Complutense University Library

European Union Trade Policy and the Poor. Towards Improving the Poverty Impact of the GSP in Latin America

Freres , Christian and Mold, Andrew (2004) European Union Trade Policy and the Poor. Towards Improving the Poverty Impact of the GSP in Latin America. [Working Paper or Technical Report]

[img]
Preview
PDF
285kB

Official URL: http://eprints.ucm.es/10633/

View download statistics for this eprint

==>>> Export to other formats

Abstract

The purpose of this policy paper is to analyse and propose ideas about how the European Union could have
a greater impact on reducing poverty in Latin America through its trade policy, in conjunction with other
policy instruments. To do this, the authors analyze the experience of the EU’s Generalized System of
Preference (GSP), a scheme aimed to help poor countries adapt to the international trading system. Overall,
this regime has not proven effective for this purpose nor is there any evidence that it has had a significantly
positive impact on reducing poverty in developing countries in general or in Latin America. This paper starts
with an overview of the context affecting this issue, including a review of the literature on the link between
trade and poverty, an analysis of the contemporary situation in Latin America, focusing on poverty and
inequality, reasons why it is important to look at the GSP presently, this region’s trade and development
experience and overall ties between the EU and Latin America. The second section of the paper begins with a
review of EU trade policy towards developing countries, stressing the GSP. Following that, it analyzes how
the Latin American countries have used the GSP, with what results and what obstacles. This general
treatment is complemented by two case studies, Bolivia and Costa Rica, which illustrate the problems more
specifically. The final chapter provides conclusions and policy recommendations that should be taken into
consideration in the current process of reform of the GSP.
RESUMEN:
El objetivo de este documento de trabajo es analizar y proponer ideas sobre cómo la Unión Europea podría
tener un mayor impacto sobre la reducción de la pobreza en América Latina a través de su política comercial,
junto con otros instrumentos de política. Para hacer esto, los autores analizan la experiencia del Sistema
Generalizado de Preferencias (SGP) de la UE, un esquema que tiene la intención de ayudar a los países
pobres a adaptarse al sistema internacional de comercio. En general, este régimen no ha sido eficaz para este
fin ni existe evidencia de que haya tenido un impacto significativo y positivo en la reducción de la pobreza ni
en todos los países en desarrollo ni en América Latina en particular. Este estudio empieza con una visión
general del contexto alrededor del tema, incluyendo una revisión de la literatura sobre el vínculo entre el
comercio y la pobreza, un análisis de la situación actual en América Latina orientado hacia la pobreza y la
desigualdad, las razones por las cuales es importante estudiar al SGP actualmente, la experiencia comercial y
de desarrollo de esta región, y los lazos generales entre la UE y América Latina. La segunda sección del texto
comienza con un repaso de la política comercial de la UE hacia los países en desarrollo, enfocado en el SGP.
A continuación se analiza como los países latinoamericanos han utilizado el SGP, con qué resultados y
obstáculos. Se complementa este tratamiento general con dos estudios de caso, Bolivia y Costa Rica, que
ilustran los problemas con mayor detalle. El capítulo final incluye conclusiones y recomendaciones de
política que deben tomarse en cuenta en el actual proceso de reforma del SGP.

Item Type:Working Paper or Technical Report
Additional Information:This working paper results from research carried out by the Association for Research and Study of Iberoamerican Issues/AIETI (www.aieti.es), under the direction of Christian Freres, former Research Director of AIETI, with funding provided by the European Community Poverty Reduction Effectiveness Programme/EC-PREP (http://www.ec-prep.org/ Project Nº. EP/R03/07), an initiative of the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID). The opinions expressed here do not reflect the official positions of EC-PREP, DFID, AIETI nor of ICEI; they are the sole responsibility of the authors. Christian Freres es Investigador Asociado en el Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, sigue colaborando con AIETI, y se desempeña como asesor en la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, y Andrew Mold es Asesor de la Comisión Económica de Naciones Unidas para África (Dar es Salaam, Etiopia) y co-editor de la revista European Journal of Development Research.
Uncontrolled Keywords:Reducing poverty in Latin America, Trade policy, EU’s Generalized System of Preference (GSP), EU trade policy
Subjects:Social sciences > Political science > International relations
Social sciences > Economics > Economic cooperation
Social sciences > Economics > Commerce
Series Name:Working Papers
Volume:UNSPECIFIED
Number:WP02-0
ID Code:10633
References:

ADE (2004). “Evaluation of Trade-Related Assistance by the European Commission in Third Countries”.Final Report, Vol. 1 (May). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (www.ade.be).

Apea, Y. (2004). “Recent WTO Dispute Settlement Cases: Some Considerations for the ACP”, TradeNegotiations Insights, Vol. 3, No 5 (September), pp. 4-5

Banniester, Geoffrey J. and Kamau Thugge (2001), "International Trade and Poverty Alleviation", IMF WorkingPaper WP/01/54

Bebbington, A. (1996). "Organizations and Intensifications: Campesino Federations, Rural Livelihoods andAgricultural Technology in the Andes and Amazonia." World Development 24(7): 1161-1177.

Berry, A. (1997). “The Income Distribution Threat in Latin America”, Latin American Research Review, Vol,32, Nº2, pp. 3-40.

Bhagwati, Jagdish (2002), “The poor’s best hope”, The Economist, 20th June 2002, electronic edition.

Bora, B., Cernat, L., and A. Turrini (2002). “Duty and Quota-Free Access for LDCs: Further Evidence fromCGE Modelling, UNCTAD Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series Nº 14.

Brenton, Paul and Miriam Manchin (2003), Making EU Trade Agreements Work: The Role of Rules ofOrigin", The World Economy, Volume 26 Issue 5, May, pp.755-769

Buitelaar, R. and R. Perez (2000), “Maquila, economic reofrm and corporate strategies”, World Development,28 (9), pp.1627-42

Bulmer Thomas, Victor (1998), “La Historia Económica de América Latina desde la Independencia”, Fondode Cultura Económica, México

Carter, Michael R. and Bradford L. Barham (1996), Level Playing Fields and Laissez Faire: PostliberalDevelopment Strategy in Ineqalitarian Agrarian Economies", World Development, Vol. 24, Nº 7, pp.1133-1149

Cline, W. (2003). Trade Policy and Global Poverty. Washington, DC, Institute of International Economics.Consejo Andino de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores (2004). “Comunicación al Alto Representante de laUnión Europea sobre la Vigencia del Sistema Generalizado de Preferencias para la Lucha contra las drogas.”New York, 22 September.

Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, and Julius Court (2001), Inequality, Growth and Poverty in the Era ofLiberalization and Globalization", UNU/WIDER, Geneva.

Cortés, F., Hernandez, D., Hernández, E., Székely, M. and H. Vera, 2002, “Evolución y caracterísicas de laPobreza en México en la Última Década del Siglo XX”, SEDESOL, Serie: documentos de investigación,México, agosto.

Deere, Carmen Diana and Magdalena Leon (2003), “The Gender Asset Gap: Land in Latin America”, WorldDevelopment Vol 31. Nº 6, pp.925-947.

Devlin, R., Estevadeordal, A. and E. Krivonos (2002). “The trade and Cooperation Nexus: How does theMercosur-EU Process Measure Up?” in P. Giordano, ed., An Integrated Approach to the European Union-Mercosur Association. (Paris, Chaire Mercosur de Science Po), pp. 79-117.

Dolan, C. J. Humprey and C. Harris-Pascal (1999), ‘Horticultural Commodity Chains: The impact of the UKMarket on the African Fresh Vegetable Industry”, Working Paper 96, IDS.

Dunkley, Graham (2004). Free Trade – Myth, Reality and Alternatives, Zed Books, London

DG Trade (2003), Press release: “Trade preferences: Commission proposes to roll over current EU regime fordeveloping countries”, Brussels, 29 October 2003.

EC-European Comisión (2000), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EuropeanParliament on the European Community’s Development Policy. Brussels (COM (2000) 212).

---- (2002) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Trade andDevelopment. Assisting Developing Countries to benefit from Trade. Brussels (COM (2002) 513).

---- (2003a) Council Regulation 815/2003 (8 May 2003).

---- (2003b), “Communication from the Commission to the Council, to the European Parliament and to theEconomic and Social Commitee: Reviving the DDA Negotiations – The EU Perspective”. Brussels, 26November 2003.

---- (2003c), "The EU's Relations with the Andean Community" on EU web site

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/andean/intro/index.htm#gsp).

----- (2003d), “Guidelines for European Commission Trade Related Assistance” Inter Service Task Force onTrade and Development May 2003, Version 1.0.

---- (2004a). La Unión Europea, América Latina y el Caribe. Una Asociación Estratégica. Brussels, May 2004.

----- (2004b). Doha Development Agenda. Making Trade work for All. Brussels, 2004.

Estado de la Nación (2002), Estado de la Nacion en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Pavas, Costa Rica

----- (2004c). The European Union’s Generalised System of Preferentes. Brussels, DG Trade, February.

----- (2004d). “Communication from the Commission the European Parliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Social Dimension of Globalization-The EU’s policy contribution on extending the benefits to all”. Brussels, May 2004.

----- (2004e). “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and theEuropean Economic and Social Committee: Developing Countries, international trade and sustainabledevelopment: the function of the Community’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for the ten-yearperiod from 2006 to 2015”. Brussels, Com (2004) 461 final.

----- (2004f). “Developing countries: facts and figures on the new EU scheme of trade preferences for 2006-2008.” Brussels, 20 October (memorandum:http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/global/gsp/memo201004_en.htm).

Ferranti, D., Perry, G., Ferreiro, F. and M. Walton (2003). Inequality in Latin America: Breaking withHistory? Washington, DC, World Bank.

Ganuza, E., Morley, S., Robinson, S., Pineiro, V. and R. Vos (2004). “¿Son buenas la promoción de exportacionesy la liberalización para los pobres en América Latina y el Caribe. Un Análisis micro-macro basado enmodelos computables de equilibrio general,” in E. Ganuza et al, Eds, ¿Quién se beneficia del libre comercio?Promoción de exportaciones en América Latina y el Caribe en los 90. Bogotá, Alfa-Omega Publishers(www.undp.org/rblac/finaldrafts).

Gilsen, I. and S. Grimm (2004). “EU trade partnerships with developing countries,” European DevelopmentCooperation to 2010, EDC Briefing (April).

Giordano, P. (2003), “Las Relaciones Unión Europea-América Latina en el Marco del Sistema ComercialMultilateral”, Información Comercial Española. April, Nº 806, pp.9-21

Gonzalez, J. (2003). Colombia dentro del Sistema Generalizado de Preferencias de la Unión Europea, Bogotá,ANDI (www.andi.com.co).

Grilli, E. (1993), The European Union and the Developing Countries, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Hernández, A. (2003). “Honduras y el SPG de la UE” briefing paper prepared for the project (mimeo).

Holland, M. (2002), The European Union and the Third World, Palgrave, New York.

ICSTD (2004a). “EU GSP Scheme under debate and review”, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, Vol 8, nº 2,21 January 2004 (www.ictsd.org/weekly/).(2004b). “WTO Appelate Body: Differentiation possible under Preference Schemes”, Bridges WeeklyTrade News Digest, Vol 8, nº 14, 22 April 2004 (www.ictsd.org/weekly/).

Inter-American Development Bank/IADB (2004). III EU-LAC Summit: Special Issue on Latin American andCaribbean Economic Relations with the European Union. Washington, DC, Integration, Trade andHemispheric Issues Division Periodic Note May 2004.

Jessop, D. (2004). “This week in Europe” (October 25). Brussels, Caribean Council.

Kaufman, D., M. Mastruzzi and D. Zavaleta, “Sustained Macroeconomic Reforms, Tepid Growth: AGovernance Puzzle in Bolivia”, paper presented at the Harvard CID/KSG Analytical Growth NarrativeConference (Draft).

Lister, Marjorie (1997), The European Union and the South, Routledge, London.

Loza T., Gabriel (2002), “El shock de precios de los productos básicos en Bolivia”, La Revista de la CEPAL,76, April, pp.179-197

Lustig, Nora (2001), “Life is not Easy: Mexico´s Quest for Stability and Growth”, Journal of EconomicPerspectives, Volume 15, Number 1, Winter, pp.86-106

Mattoo, Aaditya, Devesh Roy and Arvind Subramanian (2003), "The African Growth and Opportunity Actand its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?" The World Economy, Volume 26, Issue 6, June, pp.829-851.

McKay Andrew, L.Alan Winters and Abbi Mamo Kedir (2000), "A Review of Empirical Evidence on Trade,Trade Policy and Poverty", June, background document for the Second Development White Paper (DFID).

Medina-Smith, E. (2001). “Is the Export-led Hypothesis Valid for developing countries? A Case study ofCosta Rica”, UNCTAD Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series Nº 7.

Mold, A. (2003) “European Union trade policy and the poor. Towards improving the poverty impact of theGSP in Latin America”, Background paper for project. Madrid (mimeo).

Mold, A. and C. Rozo (2004- forthcoming), “Liberalization, growth and welfare. The ‘maquiliación’of theMexican Economy”, in K. Sharma and O. Morrissey, Eds., Growth and Poverty in Developing Countries.London, Routledge.

Nieto Solís, José Antonio (2002), "Exportación Andina Hacia la UE: Indices de Especialización Comercial yCuotas de Mercado", ICES-Información Comercial Española, October, Nº 802, pp.173-194.

Official Journal of the European Communities (2002) “Notice published pursuant to Article 12(4) ofCouncil Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariffpreferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004”, published on 25 September 2002.

Pacheco, N. (2003). “El Sistema Generalizado de Preferencias de la Unión Europea y Bolivia”, briefing paperfor this Project (mimeo).

Palma, G. (2003), “The Latin American Economies During the Second Half of the Twentieth Century – fromthe Age of ‘ISI’ to the Age of ‘The End of History’”, in Ha-Joon Chang (editor), “Rethinking DevelopmentEconomics”, Anthem Press, London

Rodríguez, R. (2003). “Paraguay: Comercio, Pobreza y Preferencias Arancelarias no recíprocas de la UE”,briefing paper for this Project (mimeo).

Salafranca, Ignacio (2001). Report on a global partnership and a common strategy for relations between theEuropean Union and Latin America. Towards comprehensive association and a common strategy forrelations between the European Union and Latin America. Brussels, European Parliament, Committee onForeign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (Report A5-0336/2001).

Sender, John (2003), “Rural Poverty and Gender: Analytical Frameworks and Policy Proposals”, in Ha-JoonChang (ed.), “Rethinking Development Economics”, Anthem Press, London.

SIECA-Secretaria de Integración Económica centroamericana (2002), “Grado de aprovechamiento delSistema generalizado de Preferencias Arancelarias SGP)”, Centroamérica, October 2002.

Stallings, B. and W. Peres, (2000), “Growth, Employment and Equity: The Impact of the Economic Reformsin Latin America and the Caribbean”, Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press and the United Nations

Economic Comisión for Latin America and the Caribbean.Stevens, C. and J. Kennan (2004a): “Making trade preferences more effective”, Sussex, Institute for Development Studies.

Deposited On:10 May 2010 12:11
Last Modified:06 Feb 2014 08:46

Repository Staff Only: item control page