3.10) cover the 138 countries that report to
the Bank’s Debtor Reporting System (DRS),
supplemented by data for non-DRS countries,
for which commercial market information has
been utilized. Small countries have generally
been omitted from the tables, but are includedin the regional totals. Current price data arereported in U.S. dollars.

Notes on tables
Tables A3.1 through A3.4. Historic data
sourced from the databases noted above,
while projections are consistent with thosehighlighted in chapter 1 and appendix 1.
Tables A3.5 and A3.6. Merchandise trade
data is sourced from combined IMF, World
Bank, OECD, and OEF sources. Merchandise
exports and imports exclude trade in services.
Imports are reported on a cost-insurance-andfreight basis. Trade values are expressed in mil-294

lions of current U.S. dollars, while growth
rates are based on constant price data, which
are derived from current values deflated by relevant price indices or unit value measures. Effective market growth (EMG) in table A3.5 isthe export-weighted growth of each country’s
trading partner imports.
Tables A3.7 and A3.8. The IMF’s Directionof Trade database serves as the underlying
source for the bilateral trade share and growth
information highlighted in these tables.
Growth rates are compound annual averages,
and are computed from current U.S. dollar
measures of trade.
Table A3.9. Long-term debt covers public
and publicly guaranteed debt but excludes
IMF credits. Concessional debt is debt with an
original grant element of 25 percent or more.
Nonconcessional variable interest-rate debt
includes all public and publicly guaranteedlong-term debt with an original grant elementof less than 25 percent, whose terms dependon movements in a key market interest rate.
This item conveys information about the borrower’s exposure to changes in international
interest rates.
Table A3.10. Long-term net resource flows
are the sum of net resource flows on long-term
debt (excluding IMF) plus non-debt-creatingflows. Foreign direct investment refers to the
net inflows of investment from abroad. Portfolio equity flows are the sum of country funds,
depository receipts, and direct purchases ofshares by foreign investors.

Classificationof Economies

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table 1 Classification of economies by income and region, July 2003
Sub-Saharan Africa

Incomegroup

Subtotal

296

EasternEurope andCentral Asia

South
Asia

Benin
AngolaBurkina Faso
BurundiCameroon
Comoros
Congo, Dem. Central
African
Rep.
Republic
Eritrea
Chad
Ethiopia
Congo, Rep.
Kenya
Côte d’Ivoire
LesothoMadagascar Equatorial
GuineaMalawiMozambique Gambia, The
Ghana
RwandaGuineaSomalia
Guinea-Bissau
Sudan
Liberia
Tanzania
Mali
Uganda
Mauritania
ZambiaNiger
Zimbabwe
Nigeria
São Toméand Principe
SenegalSierra Leone
Togo

Cambodia
Indonesia
Korea, Dem.
Rep.
Lao PDR
Mongolia
Myanmar
Papua New
GuineaSolomonIslands
Timor-Leste
VietnamAfghanistan
Bangladesh
BhutanIndia
Nepal
PakistanAzerbaijan
Georgia
KyrgyzRepublic
Moldova
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan

Yemen,
Rep. of

Lower

Namibia
Cape Verde
South Africa
Swaziland

China
Fiji
Kiribati
MarshallIslands
Micronesia,
Fed. Sts.
Philippines
Samoa
Thailand
Tonga
Vanuatu

Maldives
Sri Lanka

TurkeyAlbania
Armenia
BelarusBosnia andHerzegovina
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Macedonia,
FYRa
Romania
RussianFederation
Serbia andMontenegro
Turkmenistan
UkraineIran, Islamic
Rep.
Iraq
JordanSyrian Arab
Republic
West Bankand Gaza

Upper

Botswana
Mauritius
MayotteSeychelles

Gabon

American
Samoa
Malaysia
N. Mariana
Islands
Palau

Croatia
Czech
Republic
Estonia
Hungary
LatviaLithuania
PolandSlovakRepublic

Lebanon
Libya
Oman
Saudi Arabia

25

23

Subgroup152

West
AfricaMiddle Eastand North Africa

East Asia
and Pacific

LowincomeMiddleincome

East andSouthern
AfricaEurope andCentral Asia

Asia

24

8

26

Rest ofEurope1Middle
East

9

North
AfricaAmericas

Haiti
Nicaragua

Algeria
Djibouti
Egypt, Arab
Rep.
MoroccoTunisia

Bolivia
BrazilColombia
Cuba
Dominican
Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
Guatemala
GuyanaHonduras
JamaicaParaguay
Peru
St. Vincent
and theGrenadines
Suriname
Argentina
BelizeChile
Costa Rica
Dominica
GrenadaMexicoPanamaSt. Kitts andNevis
St. Lucia
Trinidad andTobagoUruguay
Venezuela,
RB

6

30

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N

O F

E C O N O M I E STable 1 Classification of economies by income and region, July 2003 (continued)
Sub-Saharan Africa

Incomegroup

Highincome

Total

Subgroup

East andSouthern
AfricaWest
AfricaEast Asia
and Pacific

South
Asia

OECD

Australia
Japan
Korea, Rep.
New Zealand

Non-OECD

BruneiFrenchPolynesia
GuamHong Kong,
ChinacMacao,
ChinadNew
Caledonia
Singapore
Taiwan,
China

209

25

Europe andCentral Asia

Asia

23

36

EasternEurope andCentral Asia

Middle Eastand North Africa

Rest ofEuropeMiddleEast

North
AfricaAustria
Belgium
Denmark
FinlandFranceb
Germany
GreeceIceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
NorwayPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UnitedKingdom
Slovenia

827

AndorraChannelIslands
CyprusFaeroeIslands
Greenland
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
MonacoSan Marino

Americas

CanadaUnitedStatesBahrain
Malta
Israel
Kuwait
Qatar
United ArabEmirates

28

14

Antigua andBarbudaAruba
Bahamas,The
Barbados
BermudaCaymanIslands
Netherlands
AntillesPuerto Rico
VirginIslands(U.S.)
741

a. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
b. The French overseas departments French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are included in France.
c. On 1 July 1997 China resumed its exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.
d. On 20 December 1999 China resumed its exercise of sovereignty over Macao.
Source: World Bank data.

Definitions of groups
For operational and analytical purposes, the World Bank’s
main criterion for classifying economies is gross national income (GNI) per capita. Every economy is classified as low income, middle income (subdivided into lower middle and upper
middle), or high income. Other analytical groups, based on
geographic regions and levels of external debt, are also used.
Low-income and middle-income economies are sometimes
referred to as developing economies. The use of the term isconvenient; it is not intended to imply that all economies in
the group are experiencing similar development or that othereconomies have reached a preferred or final stage of development. Classification by income does not necessarily reflect
development status.
This table classifies all World Bank member economies,
and all other economies with populations of more than
30,000. Economies are divided among income groups according to 2002 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank
Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $735 or less;lower middle income, $736–2,935; upper middle income,$2,936–9,075; and high income, $9,076 or more.

297

G L O B A L

E C O N O M I C

P R O S P E C T S

Table 2 Classification of economies by income and indebtedness, July 2003
Incomegroup

Subgroup

Severely indebted

LowincomeAfghanistan
AngolaBenin
Burkina Faso
BurundiCentral African
Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo, Dem.
Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Côte d’Ivoire
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
GuineaGuinea-Bissau
Indonesia
KyrgyzRepublic

Middle- Lower
incomeUpper

298

Lao PDR
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritania
Moldova
MyanmarNicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
RwandaSão Tomé andPrincipe
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Tajikistan
ZambiaModerately indebted

Less indebted

Not classified
by indebtedness

Timor-Leste

BhutanCambodia
Cameroon
Ghana
Haiti
Kenya
Mali
Mongolia
Papua New
GuineaSenegalTanzania
Togo
UgandaUzbekistan
Zimbabwe

Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Equatorial
GuineaEritreaGeorgia
India
Korea, Dem.
Rep.
LesothoMozambique
Nepal
Solomon Islands
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.

BrazilCuba
Ecuador
GuyanaIraq
JordanPeru
Serbia andMontenegro
Syrian Arab
Republic

Bolivia
Bulgaria
Colombia
Honduras
JamaicaKazakhstan
Philippines
RussianFederation
Samoa
St. Vincent
and theGrenadines
ThailandTunisia
TurkeyTurkmenistan

Albania
Algeria
Armenia
BelarusBosnia andHerzegovina
Cape Verde
China
Djibouti
Dominican
Republic
Egypt, ArabRep.
El Salvador
Fiji
GuatemalaIran, Islamic
Rep.

Kiribati
Macedonia,
FYRa
Maldives
MoroccoNamibiaParaguay
RomaniaSouth Africa
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Tonga
UkraineVanuatuMarshall Islands
Micronesia, Fed. Sts.
West Bank and Gaza

Argentina
BelizeGabon
LebanonPanamaUruguay

Chile
Croatia
Dominica
Estonia
GrenadaHungary
LatviaMalaysia
SlovakRepublic
St. Kitts and
Nevis

Botswana
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Libya
Lithuania
Mauritius
MexicoOman
PolandSaudi Arabia
Seychelles

St. Lucia
Trinidad andTobagoVenezuela, RB

American Samoa
MayotteN. Mariana Islands
PalauC L A S S I F I C A T I O N

O F

E C O N O M I E STable 2 Classification of economies by income and indebtedness, July 2003 (continued)
Incomegroup

Subgroup

Severely indebted

Moderately indebted

Less indebted

High- OECD
incomeNonOECD

Total

209

50

39

Not classified
by indebtedness

Australia
Austria
Belgium
CanadaDenmark
FinlandFranceb
Germany
GreeceIceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan

Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States

AndorraAntigua andBarbudaAruba
Bahamas, The
BahrainBarbados
BermudaBruneiCayman Islands
Channel Islands
CyprusFaeroe Islands
FrenchPolynesia
Greenland
Guam
Hong Kong,
ChinadIsle of Man
Israel
KuwaitLiechtenstein
Macao, Chinac
Malta
MonacoNetherlands
Antilles
New Caledonia
Puerto Rico
Qatar
San Marino
Singapore
Slovenia
Taiwan, China
United ArabEmirates
Virgin Islands(U.S.)

55

65

a. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
b. The French overseas departments French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are included in France.
c. On 20 December 1999 China resumed its exercise of sovereignty over Macao.
d. On 1 July 1997 China resumed its exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Source: World Bank data.

Definitions of groups
This table classifies all World Bank member economies, andall other economies with populations of more than 30,000.
Economies are divided among income groups according to
2002 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas
method. The groups are: low income, $735 or less; lower
middle income, $736–2,935; upper middle income,$2,936–9,075; and high income, $9,076 or more.
Standard World Bank definitions of severe and moderateindebtedness are used to classify economies in this table.
Severely indebted means either: present value of debt service
to GNI exceeds 80 percent or present value of debt service toexports exceeds 220 percent. Moderately indebted means

either of the two key ratios exceeds 60 percent of, but does
not reach, the critical levels. For economies that do not reportdetailed debt statistics to the World Bank Debtor Reporting
System (DRS), present-value calculation is not possible.
Instead, the following methodology is used to classify the
non-DRS economies. Severely indebted means three of four
key ratios (averaged over 1999–2001) are above criticallevels: debt to GNI (50 percent); debt to exports (275
percent); debt service to exports (30 percent); and interest toexports (20 percent). Moderately indebted means three of thefour key ratios exceed 60 percent of, but do not reach, thecritical levels. All other classified low- and middle-income
economies are listed as less indebted.

299

T

The fourteenth annual edition of Global Economic Prospects• explores the short-, medium-, and long-term outlook for the
global economy, including driving forces, commodity prices,and capital flows, and their implications for major regions• reviews recent trends in exports from developing countries,
trade barriers that work to the disadvantage of poor people,
and policies to reduce protection and other inequities in theworld trading system• examines trade in agriculture—the most important and politicallycontentious sector for global poverty reduction—including key
lessons from development experience, possible changes to thecurrent system of subsidies and protection, and the potential
for liberalization in both rich and poor countries• investigates the temporary movement of labor—so-called
Mode 4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services—evaluating its advantages and disadvantages to both the home
and the host countries• discusses trade facilitation in light of post-9/11 concerns forsecurity to suggest new policies that would promote greaterand more-secure trade• reviews the special treatment of developing countries in
the world trading system and the role of trade preferences,
exemptions from WTO rules, and technical assistance toimplement WTO trade regulations.
Global Economic Prospects 2004 provides essential information for
those concerned with developments shaping today’s global economy.

THE WORLD BANKISBN 0-8213-5582-1

GlobalEconomic
Prospects

2004—Nicholas Stern
Senior Vice President andChief Economist

he Doha Development Agenda of the Fourth Ministerial
Conference of the WTO opened many contentious andimportant questions. Global Economic Prospects 2004:
Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda analyzes themost critical multilateral trade issues and suggests policy options
that would raise living standards in developing countries andreduce global poverty.

Global Economic Prospects

The World Trade Organization(WTO) round of trade negotiations
initiated in November 2001 in
Doha, Qatar, was intended to be a“development round.” Those goodintentions are now being tested.
Trade ministers from all over theworld are discussing ways to reduce
trade barriers—barriers that greatly
harm development and poverty
reduction. Global Economic Prospects
2004 explores the tough issues
under discussion—protection ofagriculture, trade in labor-intensive
manufactures, labor services, andspecial treatment for developing
countries, among others—to present
options that would indeed reducepoverty and advance development.
The global talks will not be easy andmay take time, but allowing poor
people greater access to world
markets will offer them newopportunities to improve their living
standards. If agreements are to begenuinely pro-development, these
discussions must be informed byclear analysis of measures that arelikely to benefit poor people themost.That is the purpose of thisGlobal Economic Prospects.

Realizing the Development Promiseof the Doha Agenda

2004