Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the case for graduation

  • Articles
  • Foreign Trade
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

The goal of phasing out, and ultimately eliminating, the differential treatment in trade presently accorded to developing countries was incorporated into the GATT during the Tokyo Round. What are the arguments in favour of this process of “graduation” and what would be its disadvantages? Which criteria should be applied to the selection of countries for graduation?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. GATT: The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Geneva, April 1979, p. 9.

  2. GATT, op. cit., The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Geneva, April 1979, p. 149.

  3. For an extensive treatment, see I. Frank: The “Graduation” Issue for LDCs, in: Journal of World Trade Law, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1979, pp. 289–302.

  4. For a precise description, see e.g. T. Murray: Trade Preferences for Developing Countries, London 1977; A. Weston, V. Cable, A. Hewitt: The EEC's Generalised System of Preferences, ODI, 1980; or A. Borrmann, C. Borrmann, M. Stegger: Das Allgemeine Zollpräferenzsystem der EG, Hamburg 1979.

  5. See e.g. T. Murray: How Helpful is the Generalized System of Preferences to Developing Countries? in: Economic Journal, Vol. 83, 1973, pp. 449–455.

  6. UNCTAD TD/B/C.5/66, 20 February 1980 (prepared by T. Murray): Evaluation of the Trade Benefits under the United States Scheme of Generalized Preferences.

  7. A. Sapir: Trade Benefits under the EEC Generalized System of Preferences, in: European Economic Review, Vol. 25, 1981, pp. 339–355.

  8. A. Sapir, op. cit. Trade Benefits under the EEC Generalized System of Preferences, in: European Economic Review, Vol. 25, 1981, p. 352.

  9. A. Borrmann, C. Borrmann, M. Stegger: The Impact of the GSP on Imports, in: INTERECONOMICS, No. 5, 1979, p. 224.

  10. R. E. Baldwin, T. Murray: MFN Tariff Reduction and Developing Country Trade Benefits under the GSP, in: The Economic Journal, Vol. 87, March 1977, pp. 33–46.

  11. This is partly recognized in a recent OECD study: Development Cooperation, 1982 Review, OECD, Paris 1982, Ch. 12, dealing with “new” NICs.

  12. See for a general discussion e.g. OECD, op. cit. Development Cooperation, 1982 Review, OECD, Paris 1982, Ch. 12, dealing with “new” NICs. or an older study by the OECD: The impact of the Newly Industrializing Countries on Production and Trade in Manufactures, OECD, Paris 1979.

  13. According to the “Economisch Dagblad”, April 6th, 1983, p. 9, William Brock, US trade representative, has stated that goods worth 2.6 billion dollars have been taken out of the GSP of the US.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam

    K. A. Koekkoek

Authors
  1. K. A. Koekkoek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koekkoek, K.A. On the case for graduation. Intereconomics 18, 225–229 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928222

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928222

Keywords

Search

Navigation