World leaders have dubbed Doha the "development round" because they recognize how much free trade would do to foster development -- and how urgent the need for development is. For those hopes to be realized, both industrialized and developing nations must go further toward getting rid of existing barriers.
WILLIAM R. CLINE is Senior Fellow at
the Institute for International Economics and the Center for Global Development
and the author of Trade Policy and Global Poverty.
An annotated Foreign Affairs syllabus on modernization theory.
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
The attacks of September 11, 2001, refocused international attention on the problem of global poverty. In the United States, the Bush administration pledged a 50 percent increase in development assistance and launched the Millennium Challenge Account. Internationally, debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries was extended to include money owed to multilateral agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and at the 2005 summit of the G-8 group of industrialized nations in Gleneagles, Scotland, members pledged to increase official development assistance by $50 billion per year by 2010.
The Doha Round of trade talks, launched shortly after September 11, was christened the "development round" in part because of the perception that the need for development was more urgent than ever. This urgency has persisted: multilateral trade negotiations should no longer be viewed as business as usual, but as a high-stakes process with important implications for global development.
One reason for the new emphasis on development is the recognition that the initial results of the Uruguay Round of talks were modest for developing countries. Their most important gain -- elimination of textile and apparel quotas under the Multi-Fiber Arrangement -- was back-loaded and has come into full effect only this year. Agricultural liberalization ended quotas but replaced most of them with tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, resulting in little actual change. Intellectual-property agreements went too far in restricting developing-country access to medicines, a problem finally addressed in a special agreement shortly before the Cancún meeting in September 2003. It is of the utmost importance, then, that Doha provide improved trade opportunities for developing countries.
TRADE, GROWTH, AND POVERTY
Log in to continue reading
Access to this article requires a one-time free registration. To register, click here.
Log In
Related
The international financial crisis has thrown the forward march of globalization into question. If the United States and others can learn from the crisis and control borrowing, then the positive potential of global trade and finance may be restored.
Although few U.S. politicians will admit it, antidumping policy has strayed far from its original purpose of guarding against predatory foreign firms. It is now little more than an excuse for a few powerful industries to shield themselves from competition -- at great cost to both American consumers and American business.
Antiglobalization activists are convinced that economic integration has been widening the gap between rich and poor. The best evidence, however, proves them wrong. Thanks to higher growth driven by greater openness to trade and investment, global inequality has narrowed and global poverty has been reduced.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.