India in the WTO

Anand Sharma is India’s new Commerce minister. How is this news being received?

DNA India:

Former commerce minister Kamal Nath will head the much sought after road transport and highways ministry in place of the DMK’s TR Baalu. Kamal Nath had made no secret of his desire to move out of commerce to a ministry with strong domestic content.
This infrastructure ministry forms a key part of the prime minister’s strategy to revive the economy. Under Baalu, road development did not make good progress and the prime minister wants to reverse this.

Singh, however, surprised many with his choice of Sharma as the new minister for commerce. It is a huge elevation for Sharma, who was only one of two ministers of state in the external affairs ministry earlier. Jyotiraditya Scindia is the minister of state for commerce.

Swapan Dasgupta in a CNN-IBN debate:

Political heavyweights have been inducted in infrastructure and social sector, is that the tone of the governance that we will see in this new Government?

“That is difficult to say but the move of Kamal Nath away from Commerce is very interesting. He in fact did not want Road Transport and Highways, he wanted a bigger portfolio. But the fact is that he has got an important ministry which is about infrastructure. The point is that in Commerce we have Anand Sharma and there might have to be adjustments made with WTO in the international scale and that could be one of the reasons,” Adhikari said.

Is that a possible climbdown by the new Government?

“India has taken certain positions which are completely at odds with the US. Now the WTO position was equated with Kamal Nath. He was standing up to American protectionism. So it will be interesting to see what stand the Government will take,” Dasgupta said.

The Economic Times:

Commerce ministry, under Anand Sharma, has been entrusted with the task of taking urgent steps to boost exports. The minister has the dual task of giving suggestions to the finance ministry for budget formulation as well as finalising the foreign trade policy for 2009-10, a senior official in the ministry said.
The free trade agreements with Asean and South Korea are also waiting for final touches to be given by Mr Sharma, he added.
Speaking to ET, Mr Sharma said; “I am humbled by this responsibility that is entrusted upon me at this critical juncture when globally commerce and industry is challenged by the ongoing downturn.”
He also hinted that India will remain aggressive at multilateral trade negotiations. “I will look at all possible measures to ensure and enhance our commercial engagements with the world and contribute in creating a global economy which will be more trusting and not creating protectionist barriers,” he said.

The Times of India:

NEW DELHI: It was at 9.30pm on Thursday that news finally came – the portfolios were out. At first look it seemed along expected lines, but then a few surprises surfaced: there was a new commerce minister in Anand Sharma with the previous one, Kamal Nath, being moved to surface transport. …

The delay in announcing portfolios betrayed that allocation of jobs wasn’t easy. As Sonia Gandhi said, it was a balancing act. Political considerations had to be married with merit to create a team that will deliver. And as Manmohan Singh said, people expected efficiency from the government; “business as usual” would not do.

Will the team deliver? Well, here are its key players. For a government for which rural upliftment is a stated priority, the man on the spot is newcomer C P Joshi who has been given the rural development ministry. Another priority, infrastructure, has the effective Kamal Nath in charge of surface transport (although there were whispers about him being being removed from “glamorous” commerce), and Sushil K Shinde as power minister.
…

If Anand Sharma looked pleased after his elevation as cabinet minister, being named commerce and industry ministry should make him beam. He is now in the big league. Perhaps a background in international law and diplomacy weighed in his favour for a ministry where global trade talks are among top concerns.
…

Jairam Ramesh, the man behind Congress’s poll campaign, is expected to play a crucial role as environment minister as important negotiations on global warming are on the agenda later this year.

…

Industry reactions as quoted in the Economic Times:

India Inc hails PM’s ministerial team
28 May 2009, 2300 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: India Inc on Thursday welcomed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s new ministerial team and expressed hope that they will live up to the expectations.
“People and industry have great aspirations … We hope this team will work committedly to come up with their expectations,” Assocham Secretary General D S Rawat said.
Ficci Secretary General Amit Mitra said, “It is a team of experience, excellency and balance.”
Commenting on the new Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma, Mitra said he has good international networks which will help him in dealing with the critical and important issues of the World Trade Organisation.
“He will make an excellent negotiation as he has great diplomatic experience at the global level,” Mitra added.
Confederation Of Indian Industry (CII) said: “There is a shuffle which is fine as we have worked with them earlier and looking forward to closely work with them. We are happy to see the portfolio distribution.”
“Kamal Nath is known to be a person of great skills … there are great expectations from him … highways development should be highest priority for the economy,” CII Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said.
Nath, who was previously the Commerce and Industry Minister will now hold Road Transport and Highways portfolio.

Reuters India:

Sharma, who was the junior foreign minister in the previous government and has his roots in youth politics, has little experience of economic portfolios and is likely to toe the line set by his reformist boss, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Sharma is an articulate speaker and defended a controversial nuclear deal with the United States in parliament last year.

India is a leading negotiator for emerging nations in the struggling Doha round of talks, and its efforts to protect poor farmers have been one of the stumbling blocks to an agreement.

Sharma is unlikely to soften India’s pro-farmer stand at the talks but could be flexible in giving market access in other sectors, analysts said.

While the global financial crisis may have made market reforms unfashionable, it is the ruling Congress party itself that may prove a bigger obstacle to deep change.

Congress won the election not only because of four years of rapid growth but also because of a pro-farm policy that may make it difficult for the government to make a radical shift in its position at the Doha talks.

India expects the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to start in January or February 2010.

The appointment of Kamal Nath, who is seen as pro-business, as road transport and highways minister signals the government’s intention to speed up the implementation of infrastructure projects which had slowed under the previous government.

We still don’t know who will be given charge of India’s commerce ministry, but this announcement can be expected by Tuesday. My sense is that Mr Kamal Nath himself is keen on continuing as Commerce minister and conclude the unfinished Doha round as well as FDI and other industrial  sector reforms.

In an interview to CNN-IBN (see the text here) Mr. Nath spoke about the prospects of the Doha round:

Rajdeep Sardesai: Between 2004-09, Kamal Nath came to be identified with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks. Do you believe that with this clear mandate you will have a freer hand in the sense negotiating at the WTO you should be the commerce minister. Do you see a quick completion of the Doha round?

Kamal Nath: I think India needs to have a rule based multilateral system, we have a big stake in that. But today I think the Western countries who are bigger proponents of this are the ones getting cold feet and not India.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Yes, exactly that is why the US democratic administration seems protectionist.

Kamal Nath: That is what I am saying, they are getting cold feet not us.

On FDI:

Rajdeep Sardesai: Just before the elections, you had amended the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy through a press note. Now investments made by a company registered in India in which a foreign company has a less than 50 per cent stake will not be considered as FDI. Some believe this has allowed foreign companies to breach sectoral limits, was this the objective to open up?

Kamal Nath: When we have a global recession, we have to make India a good investment destination. I want to separate ownership and control and this seeks to do that and get more investment.

On FDI in retail:

Rajdeep Sardesai: In your first tenure, between 2004-09 there was this ghost of Left which was always haunting you. This time it doesn’t even exist, will there be FDI in the multi-sector retailing or do you believe that this might affect the kiranewalla (small grocery shop) and that might be a concern that your fellow Cabinet Ministers will against you?

Kamal Nath: It is not FDI, it is big versus small and if it is big you can have a multi-brand Indian company, you have Reliance, ITC etc.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Will you allow FDI?

Kamal Nath: No, I am not talking about retail. As long as FDI doesn’t displace existing employment it is good but talking about the retail sector it is a very grey area.

Rajdeep Sardesai: You see it as a grey area, I thought at one point of time you believed that it would help Indian agriculture.

Kamal Nath: No, we cannot generalise on retail. Retail is not cement and motor, it is technology. If we can have access to retail technology and in fact we must not be looking at man at the moment, we must be looking for the niece and the son and the daughter. And that is the key thing to look at.

On liberalisation (FDI) in education:

Rajdeep Sardesai: The Commerce Ministry had also been wanting to liberalise high education but the HRD Ministry previously under Arjun Singh was not helpful. He is no more there but the fact is that will it happen now?

Kamal Nath: I can’t say that this will happen, I can only say that we have to ensure that our youngsters have the access to the best education in India. Why are we sending thousands of youngsters abroad, why can’t they stay here and study at a fraction of the cost?

On the need for export stimulus measures:

Rajdeep Sardesai: Exports, a critical area again. The export sector has been badly hit by recession. Your (Commerce) ministry had proposed a one year exemption in the payment of the fringe tax to these export oriented companies. Will we see that?

Kamal Nath: Exemption is about competitiveness and cost. Today, if the economy is in recession we can’t plan a package for Europe or the US. We are going to ensure that all levies and taxes are refunded and are not there for export.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But the aam aadmi is the one who is being hit. Do you think the time has come for a comprehensive package for the export sector?

Kamal Nath: There is a need for a comprehensive package to refund taxes, levies on anything that is being exported. Today you go anywhere in the world and you buy something from a shop, you refund immediately. So, you must have all taxes and levies because no taxes and levies are exported.

On differences between the Commerce and the Finance ministeries (in the previous administration the Commerce and Finance ministries had differed over SEZs and over sops for exporters):

Rajdeep Sardesai: Last time there was a feeling that the Commerce Ministry and the Finance Ministry were not on the same track. Will it be different this time with Pranab Mukherjee as the Finance Minister?

Kamal Nath: Well, I think the job of the Finance Ministry is to collect the revenue and see that they do resource management so any Finance Ministry would do that. But you need to weigh it off, you may not export and you may be having an economic impact because of that.

On financial sector liberalisation:

Rajdeep Sardesai: The new Government this time is largely free of the pressures of allies and therefore you will expected to push it with reforms. Last time, every time you were asked about reform you said look my hands are tide. Your hands are no longer tide, will it be different this time?

Kamal Nath: Let’s not say that there were no reforms in the last government. There were reforms in the financial sector which we didn’t do but let us recognise this. We should remember that the reforms that were asked by those financial icons of the Western world, the ones which were wound up.

Rajdeep Sardesai: So, are you among those who think that it is good to be cautious about financial sector liberalisation?

Kamal Nath: No, it depends which reforms we are talking about. We are looking at the reforms which are India specific; we can’t be talking about reforms all over the world. Today the most important reform is the reform in the governance. Reform in our Labour Act, the labour laws must be made employment generating.

On labour law reforms:

Rajdeep Sardesai: So, you would support reforms in labour laws which allow companies to hire and fire easily?

Kamal Nath: We must recognise this that for example if a textile company wants to hire some people to complete an order in four months but they can’t take that order because he can’t hire them for four months. So at that point of time, we are losing on that amount of employment.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But will the politicians allow this kind of labour laws reform? The problem is this is where the politics seem to clash with good economics.

Kamal Nath: No, I am all for the reform in labour laws which generate employment, provide employment security. We have to have this because employment generation is our No 1 priority with the young population.

On Special Economic Zones:

Rajdeep Sardesai: But let’s look at land because there has been controversy over Kamal Nath’s policies as commerce minister when it came to the Economic Zones. You were looked at someone who was liberally granting Special Economic Zones (SEZs), some suggested that it was little more than a land scam. And now you have got Mamata Banerjee who after Nandigram and Singur is going to get tough with any attempts made to liberalise land acquisitions.

Kamal Nath: Let us not talk in the abstract. There are SEZs today on the ground, you can measure easily how much investment is coming to the nearest rupee. We can measure how much employment has been generated, how much export has happened so all that are stories of the past. There are concerns in high density states.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But after Singur and Nandigram, won’t there be pressure to sort of modify your land acquisition policies, your own minister will suggest that.

Kamal Nath: I am all for that and that is what I am suggesting that there was a Cabinet committee, there was a group of ministers selected for that. That has moved the new land acquisition rehabilitation suggestive policy and that parliament had approved that and now this Parliament will take it up.

The videos of this interview (in 5 parts) can be watched here.

An article in the DNA gets it wrong when its writes:

India, under the WTO obligations, is required to open up its legal sector, as this comes under ’services’ category.

Another example of how Indian media reporting on WTO issues can get things completely wrong. The GATS negotiation on services do not “require” India to open up legal services. Here, I am not on the issue of whether liberalisation of trade in legal services would be beneficial as such to the Indian legal industry, Indian businesses or to the Indian economy. But any GATS commitment by India on legal services would be entirely voluntary. 

I have earlier blogged about the media coverage of WTO issues in India, see media coverage and my post about a research paper by Madhu Arora on this topic.

Since I started this blog and began to pay attention to Indian media reports on WTO issues, I am struck by the strident and aggressive tone that a lot of the reports adopt. The message being put out seems to be one that shows India in attack mode as far as WTO engagement is concerned.

An article in today’s Business Standard exhibits the same trend. It is a report on Indian participation in the discussions on the trade policy review of the EU. The caption of the report states:  India “flays” EU for trade barriers on agri exports, service providers. The report itself uses phrases like India “chides” the EU and “Indian trade official took Brussels to task” and that India along with other developing countries “exposed” the dark side of the EU’s trade regime. I have quoted the full article below, but first some thoughts:

A lot of the news reports are based upon briefings from Indian trade policy officials. Understandably, therefore these reports seem to announce “success” in how the issue was handled by officials. The media coverage is also biased towards reporting success and reports of failures are few and far between. Again this can be explained as an outcome of the sources journalists turn to. The language used is very often militant and strident and uses attack imagery. This complements a sense prevailing within India about India’s new found competence in international engagement and its growing “power status”. There is definitely a feel-good factor being sold to Indian stakeholders here, conveying a sense that the government has things well in hand and is looking out for Indian interests. Almost every major Indian English daily and especially the economic media has a journalist specialising in WTO and trade issues. These journalists develop a relationship with government officials and the interaction is mutually beneficial. Government officials can feed stories and journalists have a steady source of news-worthy information.

India today chided the European Union for continuing to maintain a range of trade barriers on India’s agriculture exports as well as service providers under Mode 4 of short-term movement of service suppliers, Business Standard was told.

During the EU’s ninth trade policy review meeting at the World Trade Organization, an Indian trade official took Brussels to task for imposing what are called ‘standards’ concerning maximum residual limits (MRL) of aflatoxin in spices, processed food, ground nuts and cereals among other items.

These EU standards, the Indian official said, slapped burdensome requirements on Indian exporters who found it technically and economically unfeasible to implement them, given the high costs involved.

The EU’s Food Safety Authority had rejected India’s agricultural exports under the guise of testing and certification requirements and labeling norms. These practices “led to huge commercial losses for Indian exporters,” India complained.

China, Brazil and several other developing countries joined India in “exposing” the EU’s new standards

The trade policy review offers a platform to members to point out the difficulties their exporters are encountering in the country under review.

While every developing country’s trade policy is subjected to a review once in four years, the developed countries will have to appear before members once in two years.

Members can raise oral and hundreds of written questions about the specific problems faced by their exporters.

Ahead of the meeting, the WTO Secretariat issued a report cataloguing Brussels’ macro-economic and trade policies as well as the continued tariff and non-tariff barriers that are in place.

Though the EU has adopted several open and liberal policies in both trade in goods and trade in services, it also maintains insidious barriers on agriculture imports, chemicals, and trade in services, analysts said.

“The EU will continue to show leadership on global trade and stand firm against protectionism,” said EU trade commissioner Catherine Ashton, arguing that Brussels was committed to “multilateralism, to transparency, and to open markets based on rules that benefit developed and developing countries.”

Being the world’s largest market, the EU was not only quizzed on a range of barriers that cover trade in goods and services, but was also showed the “dark side” of its overall trade regime, said an Asian trade diplomat.

The EU, for example, has in place restrictions on Indian banks starting their operations in its member states. Brussels also imposed what are called Mode 4 restrictions, such as 3-6 years of professional experience for contractual suppliers and independent professionals, India said.

India drew attention to barriers in the form of non-harmonised service regulations that inhibit Indian services providers to move from one member country to the other. In a large number of EU member nations, there are requirements of number of board members to be residents, which raises costs for service providers.

The EU also failed to provide a level-playing field for foreign telecom companies, India noted. As “the EU mandate deems the Research and Development sector as mandatory for domestic job creation because of which it is hesitant in allowing free interdisciplinary movement”, only 34 per cent of researchers are non-EU.

This Economic Times story reflects Indian industry and policymakers sensitivity on the issue of any protectionist clamp-down on outsourcing. Though I think the Economic Times jumped the gun here a bit. Its too early to be talking about WTO contests especially since the whole story seems to be based upon this sentence in President Obama’s speech to Congress:

We will root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas. 

The news report captioned “India may contest Obama’s move against outsourcing in WTO” seems to be based upon Minister Kamal Nath’s response on being asked whether India would respond to the suggestion in Obama’s speech. This is what Nath is reported to have answered:

We have to ensure what they (US) are doing is WTO compatible when we are talking about trade, movement of goods, movement of people and movement of services," Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath said here.
"Yes, of course," he said when asked if India will take up the issue of outsourcing with the US administration.
…

Nath said, "One has to see how the US companies using India as a base for technological development respond to their own government." Outsourcing of technology development by large companies cannot be switched on and off, he added.

It should be interesting to see what shape the US measure on discouraging outsourcing takes. A PTI story has more:

Nearly 1,000 US firms, which have shipped their jobs overseas are anticipated to be affected with the proposed elimination of tax incentives. The plan mainly refers to one of the provisions in the tax code that allows companies to pay lesser taxes for profits earned from foreign shores.

Here’s another interesting aspect linking the outsourcing issue with H-1B visas. A Computerworld story discusses this:

The U.S. government’s H-1B visa usage data for fiscal 2008 shows that offshore outsourcing firms based in India are employing a growing number of H-1B workers — a hiring trend that is affecting the IT workforces in communities such as Oldsmar, Fla.

Oldsmar is the home of a technology center operated by The Nielsen Co., which measures TV audiences, consumer trends and other metrics for its clients. Nielsen last year began laying off workers at the facility after announcing in October 2007 a 10-year global outsourcing agreement valued at $1.2 billion with Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

And while Nielsen cut employees, Mumbai, India-based Tata was increasing its hiring of H-1B workers. Tata received approval for a total of 1,539 H-1B visas during the federal fiscal year that ended last September, according to government data released this week. That was nearly double the 797 visas that the outsourcing and IT services vendor received in fiscal 2007

 

The Economic Times Award for Business Reformer of the year has been awarded to Indian Commerce minister Kamal Nath. The Economic Times on why he was selected:

When he speaks, they listen. Be it the WTO talks, the Tata-Corus row or the Mittal-Arcelor controversy, commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath has represented India’s interests with a certain missionary zeal. And today, at the high table of global trade, if India is accepted as the de facto representative of the developing world, it’s largely because of this Doon School alumnus.
The judges felt that Kamal Nath, with his unflagging zeal in taking the Indian message to the rest of the world, is the right person to be named political reformer this year. While many equally deserving candidates were discussed, it was felt that a reformer should also be a person who has reached out to make a global statement. The minister, they felt, has not only defended and promoted Indian policy positions on crucial, and often contentious, global issues like the WTO talks, but has also gained the respect and understanding of his counterparts in the international community.
His very name gets the attention of luminaries like WTO director-general Pascal Lamy, World Bank president Robert Bruce Zoellick and European Union’s trade commissioner Peter Mandelson. Trade ministers of many countries sing paeans of praise to the Indian minister for the force with which he resists pressure from the US and EU at the WTO. Kamal Nath’s negotiating skills and networking abilities were in full display at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of WTO in 2005 and this year’s mini-ministerial, thwarting efforts to win fresh concessions from the developing world.
At the same time, Kamal Nath spoke out in favour of the Tata Group when its efforts to take over Corus were resisted. Similarly, he backed L N Mittal when the Arcelor deal was opposed by some European governments.
The way he manages a packed schedule and travels across the globe to seek FDI and negotiate trade deals is cause for envy among his Cabinet colleagues, it is said. Well, the results are visible with the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Asean and a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement with Singapore.
At home too, Kamal Nath pursues his responsibilities with zest and has managed to make SEZs a reality despite severe resistance from within the government. The introduction of product patents is seen as another feather in his cap.

For the news report see here

The Business Standard yesterday reported that on his recent trip to India, Lamy compared his role to a midwife to deliver the Doha round deal. The article reads:

Pascal Lamy, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) embattled director general, says he wants to perform the role of a “midwife” to salvage the Doha trade negotiations. This is what he confessed to the Indian trade team during his closed-door meetings in New Delhi last week. Apparently, Lamy said that the Indian trade minister Kamal Nath and the United States Trade Representative Ambassador Susan Schwab are “pregnant”. As a midwife, he said, it is his duty to ensure a smooth delivery so that the faltering Doha project comes to fruition.

The formidable Indian reporting on the Doha round was once again visible as the reporter commented that Lamy might not be the best midwife in town.

Besides, such a pronouncement is bound to make WTO members sit up and ask whether the director general can offer neutral and unbiased services like a classical midwife. Because of his diverse roles in the past ranging from a banker to the European Union’s top trade policy job, there will always be nagging doubts about his new role.

Some more criticism of Lamy’s role:

An impression gathered ground that Lamy tends to be soft when it comes to dealing with Washington while displaying unusual exuberance when dealing with developing countries. Lamy, for example, suspended the negotiations to help Washington which had refused to budge from its unsustainable position of bringing down farm subsidies below $22 billion in 2006. And during this period he was sending missives to developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Philippines questioning their hard-line stance on special products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries.

By the time the negotiations came back on the rails last year following a series of failures, he ought to have drawn important lessons on how to maintain equidistance from key players. But that did not quite happen as can be seen from the manner in which negotiations evolved in different Doha dossiers, especially in the case of the rules and the three TRIPS-related issues, as they would have created difficulties for Washington.

It always remains a mystery as to why Lamy did not fix the final figure for the US overall trade-distorting support for agriculture at $13 billion as demanded by six out of seven trade ministers during the failed mini-ministerial meeting at Geneva last month. Though it is important for the director general to be close to the US because of Washington’s influence over the global trading system, it is also equally important that he calls a spade a spade when that country adopts unyielding positions. He cannot remain silent for the sake of the elephant that is in the room when life-and-death-issues such as cotton for the poorest of the poor remain unresolved.

The report is authored by D Ravi Kanth, who if I am not mistaken was a highly visible participant in the press conferences in Geneva during the July 2008 mini-ministerial convened by Lamy.

The Business Standard carries an article today which suggests (and it seems based upon access to information from people who were in the negotiating room) that the issue that sunk the mini-ministerial wasn’t special safeguards for agriculture but cotton subsidies.

According to Bhaskar Goswami, the author of this article:

On the 8th day of negotiations the talks were deadlocked and Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), circulated a revised draft on Special Safeguards Mechanism as a compromise move (trade circles in Geneva suggest that the proposal was drafted by European Union). As is widely known, all drafts of developed countries are circulated at the WTO with US approval and this draft was no exception. Besides, Lamy is not exactly known for producing surprises for the US.

The revised text, although undermining the rationale of safeguarding before harm could occur, was acceptable to India on the 9th day. This was admitted by Kamal Nath. However, midway during the discussion Susan Schwab, the US Trade Representative, hardened her stand. Not only did she turn adamant against accepting a reduced import trigger, she suggested that it be revised upwards by 10 percent! Somebody sure was desperate to ensure that the negotiations fail while the discussion was on Special Safeguards Mechanisms, and India and China take the blame for it.

At the WTO, the US either negotiates from a position of strength or, if its defensive issues are raised, scuttles the negotiations. This is exactly what it did in Geneva this July. What activated this sudden hostile line of argument by the US is not very difficult to gauge. Since Special Safeguards Mechanisms were the second-last topic under discussion, an agreement on this would have brought the discussion to the last issue — cotton subsidies.

As is now clear, India has emerged as a major player in the WTO and its role in the Doha round is significant. And no doubt, many books, papers, and theses are being planned (once the round gets over) on questions like – How India negotiated? What influence did India exert? Did India adopt a successful negotiating strategy? Did India manage to protect its interests? Has India moved away from representing broad developing country interests to a more self-interested negotiating strategy? How did India define its interests? And was there adequate stakeholder consultation and involvement?  What were the turning points when deals were made? And in all this, how did India compare with other important players?

India’s participation in the Doha round could not be more different from its participation in the Uruguay round. And the differences are a result of many changes – India’s growth story; the tectonic shifts in global power; the shifts in power within the WTO; and of course everyone’s favourite “cryptic” Globalisation.

What is certain is that those interested in such themes will face no shortage of material, given the media coverage of the round, and given how contemporaneous examination of India’s role is the subject of seminars and discussion all over the world and perhaps, more importantly, within the country. I keep wanting to archive all this material, but just don’t have the time. However, I am sure someone’s doing this. In any case, the reason for this post was more such media coverage. Here are some extracts and headlines from the last few weeks.

Moneycontrol has this today:

GK Pillai, Commerce Secretary, said, “The next 30 days are going to be crucial, because of the considerable differences, there has to be a considerable hardening of stand on our part.”

But it’s not just the government who will be talking. This time Indian negotiators at the WTO want states and corporates to lobby directly just as industry bodies do in the United States and the European Union.

The Commerce Secretary said, “We will be appealing to industry as well as agriculture to support us in our negotiations. We will try to get all states sensitised to our agri position and will try and get the agri ministry on board.”

The Hindu wrote Lamy’s prognosis on food crisis finds support in India 

The Economic Times wrote India ask US, EU to show leadership in Doha talks and Nath to tour Indonesia, New York to sort differences in trade deals and India needn’t rush for an unfair Doha deal

This could go on and on … An article could be written just on the media coverage of the Doha round in India. A list of quotable quotes from this round would also make interesting reading and mark the important milestones and turning points. Remember Susan Schwab’s teen driver quote to describe India and Brazil.

There has not been much discussion of reform of global economic governance in the Indian media. An article on IMF reform by Arvind Panagriya was published in the Economic Times recently. An extract:

This dominance of the developed countries in the decision-making process has undermined the credibility of the IMF to effectively handle the financial flow crises and generated two kinds of responses. On the one hand, countries such as Russia and Argentina chose to effectively default on their loans when hit by financial crises.

On the other hand, countries such as Brazil, China, India and South Korea went on to accumulate large foreign exchange reserves to insure themselves against future crises.

These developments, accompanied by much improved access of the developing countries to private capital markets, have resulted in considerably reduced lending by the IMF. In turn, the Fund has seen its earnings to finance operational expenditures dwindle and now faces severe pressures to downsize. While a case for downsizing can be made on efficiency grounds, gradual weakening of the IMF is perhaps not an optimal outcome.
Today, capital flows freely across a vast array of developed and developing countries. Countries such as India and China, which currently restrict capital flows, are also bound to embrace full capital account convertibility in due course.

Given the imperfect and asymmetric information in the capital markets, the threat of financial crises will continue to loom large, as has been graphically and painfully demonstrated by the subprime crisis. In so far as these crises necessarily spillover from one country to another on account the of interconnected nature of the markets, the case for an effective multilateral institution to promote cooperation is impeccable.

Institutional reform is also long over-due for two other important global institutions – the World Bank and the WTO. A one day dialogue was recently hosted by ICRIER in New Delhi in collaboration with Oxford University’s Global Economic Governance Programme; The Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies in Geneva; and the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies Network, Canada. The South Asia Regional Dialogue on Global Economic Governance and Trade sought to stimulate debate on global trade governance issues, so that leading developing countries have an opportunity to frame their interests and concerns, and shape an evolving agenda. The focus of this meeting was WTO institutional reform. For more details see here.