|
Estimados Amigos, este mensaje puede ser de interes
de algunos miembros de la lista. Comentarios sobre los documentos en borrador
proporcionados seran bien recibidos.
Saludos;
Lucio
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: A complete view of the issues from a sustainability
angle
Dear Friends, I took the time to visit the world
bank webpage to have a close look at the situation under analysis and discussion
and to call to your attention the pros and cons of the framework from a
sustainability point of view. I will present things in very simple terms
to increase chances of positive exchange of arguments:
Terminology used:
M1 = Market 1
M2 = Market 2
CDB = constellation of deep trade barrier between
them
-(D + P) = negative impact on development plus
poverty reduction
+(D + P) = positive impact on development
plus poverty reduction
NTB = No trade barriers between them
1) The original situation: first
assumption
Originally there are many markets for products and
services. including agricultural ones, which are separated by a constellation of
deep barriers. And this constellation of deep barriers is having a
negative impact on development growth and poverty reduction in all those
markets. Assuming two markets, this can be represented as
follows:
M1 CDB M2
-------> -(D + P)
First assumption: we must get rid of CDB to solve
the problem as this is a very inefficient world
2) The birth of the WTO: second
assumption
Bringing the WTO to eliminate CDB creates markets
with no trade barriers, which leads to a positive effect on development growth
and poverty reduction. With two markets this can be expressed as
below:
M1 NTB M2
--------> +(D + P)
Second assumption: no trade barriers means positive
impact of development growth and poverty reduction: a very efficient
world.
3) the complications:
3a) the leveraging/bargaining problem
Representatives of each market/country get together
to negotiate in the area between those markets, which I am calling here the
dangerous zone because it is a zone where system dominance, maximization
forces, and non-binding regulation exist. In this zone, the rule of
the strong will most likely prevail. The outcome
of leveraging/bargaining in this dangerous zone is taken as efficient
outcome regarless of perceptions of fairness. I believe that the forces at
work in this zone lead to an unsustainable system and the WTO appears not to be
equipped to deal with the issues arising in this dangerous zone.
Negotiations between members/groups with unequal power may require unbiased
intervention from the WTO to be efficient and equitable.
Those who would like to know more at these views
can see my paper draft called: "Maximization, Partial Regulation, and System
Dominance: Can they be drivers of true sustainability?";
3b) the allocation problem:
production/consumption
In the dangerous zone, it is impossible to maximize
the production function and consumption function of all participants at the same
time, which means what we all know, there have to be some losers in order for
there to be winners. Losers should be expected to be the weak, the poor, the
marginalised. Some have to produced more and some have to produce less and some
have to consume more and some have to consume less for the allocation
problems between weak and strong actors in the dangerous zone to work
properly, and this is what determines who can generate a positive impact on
development growth and poverty reduction. Notice that
this situation leads to difficulties between strong producers and weak
producers and between strong consumers and weak consumers, some resisting lower
bundles and others demanding bigger bundles.
Those interested with the difficulties to be
expected when attempting to move from a model that more is better to one that
lest is better can take a look at my paper draft called "Substituting the more
is better paradigm for the less is better paradigm: Identifying some
transitional problems".
3c) The Kyoto consistency problem
In the dangerous zone, there are marginal
agricultural lands and critical forest areas, both in the hands of strong
and weak stakeholders, but there seems to be no link between the WTO, The Kyoto
Process, and Marginal Agricultural lands and critical forest areas. This affects
the ability of the WTO to link these programs with development growth and
poverty reduction in all countries. This indicate that the role WTO and
development growth and poverty reduction is indirect, and therefore it could be
positive or negative depending on the circumstances.
Those interested in linking poverty reduction goals
and environmental goals can look at one theoretical approach presented in my
paper draft called " The preservation plus approach: A simple idea on how to
link preservation and poverty reduction goals".
4) No way to guarantee food and other securities to
the poor
The way the development model presented in part 2
is set up it is very difficult to expect compliance on issues such as guaranteed
food security, effective preferential treatment even when there is support
at home as self-interest in the dangerous zone determines what is to be done,
and the WTO has no direct control over this too and appears no ready to deal
with this.
DISCLAIMER: I am sharing my draft papers in a
positive manner and they are right now draft papers. Some people may not
like my qualitative comparative way to simplifying things, and my apologies in
advance to them. Your comments will be very welcome.
These are my views and since it turned out to be
too long, I will let others to continue adding to the arguments or to provide
other views.
Sincerely yours;
Lucio Munoz
| 
Compartiendo ideas
Responder a este mensaje