The future of the WTO

This repository item contains a single issue of Issues in Brief, a series of policy briefs that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.This policy brief reviews the current debates about the future of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and looks at why current discussions on international trade and development are stalled and also on what the implication of this stalemate might be on the longer-term future of the WTO, and of trade and development in general

The IMF's new view on financial globalization: a critical assessment

This repository item contains a single issue of Issues in Brief, a series of policy briefs that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.In December 2012, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a new “institutional view” on capital account liberalization and the management of capital flows between countries. In this Issues in Brief, Kevin P. Gallagher, one of the co-chairs of the Pardee Center Task Force on Regulating Global Capital Flows for Long-Run Development, offers his assessment of the IMF’s new position. The IMF’s “institutional view” historically tempers the IMF’s advocacy of capital account liberalization and even endorses the regulation of cross-border finance in some circumstances. What is more, the IMF points out that many trade and investment treaties do not provide the appropriate level of policy space to regulate cross-border finance when needed. This is truly landmark, given that the IMF attempted to legally mandate worldwide capital account liberalization in the 1990s. The turnaround is largely a function of the persistence of emerging market and developing country members of the Fund, in addition to some innovative economists on the IMF staff. Unfortunately however, those voices did not fully prevail. The IMF view still urges capital account liberalization as a long-run goal for all nations, only sanctions regulating cross-border finance under limited circumstances, and puts too much of the burden for regulation on emerging market countries, rather than the industrialized world that is often the source of this finance. The brief reiterates the “rules of thumb” put forward by the Pardee Center Task Force in 2011 that should be considered when devising capital account regulations applicable to developing countries

China and the future of Latin American industrialization

This repository item contains a single issue of Issues in Brief, a series of policy briefs that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.The rise of China has created an unprecedented demand for Latin American and Caribbean exports, which has helped boost the region’s growth for almost a decade. But ultimately, such export growth may not be sustainable. Perhaps even worse, Chinese manufactured goods are more competitive than those from Latin America in both home and world markets. These twin trends may jeopardize prospects for long-term growth in the region. Based on research for his most recent book, economist and trade expert Kevin Gallagher discusses how China’s rise to prominence on the world trade scene has affected Latin America and what Latin America might learn from China’s ascendency to improve the long-term outlook for its own economic future

Safeguarding United States’ trade and investment treaties for financial stability

This repository item contains a policy brief from the Boston University Global Economic Governance Initiative. The Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) is a research program of the Center for Finance, Law & Policy, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. It was founded in 2008 to advance policy-relevant knowledge about governance for financial stability, human development, and the environment.This policy brief discusses new evidence in the economics profession showing that capital controls are important macro-prudential measures that nations should have in their toolkit to prevent and mitigate financial crises. United States trade and investment treaties do not reflect this emerging consensus on capital controls. It is essential to rectify this problem as the United States finalizes its new moves forward on negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and a bi-lateral investment treaty (BIT) with China

Trade Liberalization and Industrial Pollution in Mexico: Lessons for the FTAA"

As the barriers to hemispheric trade and integration are lowered, it will be asked whether we will we hear the "giant sucking sound" of poorer nations luring U.S. and Canadian firms south to take advantage of low wages and lax environmental regulations? Or, will Latin American nations passively accept this problematical specialization in doing the world's cheap and dirty work? Mexico is the ideal laboratory for such research. Though NAFTA took effect in 1994, trade liberalization in Mexico began long before that. From 1982 to 1996 Mexico transformed itself from one of the most closed to one of the most open economies in the world. As a first step in such efforts, this paper looks at the relationship between industrial pollution and economic activity in Mexico, compares those results to the United States, and draws out implications for the FTAA. The study finds that many of the industries deemed the dirtiest in the world economy are actually cleaner in Mexico than in the US, and the industries labeled the cleanest are dirtier in Mexico. To generalize, this exhibits that trade liberalization can have both positive and negative environmental effects in developing economies. Sectors where plant vintage determines pollution levels can benefit from their ability to take advantage of newer technologies after liberalizing trade, as is the case with the Mexican steel industry. However, if pollution is a function of end of pipe technology, as in the paper industry, pollution levels are determined by levels of regulation, enforcement and compliance, which are lower in Mexico.Economic theory; Environmental Policy; Sustainability; trade liberalization; NAFTA; FTAA; industrial pollution

2015 China-Latin America economic bulletin

This repository item contains a report from the Boston University Global Economic Governance Initiative. The Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) is a research program of the Center for Finance, Law & Policy, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. It was founded in 2008 to advance policy-relevant knowledge about governance for financial stability, human development, and the environment

Global financial reform and trade rules: the need for reconciliation

This repository item contains a single issue of Issues in Brief, a series of policy briefs that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.In the wake of the global financial crisis, many economists and policymakers are advocating the use of regulations to control the cross-border flows of capital. However, such capital account regulations (known as CARs) often are limited or prohibited by commonly-used provisions in trade and investment treaties. This policy brief describes the outcomes of a “compatibility review” between the ability to implement capital account regulations and standard provisions of the global trading system. It argues that changes should be made so that the two systems are more compatible, providing countries – especially developing countries – with the policy space to employ CARs to stabilize their economies and stave off boom-and-bust cycles and still participate in bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade and investment treaties

Policy Space to Prevent and Mitigate Financial Crises in Trade and Investment Agreements

Do nations have the policy space to deploy capital controls in order to prevent and mitigate financial crises? This paper examines the extent to which measures to mitigate this crisis and prevent future crises are permissible under a variety of bilateral, regional and multilateral trade and investment agreements. It is found that the United States trade and investment agreements, and to a lesser extent the WTO, leave little room to manoeuvre when it comes to capital controls. This is the case despite the increasing economic evidence showing that certain capital controls can be useful in preventing or mitigating financial crises. It also stands in contrast with investment rules under the IMF, OECD and the treaties of most capital exporting nations which allow for at least the temporary use of capital controls as a safeguard measure. Drawing on the comparative analysis conducted in the paper, the author offers a range of policies that could be deployed to make the United States investment rules more consistent with the rules of its peers and the economic realities of the 21st century.

01-08 "Is NACEC a Model Trade and Environment Institution? Lessons from Mexican Industry"

This chapter evaluates the extent to which NACEC serves as a model for more effective trade and environmental institutions by examining the institution's role in abating industrial pollution in Mexico. Despite some notable improvements in levels of industrial pollution, the environmental costs of trade-led economic growth in Mexico have remained high in the post-NAFTA period. NACEC is not playing a significant role in channeling this growth toward sustainable levels of development. However, it wasn't designed to, and should not be evaluated on those terms. Indeed, NACEC was designed with more modest goals that are evaluated in detail throughout this volume. This paper argues that NACEC has a number of the elements of an institution that could facilitate the balance of economic growth and environmental protection. An outline is provided regarding how these elements could developed in the context of other trade agreements such as the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Infrastructure for sustainable development: the role of national development banks

This repository item contains a policy brief from the Boston University Global Economic Governance Initiative. The Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) is a research program of the Center for Finance, Law & Policy, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. It was founded in 2008 to advance policy-relevant knowledge about governance for financial stability, human development, and the environment.Development banks are increasingly becoming relied upon to help finance sustainable infrastructure in the 21st century. Much of the emphasis has been on the role of the existing multi-lateral development banks (MDBs), but lesser attention has been paid to the role of national development banks (NDBs). To help fill this gap, Boston University’s Global Economic Governance initiative (GEGI) and the Brookings Institution’s Global Economy and Development program convened a Task Force on Development Banks and Sustainable Development to examine the extent to which development banks are becoming catalysts for achieving a climate friendly and more socially inclusive world economy