Immiserizing growth is a theoretical situation first proposed by Jagdish Bhagwati, in 1958,

[1]
where economic growth could result in a country being worse off than before the growth. If growth is
heavily export biased it might lead to a fall in the terms of trade of the exporting country. In rare
circumstances this fall in the terms of trade may be so large as to outweigh the gains from growth. If
so, this situation would cause a country to be worse off after growth than before. This result is only
valid if the growing country is able to influence world prices. Harry G. Johnson had, independently,
worked out conditions for this result in 1955.[2]

Immiserizing growth occurs if a technological improvement or increase in the

availability of a factor of production makes people more miserable in that it
actually decreases the real output of an economy. It is often modelled as
occurring because of structural rigidities in a model with international trade.

*************************
"Intra-industry trade has been considered in international trade literature as the explanation of the
unexpectedly large expansion of industrial trade among OECD countries, for which it represented
more than two-thirds of their total international trade by the beginning of the seventies.
There are three types of intra-industry trade: 1). Trade in Homogeneous Goods.2).Trade in
Horizontally Differentiated Goods.3).Trade in Vertically Differentiated Goods.
Intra-industry trade is difficult to measure statistically because regarding products or industries as "the
same" is partly a matter of definition and classification. For a very simple example, it could be argued
that although a BMW and Maruti are both motor cars, and although a Budweiser and a Heineken are
both beers, they are really all different products.
Although the theory and measurement of intra-industry trade initially focused on trade in goods,
especially industrial products, it has also been observed that there is substantial intra-industry trade in
the international trade of services.[5]

Both the HeckscherOhlin and Ricardian models were still relevant in explaining intra-industry trade.
The Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardo model, showed that even with constant returns to scale that intra-
industry trade could still occur under the traditional setting. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardo model
explained that countries of identical factor endowments would still trade due to differences in
technology, as this would encourage specialisation and therefore trade, in exactly the same matter
that was set out in the Ricardian model.
1st 0913 December 1996, Singapore _________ ___ 2nd 1820 May 1998 Geneva, Switzerland
3rd 30 November 3 December 1999 Seattle, United States
4th 914 November 2001Doha, Qatar
5th 1014 September 2003Cancn, Mexico________6th 1318 December 2005 Hong Kong
7th 30 November 2 December 2009 Geneva, Switzerland
8th 1517 December 2011 Geneva, Switzerland______9th 36 December 2013 Bali, Indonesia
10th 1518 December 2015 Nairobi, Kenya

Lack of Consensus on the Continuation of the Stalled DDA Negotiations

and Agriculture.
The conference took note of the progress made under the DDA negotiations, but lacked consensus on the
continuation of thereof. The WTO members failed to reach agreement on all areas of the negotiations, including
Agriculture, NAMA, Services, Rules, including fisheries subsidies, and TRIPS. The US Trade Representative
Michael Froman called on WTO members to acknowledge that the Doha talks were at the end of the line, and
It is time for the world to free itself from the strictures of Doha. The US stance seemed directly at odds with
the position taken by India and numerous other developing countries, many of which have argued that the long-
running talks need to be concluded before moving on to new issues.______________________
Regarding agriculture, there has been no agreement among member states on export competition, special
safeguard mechanism, and public stockholding. There has been no evolution in the substantive positions of
members regarding domestic support and market access. No new ideas, suggestions or other thoughts on these
two pillars have been put forward. Hence, post Nairobi work programme on agriculture for the WTO hangs in
balance. On cotton, there was progress with respect to market access and export competition. However,
negotiations stalled on the contentious issue of domestic support for cotton.__________________
Rules of Origin and LDC issues
A decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs finally emerged after various consultations. The text outlines
requirements for preference-granting countries in areas such as the determination of substantial transformation,
cumulating, simplification of documentary requirements and implementation, flexibilities, and transparency.
Information Technology Agreement
On 16 December, WTO members finally signed the Information Technology Agreement covering 54 countries.
The pact an update to the WTOs 1996 Information Technology Agreement (ITA) would see tariffs removed
on 201 products, such as new-generation semi-conductors, MRI machines, etc. This expanded agreement aims
to respond to this new reality. Some estimates place the gains from this expanded deal known as ITA-II at an
additional US$1.3 trillion in annual trade. _____________
-LDCs Services Waiver
Regarding the LDC services waiver, allows non-LDC members to grant preferences to provide all LDCs greater
access to their markets. For the first time, this decision allows WTO members to deviate from their Most-
Favoured Nation obligation under the GATS.______________
Discussions also proved difficult, with many outstanding issues as members work to agree language on the
preferential conditions provided under the waiver approved earlier. Some of the issues discussed involve
reducing administrative procedures and fees for visas, work and residence permits, and licenses for LDC
services suppliers and independent professionals, the issue of mutual recognition, and the LDC request for
additional definition of the term preferential treatment in the sense of the waiver.
Enhanced Integrated Framework
On the eve of the ministerial conference, 15 countries pledged almost US$90 million for the second phase of the
Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) the only global aid for trade programme with an exclusive focus on
least developed countries. During the conference, trade officials from 14 countries, along the Netherlands joined
as a new donor, concluded that The amount of funding needed to run the programme in the next seven years has
been estimated at between US$274-320 million. Most donors indicated that owing to budgeting cycles they
were not in a position to commit for more than two years, while noting that further contributions would be made
available in this second EIF phase. Some stressed that progress was needed towards more effectiveness and
ownership of the funds allocated.
Watered Down Expectations from the Nairobi MC10
The Nairobi MC10 marked the growing divergence of thoughts among developed and a developing countries,
on the future functionality of the WTOs multilateral trading system. There is need to find conclusive ways and
strategies of fusing the outstanding DDA issues, with new issues of the 21st century trade agenda currently
shaping the global trade arena. The sudden conclusion of the DDA has far reaching implications on agriculture,
TRIPS, and other developmental concerns of WTO members. This possibility challenges the WTOs credibility
of delivering on future agenda items. However, the increasing accessions for membership indicate that the WTO
is still a credible institution, capable of handling rules based trade, while addressing developmental concerns of
its members.

In 2001, the WTO launched a new round of trade talks at Doha, Qatar which was to focus on the needs &
interest of the developing countries. And this was termed as Doha Development Agenda. Initially, the talks were
intended to be completed by the end of 2004 but the talks progressed slowly stricken by disagreements in
particular over agriculture and has not been concluded yet.
The Doha Development Agenda has been given importance by WTO & its members because this agenda
contains many potential benefits for developing countries.
* Enhanced market access to rich country markets in agriculture, manufactured products & service sector.
* Trade facilitation like simplification of trade procedures, transport and transparency.
* will prevent excessive tariff hikes which will help in curbing protectionism.
The issues discussed under DDA are :-
Agriculture
Agriculture has become the most important and controversial issue. Agriculture is particularly important for
developing countries, because around 75% of the population in developing countries live in rural areas, and the
vast majority are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.
The United States is insisting that the EU and the developing countries agree to make more substantial
reductions in tariffs and to limit the number of import-sensitive and special products that would be exempt from
cuts. Import-sensitive products are of most concern to developed countries like the European Union, while
developing countries are concerned with special products those exempt from both tariff cuts and subsidy
reductions because of development, food security, or livelihood considerations.
Access to patented medicines
A major topic at the Doha ministerial regarded the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS). The issue involves the balance of interests between the pharmaceutical companies in
developed countries that held patents on medicines and the public health needs in developing countries. Before
the Doha meeting, the United States claimed that the current language in TRIPS was flexible enough to address
public health emergencies, but other countries insisted on new language. [1]
On 30 August 2003, WTO members reached agreement on the TRIPS and medicines issue. offered an interim
waiver under the TRIPS Agreement allowing a member country to export pharmaceutical products made under
compulsory licenses to least-developed and certain other members.
Special and differential treatment
In the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the trade ministers reaffirmed special and differential treatment for
developing countries and agreed that all S&D treatment provisions to be reviewed with a view to strengthening
them and making them more precise, effective and operational.
The negotiations have been split along a developing-country/developed-country divide. Developing countries
wanted to negotiate on changes to S&D provisions, keep proposals together in the Committee on Trade and
Development, and set shorter deadlines. Developed countries wanted to study S&D provisions, send some
proposals to negotiating groups, and leave deadlines open. Research by the ODI sheds light on the priorities of
the LDCs during the Doha round. It is argued that subsidies to agriculture, especially to cotton, unite developing
countries in opposition more than SDT provisions and therefore have a greater consensus.[56]
Duty-free and quota-free access (DFQFA) currently discussed covers 97% of tariff lines and if the USA alone
were to implement the initiative, it would potentially increase Least Developed Countries (LDCs) exports by
10%. Many major trading powers already provide preferential access to LDCs through initiatives such as
the EBA initiative and the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
Implementation issues
Developing countries claim that they have had problems with the implementation of the agreements reached in
the earlier Uruguay Round because of limited capacity or lack of technical assistance. They also claim that they
have not realized certain benefits that they expected from the Round, such as increased access for their textiles
and apparel in developed-country markets. They seek a clarification of language relating to their interests in
existing agreements.[1]
Before the Doha ministerial, WTO members resolved a small number of these implementation issues. At the
Doha meeting, the Ministerial Declaration directed a two-path approach for the large number of remaining
issues: (a) where a specific negotiating mandate is provided, the relevant implementation issues will be
addressed under that mandate; and (b) the other outstanding implementation issues will be addressed as a matter
of priority by the relevant WTO bodies. Outstanding implementation issues are found in the area of market
access, investment measures, safeguards, rules of origin, and subsidies and countervailing measures, among
others

IMPACT OF WTO AGREEMENTS ON INDIAN ECONOMY :-

Although the ultimate goal of WTO is to free world trade in the interest of all nations of the world, yet in reality
the WTO agreements has benefitted the developed nations more as compared to developing ones. The impact of
WTO on Indias economy is staged as follows :-
Gains from WTO :-
1) Increase In Export Earnings :-
Estimates made by World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the
GATT Secretariat, shows that the income effects of the implementation of Uruguay Round package will be an
increase in traded merchandise goods. It is expected that Indias share in world exports would improve.
2) Agricultural Exports :-
Reduction of trade barriers and domestic subsidies in agriculture is likely to raise international prices of
agricultural products. India hopes to benefit from this in form of higher export earnings from agriculture. This
seems to be possible because all major agriculture development programmes in India will be exempted from the
provisions of WTO Agreement.
3) Export Of Textiles And Clothing :-
With the phasing out of MFA (Multi - Fibre Arrangement), exports of textiles and clothing will increase and this
will be beneficial for India. The developed countries demanded a 15 year period of phasing out of MFA, the
developing countries, including India, insisted that it be done in 10 years. The Uruguay Round accepted the
demand of the latter. But the phasing out Schedule favours the developed countries because a major portion of
quota regime is going to be removed only in the tenth year, i.e. 2005. The removal of quotas will benefit not
only India but also every other country'.
4) Foreign Investment :-
India has withdrawn a number of measures against foreign investment, as er the commitments made to WTO. As
a result of this, foreign investment and FDI has increased over the years. A number of initiatives has been taken
to attract FDI in India between 2000 and 2002. In 2009-10, the net FDI in India was US $ 18.8 billion.

Negative Impact
1) TRIPs :-
The Agreement on TRIPs at Uruguay Round weights heavily in favour of Multinational Corporations and
developed countries as they hold a very large number of patents. Agreement on TRIPs will work against India in
several ways and will lead to monopoly of patent holding MNCs. Specially in the Agriculture where TRIPs
extends through the patenting of plant varieties. This may have serious implications for Indian agriculture.
Patenting of plant varieties may transfer all gains in the hands of MNCs who will be in a position to develop
almost all new varieties with the help of their huge financial resources and expertise.
2) TRIMs :-
Agreement on TRIMs provide for treatment of foreign investment on par with domestic investment. This
Agreement too weights in favour of developed countries. There are no provisions in Agreement to formulate
international rules for controlling restrictive business practices of foreign investors. Jn case of developing
countries like India, complying with Agreement on TRIMs would mean giving up any plan or strategy of self -
reliant growth based on locally available technology and resources.
3) GATS :-
One of the main features of Uruguay Round was the inclusion of trade in services in negotiations. This too will
go in favour of developed countries. Under GATS agreements, the member nations have to openup services
sector for foreign companies. The developing countries including India have opened up services sector in
respect of banking, insurance, communication, telecom, transport etc. to foreign firms. The domestic firms of
developing countries may find it difficult to compete with giant foreign firms due to lack of resources &
professional skills.
4) Agreement On Agriculture (AOA)
The AOA is biased in favour of developed countries. The issue of food security to developing countries is not
addressed adequately in AOA. The existence of global surpluses of food grains does not imply that the poor
countries can afford to buy. The dependence on necessary item like food grains would adversely affect the
Balance of Payment position.
5) LDC Exports
In the 6th Ministerial Conference, it was agreed that all WTO members declaring themselves in a position to
provide duty - free and quota - free market access on a lasting basis to all products originating from all Least
Developed Countries (LDC). India has agreed to this. Now India's export will have to compete with cheap LDC
exports internationally. Not only this, the cheap LDC exports will come to Indian market and compete with
domestically produced goods.
1) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement administered
by the WTO that sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property regulation as applied to
nationals of other WTO Members.[3] It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the GATT in 1994.
The TRIPS agreement introduced intellectual property law into the international trading system for the first time
and remains the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property to date. In 2001,
developing countries, concerned that developed countries were insisting on an overly narrow reading of TRIPS,
initiated a round of talks that resulted in the Doha Declaration. The Doha declaration is a WTO statement
that clarifies the scope of TRIPS, stating for example that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the
goal "to promote access to medicines for all."
The obligations under TRIPS apply equally to all member states, however developing countries were allowed
extra time to implement the applicable changes to their national laws, in two tiers of transition according to their
level of development.###*5*### The transition period for developing countries expired in 2005. The transition
period for least developed countries to implement TRIPS was extended to 2013, and until 1 January 2016 for
pharmaceutical patents, with the possibility of further extension. It has therefore been argued that the TRIPS
standard of requiring all countries to create strict intellectual property systems will be detrimental to poorer
countries' development. It has been argued that it is, prima facie , in the strategic interest of most if not all
underdeveloped nations to use the flexibility available in TRIPS to legislate the weakest IP laws possible.

2) The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) are rules that apply to the domestic
regulations a country applies to foreign investors, often as part of an industrial policy. The agreement was
agreed upon by all members of the WTO. The agreement was concluded in Uruguay Round of the GATT in
1994 and came into force in 1995. TRIMs are rules that restrict preference of domestic firms and thereby enable
international firms to operate more easily within foreign markets.
Economic Implications
Some governments view TRIMs as a way to protect and foster domestic industry. TRIMs are also mistakenly
seen as an effective remedy for a deteriorating balance of payments. These perceived benefits account for their
frequent use in developing countries. In the long run, however, TRIMs may well retard economic development
and weaken the economies of the countries that impose them by stifling the free flow of investment. The
consumer in the host country suffers as a result of TRIMs. The consumer has no choice but to spend much more
on a finished product than would be necessary under a system of liberalized imports. Since consumers placed in
such a position must pay a higher price, growth of domestic demand will stagnate. This lack of demand also
hinders the long-term economic development of domestic industries.

3) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT for short, was drafted in 1947 as a provisional
agreement to regulate international trade. However, the International Trade Organization (ITO), which was
supposed to take the place of GATT, was never ratified. GATT was enforced from January 1, 1948 until
December 31, 1994, when it was finally replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 1995.
There were 23 nations that originally signed the GATT in 1947 in Geneva before it went into effect.
The signatories, or contracting parties, included India also.
The main role of GATT in the international trade was regulating the contracting parties to achieve the purpose
of the agreement which were reducing tariffs and other barriers, and to achieve the liberalization in international
trade. For instance, Kennedy Round which was started from May 1964 brought about the Anti-dumping
Agreement. (WTO). These rules and agreements which were made in the multilateral rounds later become the
basic principles which were accepted by all the parties, and stimulated the development of international trade.
4) The "Singapore issues" refers to four working groups set up during the World Trade Organization Ministerial
Conference of 1996 in Singapore. These groups were tasked with these issues: transparency in government
procurement, trade facilitation (customs issues), trade and investment, and trade and competition. These issues
were pushed at successive Ministerials by the European Union, Japan and Korea, and opposed by most
developing countries. The United States was lukewarm about the inclusion of these issues, indicating that it
could accept some or all of them at various times, but preferring to focus on market access. Disagreements
between largely developed and developing economies prevented a resolution in these issues, despite repeated
attempts to revisit them, These four subjects were originally included on the Doha Development Agenda. The
carefully-negotiated mandate was for negotiations to start after the 2003 Cancn Ministerial Conference, on
the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that session on modalities of negotiations. There
was no consensus, and the members agreed on to proceed with negotiations in only one subject, trade
facilitation. The other three were dropped from the Doha agenda.

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of the WTO that entered into force in January
1995 as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading
system to service sector, in the same way the GATT provides such a system for merchandise trade.
The GATS agreement has been criticized for tending to substitute the authority of
national legislation and judiciary with that of a GATS Disputes Panel conducting closed hearings. While
national governments have the option to exclude any specific service from liberalisation under GATS, they are
also under pressure from international business interests to refrain from excluding any service "provided on a
commercial basis". Important public utilities such as water and electricity most commonly involve purchase by
consumers and are thus demonstrably "provided on a commercial basis". The same may be said of many health
and education services which are sought to be 'exported' by some countries as profitable industries.
This definition defines virtually any public service as being "provided on a commercial basis" and is already
extending into such areas as police, the military, prisons, the justice system, public administration, and
government. Over a fairly short time perspective, this could open up for the privatisation of large parts, of what
today are considered public services currently available for the whole population of a country as a social
entitlement, to be restructured out to for-profit providers, and eventually fully privatised and available only to
those who can pay for them.

-------------------------------------------

When studying markets, economists not only want to understand how prices and quantities are determined, but
they also want to be able to calculate how much value markets create for society. Economists call this topic of
study welfare analysis

By doing so, economists can calculate the economic impacts of taxes, subsidies, price controls, trade policies,
and other forms of regulation (or deregulation). That said, there are a few things that must be kept in mind when
looking at this type of analysis.

First, because economists simply add up the values, in dollars, created for each market participant, they
implicitly assume that a dollar of value for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is equivalent to a dollar of value for the
person who pumps Bill Gates gas. Similarly, welfare analysis often aggregates the value to consumers in a
market and the value to producers in a market. By doing this, economists also assume that a dollar of value for
the layman counts the same as a dollar of value for a shareholder of a large corporation.

Second, welfare analysis only counts the number of dollars taken in in taxes rather than the value of what that
tax revenue is ultimately spent on. Ideally, tax revenue would be used for projects that are worth more to society
than they cost in taxes, but realistically this is not always the case. Even if it were, it would be very difficult to
link up taxes on particular markets.
These two issues are important to keep in mind when looking at economic welfare analysis, but they dont
make the analysis irrelevant. Instead, its helpful to understand how much value in the aggregate is created by a
market (or created or destroyed by regulation) in order to properly assess the trade off between overall value and
equity or fairness. Economists often find that efficiency, or maximizing the overall size of the economic pie, is
at odds with some notions of equity, or dividing that pie in a manner that is considered fair, so it's crucial to be
able to quantify at least one side of that trade-off.