Do we need an undertaker for the Single Undertaking? Considering the angles of variable geometry

Abstract

Abstract: This paper addresses criticisms of the bundling of issues in trade rounds. It does so by reviewing the theoretical basis for such packaging, particularly in light of the apparent success of sector-by-sector negotiation in the 1990s. After arguing for the grouping of issues in trade negotiations, we then turn to the question of just how broad negotiations should be. Finally, we address the issue of whether the inclusiveness of the Uruguay Round’s Single Undertaking approach can be repeated in the Doha Round and future rounds. We conclude that it probably cannot and that the WTO should pursue broad rounds with variable geometry. Without assigning culpability, I am grateful to T.N. Srinivasan, Anne Krueger, Geoff Garrett and participants in a CEPR/ECARES/World Bank Conference on the world trading system. I am grateful to the Yale Center for International and Area Studies and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for financial support. The views in this paper are my own and do not necessarily represent those of any other organization.