A propos de l’OMC

As an internationally standardized product nomenclature, the Harmonized System (HS) is used by WTO Members in their schedules of concessions and in the definitions of product coverage for a number of WTO agreements. The Harmonized System is normally amended by the World Customs Organization every four to six years. These amendments pose considerable challenges for the WTO and its Members. On the one hand, Members need to periodically update their historical schedules of concessions into the latest nomenclature. On the other hand, these amendments may have implications for the definition and thus also the implementation of some WTO agreements where the product coverage is defined in terms of the HS. In either case, the product codes and/or descriptions in the old HS version need to be transposed precisely into those in the new version of HS nomenclature in order to retain the historical concessions or the product coverage unchanged. Given the complexity of HS amendments, this process could be very technical and sometimes tricky. This paper starts by providing an overview of the HS amendments and proposing a categorization of those HS changes in the context of transposition. It then looks back at the history of the introduction of the HS and its subsequent amendments into the WTO schedules and assesses the difficulties and problems which have been faced by WTO Members. On the basis of such analysis, it introduces the successful procedures and methodologies used by WTO Members and the WTO Secretariat to deal with the recent HS2002 transposition. The paper also discusses the implications of the HS amendments to three WTO agreements and the possible approaches to transpose their product lists into a new HS nomenclature.

Most international commerce is carried out by multinational firms, which use their foreign affiliates for the majority of their foreign sales. In this paper, I examine the determinants of multinational firms’ location and production decisions and the welfare implications of multinational production. The few existing quantitative general equilibrium models that incorporate multinational firms achieve tractability by assuming away export platforms – i.e. they do not allow foreign affiliates of multinationals to export – or by ignoring fixed costs associated with foreign investment. I develop a quantifiable multi-country general equilibrium model, which tractably handles multinational firms that engage in export platform sales and that face fixed costs of foreign investment. I first estimate the model using German firm-level data to uncover the size and nature of costs of multinational enterprise and show that fixed costs of foreign investment are large. Second, I calibrate the model to data on trade and multinational production for twelve European and North American countries. Counterfactual results reveal that multinationals play an important role in transmitting technological improvements to foreign countries as they can jump the barriers to international trade; I find that a twenty percent increase in the productivity of US firms leads to welfare gains in foreign countries an order of magnitude larger than in a world in which multinational production is disallowed. I demonstrate the usefulness of the model for current policy analysis by studying the pending Canada-EU trade and investment agreement; I find that a twenty percent drop in the barriers to foreign production between the signatories would divert about seven percent of the production of EU multinationals from the US to Canada.

Economic theory has made considerable progress in explaining why sovereign countries cooperate in trade. Central to most theories of trade cooperation are issues of self-enforcement: The threat of reprisal by an aggrieved party maintains the initial balance of concessions and prevents opportunism. However, economic scholarship has been less coherent in explaining why countries choose to settle and enforce their trade disputes with the help of an impartial third party, a “trade court”. Typically, economists focusing on the purpose of trade agreements have assumed away the very reasons why institutions are needed, since under standard assumptions, neither defection from the rules nor disputes are expected to occur. This paper is a step towards the formulation of a coherent economic theory of dispute settlement. It challenges traditional models of enforcement (primarily concerned with acts of punishment) for being insufficient in explaining the existence of dispute settlement institutions. We perform a comprehensive analysis of the economics of dispute settlement institutions and demonstrate to what extent the literatures of trade cooperation and dispute institutions are (and should be) interlinked. On the basis of these theories, we show that dispute settlement institutions in trade agreements may assume a variety of roles, including that of an information repository and disseminator, an honest broker, an arbitrator and calculator of damages, an active information gatherer or an adjudicator.

This paper is concerned with three problems in the interpretation of the national treatment obligation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). First, the precise domain of Article XVII on national treatment has not been clearly delineated, particularly in relation to Article XVI dealing with market access. Secondly, there is a difference between the text of Article XVII and the structure of the schedules of commitments, which makes it difficult to interpret the scope of the national treatment obligation even for identical services supplied through different modes. The final, and most complex, problem arises in establishing the definition of "like" services and "like" service suppliers. Uncertainty about the precise meaning of the national treatment obligation may undermine the key GATS objective of creating a secure, predictable trading environment. Moreover, the extent of liberalization implied by the commitments under GATS depends on the precise choice of interpretation.

At first glance, this paper deals with a simple classification issue only: the coverage and treatment of certain manufacturing operations and the resulting products under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) rather than under its long-standing counterpart in merchandise trade, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Yet there are important structural/conceptual differences between the two Agreements, which may have far-reaching consequences, inter alia, for the use of GATT-based tariffs and trade remedies (anti-dumping and countervailing measures). It is submitted that the currently applied classification system could prompt companies to (re-)define the ownership conditions of otherwise identical production activities, with a view to avoiding GATT disciplines. However, the relevant criteria separating goods- from services-related operations are not only hard to specify and monitor in practice, but it is also difficult to see an underlying policy rationale. In the interest of clarity and consistency, WTO Members might thus want to close this conceptual trapdoor. Due to the rapid proliferation of international production-sharing arrangements, the stakes will likely be rising.

Le concept d'assurance est fondé sur la mutualisation de risques futurs aléatoires moyennant le paiement en amont d'une contribution financière par le client (la prime d'assurance). Pour être effective, l'assurance suppose une confiance élevée de la part des clients dans la capacité des fournisseurs d'assurance (les compagnies d'assurance) à payer les dommages lorsqu'ils se matérialisent. Sinon, les clients ne payeraient pas leurs primes aux compagnies d'assurance.

The paper discusses the efforts deployed by various players, mainly multilateral financial institutions, regional development banks, export credit agencies, to mobilize greater flows of trade finance for developing countries, with a view to help them integrate in world trade. As an institution geared towards the balanced expansion of world trade, the WTO is in the business of making trade possible. Its various functions include reducing trade barriers, negotiating and implementing global trade rules, and settling disputes on the basis of the rule of law. The WTO is also interested in strengthening the "supply-side" of developing countries so that they can respond to new market opportunities. To this end, it supports various initiatives aimed at improving the "trade infrastructures" of developing countries, ranging from the ability to meet international product, safety and sanitary standards, to run efficient customs, or to participate effectively to the multilateral trade negotiations by training public servants. The WTO carries out various initiatives with other partners (public and private sector institutions), in the context of its own technical assistance program, or in the context of multi-agency projects such as the Integrated Framework or the Aid-for-Trade Initiative. Since more than 90% of trade transactions involve some form of credit, insurance or guarantee, one can reasonably say that trade finance is the lifeline of trade. Producers and traders in developing or least-developed countries need to have access to affordable flows of trade financing and insurance to be able to import and export, and hence integrate in world trade. From that perspective, an efficient financial system is one indispensable infrastructure to allow trade to happen. In line with the above initiatives, the WTO has been following actively, and at times, directly supporting, initiatives to boost the availability of trade finance in developing and least-developed countries wherever it was needed. Since the WTO is not a financial institution, it has been supporting in the past few years partners engaged in this effort such as international financial institutions, export credit agencies, large banks and regional development banks. Initially, the WTO has been asked by its members at several points in recent years to examine the issue of availability of trade financing – as a key infrastructure needed by developing and leastdeveloped countries to integrate in world trade. Paragraph 36 of the Ministerial Declaration of Doha requested WTO Members to examine, and if necessary come up with recommendations, on measures that the WTO could take, within its remit, to minimize the consequences of financial instabilities on their trade opportunities. In the context of the newly created Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance (WGTDF), the interruptions of the flows of trade finance in emerging markets during the Asian and Latin American financial crises were quickly identified as concerns by Members, as well as the chronic difficulties of low income Members to secure more affordable flows of trade financing in the long-run. These concerns were channelled to the WTO Ministerial Meetings in Cancun (2003) and Hong-Kong (2005).2 During this period of examination, the Heads of the IMF, World Bank and the WTO agreed at the General Council Meeting on Coherence of 2002 to form an expert group including all interested parties, multilateral and regional public institutions, export credit agencies, private banks to examine what went wrong in this segment of financial markets, and how to create an enabling environment in local markets to provide adequate flows of trade finance on a on-going basis. In chairing one of these meetings, the Director-General of the WTO defined the role of the WTO in this area: encouraging liberalization of this type of financial services under the financial services agreement, being a regulator of export credit and guarantee subsidies under the ASCM, and serving as a forum to discuss WTO-compatible ways of providing support to developing countries. Conclusions by the Working Group were presented at the WGTDF, and later at the General Council. WTO Secretariat work on this topic up to 2003, in particular its contribution to the WGTDF and to the expert group, was summarized in WTO Discussion Paper 2.4 While the liquidity in financial markets improved from 2002 until the recent turmoil created by the crisis of the sub-prime mortgage markets, trade finance remained an issue for concern for WTO Members, in particular the poorest, which do not have access to international financial markets or for emerging markets which remain prone to changes in market sentiment, and hence credit rating. Despite the rapid development of "trade finance facilitation" schemes developed by regional development banks and the IFC, with immediate success in low income countries, the issue of availability of trade finance came back among other "supply-side" constraints identified by the Aidfor- Trade Task Force, after the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Hong-Kong. While the mandate of the WTO under the Aid-for-Trade is essentially one of evaluation and monitoring, it may be in cases one of advocacy. Based on the work being carried out since 2002, and after consultation with partners (regional development banks, multilateral institutions, export credit institutions,...), input by the WTO Secretariat to boost the availability of trade finance for developing countries under the Aid-for-Trade umbrella was welcomed by Members. Lack of trade financing and guarantee infrastructures were identified as one of the barriers to integration of low income countries in world trade by each of the three regional Aid-for-Trade Reviews. It was acknowledged that the current Aid-for-Trade Initiative could provide the extra leverage to convince WTO partners to deliver more plentiful of trade credit and guarantees to WTO members that need it the most. This paper provides background on the difficulties of some countries and traders to access affordable trade credit and finance, on the growing divide between these low income countries and economically advanced countries in handling modern trade finance instruments, and on the joint reflection undertaken by the WTO, most recently under the Aid-for-Trade programme, and previously under the umbrella of the WGTDF and the Coherence Mandate, to help strengthen developing countries' capacities in this area.

Discussions about international capital movements raise extremely important and controversial questions. Why should countries open up their capital accounts, especially considering that unrestricted international capital movement is a relatively new phenomenon? For example, many OECD countries have not eliminated their foreign exchange restrictions only until the 1980's. If the answer is unequivocally affirmative, does it matter how fast should countries do so? Should they wait until "all essential pieces" of the policy package are in place before they eliminate all restrictions? How are international capital movements related to domestic financial sectors? Is there a difference between opening to competition an industry such as car manufacturing as compared to the banking sector? Should the opening of the banking sector be governed by different rules? Rules about foreign exchange restrictions are already in place in the IMF Articles. Until recently, the IMF Articles only called for the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions on the current account. The ongoing discussion and the controversy about globalization that calls for the capital account liberalization introduces, therefore, a relatively new element into the whole discussion. These questions have also implications for the World Trade Organization. It is well known, that the Uruguay Round Agreements have already provided a coverage for a number of aspects that are directly related to foreign investment. Rules established elsewhere such as in the context of changes to the IMF Articles will obviously have an important bearing for the implementation of rules agreed in the Uruguay Round. This raises a variety of other questions in the mind of some observers. Who should decide about the rules on capital account liberalization? What rules? IMF? What is the role of the WTO? How does one link the two? All of the questions raised above are clearly extremely important and most of them are discussed in the following paper by John Williamson. Mr. Williamson's presentation is based on his lecture and discussion which was delivered on 17 June 1999 at the WTO. The actual text that follows is a transcript of that lecture.

The system of global agricultural and food trade is undergoing rapid processes of change, with important implications for economic development. In this paper we document and discuss these changes; including the rapid growth and structural change in agri-food trade, the increased consolidation in food supply chains, the proliferation of public and private food standards, high and volatile food prices, and increased vertical coordination in the chains. We investigate what the implications are of these changes for developing countries, for their participation in international agricultural trade as well as for economic development, income mobility and poverty reduction in rural areas.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (known as the GATS) is an important new element in the international framework that affects the regulation of every WTO Member's financial sector. However, except for a limited number of country-specific case studies, no attempt has been made to compare WTO commitments to open the domestic banking sector to foreign banks with actual regulatory practice in a systematic and comprehensive manner on a cross-country basis. Nor has much attention been devoted to systematically and comprehensively assess the degree to which WTO Members discriminate against foreign bank. This paper draws upon a new and comprehensive dataset consisting of the commitments countries made at the WTO and the regulations actually imposed on foreign banks by those countries. The dataset covers 123 WTO Members for whom there was also information available on their current regulatory regime for banking (based on the responses to a World Bank survey as discussed in Barth, Caprio, and Levine (2006)). On the basis of that data, the authors develop indices measuring the degree of openness to foreign banking based upon both commitments made and actual regulatory practice, with a view to assessing the overall extent to which countries open their borders to foreign banks more than they are legally obliged to do based upon their WTO commitments. The dataset is also used to assess the overall extent to which countries discriminate against foreign banks by regulating them less favorably than domestic banks. Although our results are still quite preliminary, they do show substantial divergences between commitments and practices. Indices of market openness and discrimination reveal wide differences among the 123 countries in the sample. The paper also identifies various factors that help explain the level of commitments that WTO Members have made.