In this article, the author argues that regional integration and regional agricultural markets are particularly important for African agriculture, since national markets and institutions are too small to bring about the needed transformation of African agriculture. Great opportunities exist, with Africa having 60% of the world's total amount of uncultivated arable land and therefore an immense potential for agricultural productivity growth. However, the author believes more attention should be dedicated to increase the productivity of small-scale farmers, who contribute around 90% of Africa's agricultural production but remain largely locked out of trade dynamics. Regional integration and agriculture development, and in particular intra-African agricultural trade, offer a great potential for food security and pro-poor growth in Africa, if they can work in synergy, especially at the regional level. Various independent processes are under way to promote agricultural development and encourage regional trade in Africa, such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the development of trade corridors. However, weak communication across the agriculture and trade sectors/communities and the parallel - and at times competing - policy frameworks hamper the creation of much needed synergies.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
This paper points to the failure of the ‘post-Washington Consensus’ in the 1990s to reduce poverty, due to macroeconomic policies that promoted fixed investment, neglect of productivity growth and employment creation, a focus on price stabilisation, the absence of accelerated structural change and insufficient capital accumulation. Consequently, the development gap has widened over the past 20 years in South America and Africa. In most developing countries there is a pressing need to increase public sector provision of essential social services, especially those concerned with nutrition, sanitation, health and education. This is important not only for the obvious direct effects in terms of improved material and social conditions, the paper notes, but also for macroeconomic reasons. The public provision of such services tends to be labour intensive, and therefore also has considerable direct effects on employment. Government revenues from the extractive industries could be used not only for public investments in infrastructure, health and education, but also for the provision of fiscal incentives and improved public services under industrial policies aimed at diversification of economic activities. This would reduce countries’ dependence on natural resources. Growth in the modern sector is associated with higher private and public investment in fixed capital as well as greater government spending for the provision of education and health services and social protection.
Health is not mentioned much in this report, with its focus on trade and development, but a few links are made. The report argues that, in developing countries, as in developed countries, the ability to achieve sustained growth of income and employment on the basis of productivity growth depends critically on how the resulting gains are distributed within the economy, how much additional wage income is spent for the consumption of domestically produced goods and services, and whether higher profits are used for investment in activities that simultaneously create more employment, including in some service sectors, such as the delivery of health and education. In most developing countries there is a pressing need to increase public sector provision of essential social services, especially those concerned with nutrition, sanitation, health and education, according to the report. This is important not only for the obvious direct effects in terms of improved material and social conditions, but also for macroeconomic reasons. The public provision of such services tends to be labour-intensive, and therefore also has considerable direct effects on employment.
It has long been contested that trade rules and agreements are used to dispute regulations aimed at preventing noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Yet most analyses of trade rules and agreements focus on trade disputes, potentially overlooking how a challenge to a regulation’s consistency with trade rules may lead to ‘policy or regulatory chill’ effects, whereby countries delay, alter, or repeal regulations in order to avoid the costs of a dispute. Systematic empirical analysis of this pathway to impact was previously prevented by a dearth of systematically coded data. In this paper, the authors report analysis of a newly created dataset of trade challenges about food, beverage, and tobacco regulations among 122 World Trade Organization (WTO) members from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2016. The scope and frequency of trade challenges are thematically described, and economic asymmetries between countries are analysed, raising and defending them, and summarised through four cases of their possible influence. Between 1995 and 2016, 93 food, beverage, and tobacco regulations were challenged at the WTO. ‘Unnecessary’ trade costs were the focus of 16.4% of the challenges. Only one (1.1%) challenge remained unresolved and escalated to a trade dispute. Thirty-nine (41.9%) challenges focussed on labelling regulations, and 18 (19.4%) focussed on quality standards and restrictions on certain products like processed meats and cigarette flavourings. High-income countries raised 77.4% of all challenges raised against low- and lower-middle–income countries. The authors further identified four cases in Indonesia, Chile, Colombia, and Saudi Arabia in which challenges were associated with changes to food and beverage regulations. Data limitations precluded a comprehensive evaluation of policy impact and challenge validity. The authors observe that policy makers appear to face significant pressure to design food, beverage, and tobacco regulations that other countries will deem consistent with trade rules. They note that trade-related influence on public health policy is likely to be understated by analyses limited to formal trade disputes.
Participants at an official high-level thematic debate on trade at the United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries, held in Istanbul, Turkey, in May 2011, criticised excessive trade liberalisation as damaging to the economies of least-developed countries (LDCs). President Banda of Zambia, who gave a keynote speech, also criticised the lack of a positive response from the European Union to African demands in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations. Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Centre, noted that many LDCs have higher ratios of exports to gross national product than some developed countries. He argued it is the way in which the LDCs are integrated in trade that has been a disadvantage because LDCs are too dependent on raw materials export, and prices of commodities have had a long-term trend decline, thus causing major revenue and income losses. All speakers agreed that LDCs face the basic problem of supply capacity which hinders them from taking advantage of any market opening and that their exports outside of commodities therefore remain small. Khor emphasised that it is thus vital that LDCs be assisted to increase their capacity to produce in agriculture, industry and services, including health services.
The intensity of trade among countries belonging to the same region depends not only on the existence and effectiveness of a regional integration agreement, but also on other factors, which include the overall trade policy orientation and the relative level of geo-graphic and economic barriers affecting intra- and extra-regional trade. The paper presents a set of indicators aimed at measuring the intensity of bi-lateral trade preferences. These indicators suggest that most African countries trade more intensely with coumtries in the same region than with the rest of the world.
Trade has long been an axiomatic characteristic of globalization, although international rules governing trade are of more recent vintage. In the post-World War II period, an increasing number of countries began negotiating treaties to reduce, first, tariff barriers and, later, non-tariff barriers (government measures of any sort) that could impede the cross-border flow of goods. The rationale, in part, was that countries that became more entwined economically would be less likely to go to war with each other. It wouldn’t be in their own economic interests to do so, or at least that of the firms based within their borders but engaged in transnational trade and dependent upon global supply chains. At first primarily an undertaking in high-income countries, low and middle-income countries slowly enjoined in what, in 1995, became the World Trade Organization. The WTO locked in scheduled declines in tariffs (border taxes), albeit with lesser obligations on low income country members. Importantly, a slew of new agreements that coincided with the establishment of the WTO also sought to liberalize trade in services and not just goods in the General Agreement on Trade in Services, with new rules for agricultural trade, expanded intellectual property rights protections and other agreements ensuring that government food, health, or environmental regulations would not pose an unnecessary barrier to trade. Outside of the WTO system, bilateral or regional investment treaties grant special rights to foreign investors to sue governments for actions perceived to affect the value of their investment similarly exploded in number, dispute frequency, and the size of monetary claims. The breadth and depth of these post-1995 Agreements meant that few areas of general public health concern are potentially untouched. Given mounting evidence that trade and investment liberalization was creating and globally diffusing new health risks, public health researchers began focusing on the specific measures in trade and investment treaties that created such risks, primarily but not exclusively through constraining the ‘policy space’ for new public health regulations. Globalization processes affect health through multiple pathways and not simply through those more directly linked via changes in health systems. This issue explores the methods and issues that this poses for research on globalisation and health.
From a mere US$2 billion in 1999, annual Sino-African trade has now reached $160 billion, making China a leading trade partner for Africa. China’s economic cooperation with Africa is also fuelled by investments and aid. In this report, CCS argues that Africa needs to include transparency, governance and public service delivery are included in the agenda for the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), which was set up in 2000 to formalise bilateral engagement between China and Africa.
The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) set global minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property, substantially increasing and expanding intellectual-property rights, and generated clear gains for the pharmaceutical industry and the developed world. The question of whether TRIPS generated gains for developing countries, in the form of increased exports, is addressed in this paper. The authors consider the importance of pharmaceuticals in health-care trade, outlining the essential requirements, implications, and issues related to TRIPS, and TRIPS-plus, in which increased restrictions are imposed as part of bilateral free-trade agreements. TRIPS has not generated substantial gains for developing countries, but has further increased pharmaceutical trade in developed countries. The unequal trade between developed and developing countries (ie, exporting and importing high-value patented drugs, respectively) raises the issue of access to medicines, which is exacerbated by TRIPS-plus provisions, although many countries have not even enacted provision for TRIPS flexibilities. The paper focuses on options that are available to the health community to advance negotiations to their advantage under TRIPS, and within the presence of TRIPS-plus.
This report provides impact assessments for the current round of world trade talks and the new wave of bilateral European Union trade deals. It shows how past trade liberalisations caused huge job losses in both Africa and Latin America, which continue to stifle hopes for sustainable development. Nevertheless, some politicians are still calling for the swift conclusion of the Doha round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, although millions of jobs are at risk. The paper considers that free trade is no answer to the current economic crisis and rather undermines the possibility of decent work and of achieving sustainable development. It calls on states to retain the policy space and tools of control in order to govern markets, manage international trade and provide decent work for all. A new economic model should be made to prioritise the economic, social, political and health rights of people over the profits of transnational capital.