the WB estimated that a full opening of ag. markets would have a net global benefit of 182 billion $ by 2015.
If that is indeed the figure calculated by the World Bank (WB?), 182bn$ for the entire world over a decade seems marginal, almost negligible.
Can you confirm the number?
Abolition of tariffs, subsidies and domestic support programs would boost global welfare by nearly $300 billion per year by 2015, says a new World Bank research study, Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda.
The study referred to in Le Monde is from May 2005; this is a new one (November 2005).
No, I haven't read it. But here's an idea: what if the WB thought the May study was wimpish with only $18.2bn gains a year, and that world opinion might legitimately ask what all the fuss was about for so little gain? And what if the November study (with new, improved $300bn a year!!!) came out just in time to bolster the free trade case at the Hong Kong talks?
(Of course, this is just idle snark, because the World Bank is an extremely serious etc etc...)
The political agenda on the trade talks is obvious. Also obvious will be France's role as the scape goat for failure.
Tony Blair said that he would "do anything" to make the round succeed. Why isn't he then giving the silly French their stupid 2 billion euros if that's all that blocks a 300 billion per year windfall? They can then be blamed for being cheap while he is statesmanlike. Win-win... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
In fact I think (like you) there's a lot of grandstanding going on. That includes Bush's offer, which I haven't seen much examination of (for the moment, in the real world, his record is of increasing US farm subsidies), and Bliar's attitude too. No one really believes the Doha Round will introduce global agricultural free trade. The question is what political capital can be made out of the following blame game., that's all.
They also mention 0.4% of world GDP as a gain; which fits with 180b$, but would imply that it is indeed a yearly figure - and thus we get to be in the same ballpark for what can only be a very rough estimate. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
How about contributing the 0.4% gain towards the goal of 0.7% in development aid? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Ploughing the gain into development aid: you'd need to persuade the Cairns Group nations to cough up, because they would be the ones in fact making the extra money.
