Endnotes

¹ Technically, the Vatican City (Holy See) is considered one of the 193 countries in the world, and has (permanent) observer status at the WTO but is not a member of the United Nations. It is not a member of any BTA or PTA and is unlikely to ever become one.

² There are several definitions of the Asia-Pacific region. In this paper, we use the definition employed by the ADB in their ARIC website but expand it to include the US and Canada. The Central Asian Republics are also included in this definition.

³ In a paradoxical twist, it seems WTO meetings themselves are being overshadowed and provide an opportunity for members to pursue new BTAs with other member countries In the Bangkok-based daily The Nation dated 17 June 2004, an item entitled "Peru seen as FTA Gateway" reports that: "In the corridors of the WTO meetings, Thai officials discussed the possibility of FTAs with Mexico, Chile and Peru". In the same vein, it is somewhat ironic that the Japan-Singapore BTA was reached at the APEC summit meeting in Shanghai in October 2001.

⁴ Agreements with Singapore, Viet Nam and Lao PDR have been concluded, and Thailand is in negotiations. As of October 2006, TIFAs have been signed with Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia.

⁵ This view of "fair trade" is not new however. As far back as in 1881, William Gladstone remarked: "Fair trade bears a suspicious likeness to our old friend protection. Protection was dead and buried 30 years ago, but he has come out of the grave and is walking around in the broad light of day. But after long experience underground, he endeavours to look more attractive than he used to appear... and in consequence he found it convenient to assume a new name." (as quoted in Brittan (2005)).

⁶ The five exceptions are: Equatorial Guinea; Iran; Iraq; Sao Tome and Principe; and the Vatican City (Holy See).

⁷ Apart from Russia, the following four categories are identified: (i) Central Asia, consisting of Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Tajikistan; Uzbekistan; and Turkmenistan; (ii) Baltic states, consisting of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; (iii) Eastern European states of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova; and (iv) Tran Caucasus, consisting of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

⁸ Even here there appear to be exceptions. See Panagariya (1999).

⁹ A recent but potent example of this trade-off was provided in the lead-up to the WTO meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005. Brazil and India, representing the apparent position of a majority of developing countries, proposed opening their markets further to industrial goods and services in exchange for the EU and the US dismantling the elaborate system of support to their agricultural sector.

¹⁰ Scollay and Gilbert (2001), for instance, find that all BTAs in the Asia-Pacific have negative effects on the welfare of some outside countries, with the sole exception of the New Zealand-Singapore agreement which has a zero effect on al countries. This exception arises because both countries have close to zero MFN tariff rates and thereby minimizes the distortion that a BTA can introduce.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 180KB| 25 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.