The name is absent

It should be noted that we do not include the economists' yardstick of efficiency as a criterion of
fairness. Efficiency is pertinent to the extent to which global resources are being used optimally. But no
nation is likely to subscribe willingly to successive trade agreements that leaves it worse off, no matter the
gain in global welfare. The efficiency yardstick is, however, important in choosing among alternative
ways of fulfilling the conditions of fairness. And the analysis of alternatives may in itself alter the
perception of fairness that influences agreements. We should nevertheless be aware that the yardstick of
efficiency pervades much of the commentary on the global trading system, and — ambiguous though it
also is — may tend to overshadow considerations of fairness.

For the purpose of our discussion, we classify the agreements of the global trading system into
four categories: commitments dealing directly with market access, such as tariff schedules and service
agreements; rules that support market-access commitments by preventing the use of other domestic
measures that nullify or impair the commitments or by facilitating the flow of trade; rules dealing with the
use of measures to defend against alleged “unfair” trade or with dispute-settlement procedures; and rules
dealing with the governance of the system. We define and illustrate the application of our criteria to the
first three categories. We say nothing in this paper on the last category though it also raises large issues
of fairness.

In Section 2 following, we review the yardstick of efficiency in order to put it into perspective in
the context of a discussion of fairness. In Section 3, we discuss equality of opportunity in market access.
In Section 4, we ask what distributive equity means in relation to market access. In Section 5, we turn to
equality of opportunity in regard to supporting rules. In Section 6, we briefly discuss procedural justice,
which is a special case of equality of opportunity. In section 7, we consider fairness in the context of the
Doha Round, commenting briefly on the views of Stiglitz and Charlton (2004, 2005) and presenting
views of our own, particularly on market access arrangements between developed and developing
countries. Section 8 concludes.

<<   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >>

More intriguing information