South–South Cooperation and IBSA: More Trade in Politics
-
Adriana Schor
Abstract
There is a consensus in the literature that India–Brazil–South Africa (IBSA) Forum is not about trade. The main argument is that the three economies do not have enough complementarities to foster trade and that their cooperation in trade issues is undermined by competition for developed countries’ markets access. This report shows that this argument does not hold. Not only there are potential gains from trade among India, Brazil and South Africa, but also their exports are not sufficient similar to affirm that they are essentially rivals concerning market access. Moreover, it discusses the potential political gains that an increased trade among IBSA members can bring about. More trade can increase cooperation in multilateral negotiations and helps to sustain the coalition of developing countries.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Janina Onuki and Felipe Loureiro for their helpful suggestions and Fapesp for the generous funding. This paper was written when the author was a visiting research fellow at GIGA-Hamburg.
References
Alden, C., and M. A.Vieira. 2005. “The New Diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil, India and Trilateralism.” Third World Quarterly26(7):1077–95.10.1080/01436590500235678Suche in Google Scholar
Areias, A. C. 2010. Os Limites da Cooperação: O Brasil e o G-20 nas negociações agrícolas da Organização Mundial de Comércio. Dissertação de Mestrado em Relações Internacionais, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Suche in Google Scholar
Baier, S. L., and J. H.Bergstrand. 2001. “The Growth of World Trade: Tariffs, Transport Costs, and Income Similarity.” Journal of International Economics53(1):1–27.10.1016/S0022-1996(00)00060-XSuche in Google Scholar
Brulhart, M. 2008. “An Account of Global Intraindustry Trade, 1962–2006”. Background Paper, World Development Report 2009, UNCTAD.Suche in Google Scholar
Celli, U., M.Salles, D.Tussie, and J.Peixoto. 2010. “Mercosur in South-South Agreements: In the Middle of Two Models of Regionalism.” UNCTAD Virtual Institute.Suche in Google Scholar
De, P. 2005. “Trade in IBSA Economic Cooperation: The Role of Transportation Linkages.” RIS Discussion Papers.Suche in Google Scholar
Dupas, G.2006. “South Africa, Brazil and India: Divergence, Convergence and Alliance Perspectives”. In India, Brazil and South Africa: Perspectives and Alliances, edited by FábioVillares. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.Suche in Google Scholar
Flemes, D. 2007. “Emerging Middle Powers’ Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspectives of the IBSA Dialogue Forum.” GIGA Working Paper.10.2139/ssrn.1007692Suche in Google Scholar
Flemes, D. 2009. “India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) in the New Global Order: Interests, Strategies and Values of the Emerging Coalition.” International Studies46(4):401–21.10.1177/002088171004600402Suche in Google Scholar
Higgot, R., and A.Cooper. 1990. “Middle Power Leadership and Coalition Building: Australia, the Cairns Group and the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations.” International Organization44(4):589–632.10.1017/S0020818300035414Suche in Google Scholar
Hurrell, A., and A.Narlikar. 2005. “A New Politics of Confrontation? Developing Countries at Cancun and Beyond.” Mimeograph.Suche in Google Scholar
Jonsson, G., and A.Subramanian. 2001. “Dynamic Gains from Trade: Evidence from South Africa.” IMF Staff Paper48(1):197–224.Suche in Google Scholar
Kahler, M., and J.Oddell. 1989. “Developing Country Coalition-Building and International Trade Negotiations.” In Developing Countries and the Global Trading System, edited by JohnWhalley. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-20417-5_8Suche in Google Scholar
Krajewski, M.2000. “From Green Room to Glass Room: Participation of Developing Countries and Internal Transparency in the WTO Decision Making Process”. A TradeWatch Paper.Suche in Google Scholar
Krishna, P., and D.Mitra. 1998. “Trade Liberalization, Market Discipline and Productivity Growth: New Evidence from India.” Journal of Development Economics56(2):447–62.10.1016/S0304-3878(98)00074-1Suche in Google Scholar
Krugman, P., and M.Obstfeld. 2010. Economia Internacional. São Paulo: Prentice-Hall.Suche in Google Scholar
Kume, H., G.Piani, and P.Miranda. 2005. “Índia-Mercosul: Perspectivas De Um Acordo De Preferências Comerciais.” Texto de discussão no. 1120, IPEA.Suche in Google Scholar
de Lima, M. R. S. 2005. “A Política Externa Brasileira e os Desafios da Cooperação Sul-Sul.” Revista Brasileira De Política Internacional48(1):24–59.10.1590/S0034-73292005000100002Suche in Google Scholar
Lima, M. 2010. “Brasil e Polos Emergentes do Poder Mundial: Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul.” In O Brasil e os Demais BRICS: Comércio e Política, edited by R.Baumann. CEPAL, Escritório do Brasil/IPEA.Suche in Google Scholar
Mancuso, W. P. 2007. “O Empresariado Como Ator Político no Brasil: Balanço da Literatura e Agenda de Pesquisa.” Revista de Sociologia E Política28:131–46.10.1590/S0104-44782007000100009Suche in Google Scholar
Mancuso, W. P., and A. J.de Oliveira. 2006. “Abertura Econômica e Ação Coletiva do Empresariado no Brasil.” Lua Nova Revista de Cultura e Política69:147–72.10.1590/S0102-64452006000400007Suche in Google Scholar
Mikic, M., and J.Gilbert. 2009. Trade Statistics in Policy Making: A Handbook of Commonly Used Trade Indices and Indicators. New York: United Nations.Suche in Google Scholar
Narlikar, A. 2003. International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the GATT & WTO. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203633946Suche in Google Scholar
Narlikar, A., and D.Tussie. 2004. “The G20 at the Cancun Ministerial: Developing Countries and Their Evolving Coalitions in the WTO.” World Economy27(7):947–66.10.1111/j.1467-9701.2004.00636.xSuche in Google Scholar
Odell, J., and A.Ortiz Mena. 2004. “How to Negotiate Over Trade: A Summary of New Research for Developing Countries.” University of Southern California.10.2139/ssrn.1803489Suche in Google Scholar
Oliveira, A., J.Onuki, and E. N.Oliveira. 2006. “Coalizões Sul-Sul e Multilateralismo: Índia, Brasil e África do Sul.” Contexto Internacional28(2):465–504.10.1590/S0102-85292006000200004Suche in Google Scholar
Onuki, J., and A.Oliveira. 2012. “New Role of Brazil in the Global Governance.” Paper presented at 2012 ISA World Forum.Suche in Google Scholar
Quereshi, A. H. 2003. “Participation of Developing Countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement System.” Journal of African Law47(2):174–98.10.1017/S0021855303002080Suche in Google Scholar
Schor, A. 2004. “Heterogeneous Productivity Response to Tariff Reduction. Evidence from Brazilian Manufacturing Firms.” Journal of Development Economics75:373–96.Suche in Google Scholar
Tussie, D. 1987. The Less Developed Countries and the World Trading System: A Challenge to the GATT. London: Frances Pinter.Suche in Google Scholar
Valls Pereira, L. 2006. “Os Acordos Comerciais Sul-Sul Firmados Pelo Mercosul: Uma Avaliação Sob a Ótica Brasileira.” Revista Brasileira de Comércio Exterior86:2–11.Suche in Google Scholar
Vieira, M., and C.Alden. 2011. “India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA): South-South Cooperation and the Paradox of Regional Leadership.” Global Governance17:507–28.10.1163/19426720-01704007Suche in Google Scholar
- 1
Brasília declaration on June 6, 2003, available at http://www.itamaraty.gov.br. The IBSA Forum is also known as G-3 and holds the main purpose of consolidating an strategic partnership between developing countries with three main common interests: the commitment with democratic institutions and values, an effort to relate the struggle against poverty with development policies, and the conviction that multilateral institutions must be strengthened in contexts of economic and political instabilities and in issues concerning security.
- 2
Mercosur’s trade system (Nomenclatura Comum do Mercosur).
- 3
The Grubel–Lloyd index is calculated for each sector using import data (M) and export data (X): GL = 1–[|XM|/(X + M)]. When trade in this sector is predominantly intra-industry, trade volume (X + M) is high, but the trade balance (X– M) is small, since there are imports and exports within the same sector. Thus, GL tends to one. When trade in this sector is predominantly inter-industry, the trade balance and trade volume tend to be equal. In this case, GL tends to zero. In order for us to obtain an aggregate index for the countries, we calculated the sectorial indices for each of the four-digit sectors and used a weighted average of the trade weight of each sector in international trade, as suggested by Mikic and Gilbert (2009).
- 4
This index is calculated by adding (among all sectors) the minimum percentage value of each sector in the total exports of each country involved (in our case, always in pairs), as suggested by Mikic and Gilbert (2009).
- 5
Survey “Brazil, Americas and the World”. IRI/USP. Available online at http://www.lasamericasyelmundo.cide.edu
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Article
- The Global Economic Imbalances: The Dangers of Not Rebalancing
- Commentary
- The Imprint of the global
- Documentation
- South–South Cooperation and IBSA: More Trade in Politics
- Book Reviews
- Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy. From 1453 to the Present, by Brendan Simms
- The Power of Currencies and Currencies of Power, edited by Alan Wheatley
- History and Hope: The International Humanitarian Reader, edited by Kevin M. Cahill
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Article
- The Global Economic Imbalances: The Dangers of Not Rebalancing
- Commentary
- The Imprint of the global
- Documentation
- South–South Cooperation and IBSA: More Trade in Politics
- Book Reviews
- Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy. From 1453 to the Present, by Brendan Simms
- The Power of Currencies and Currencies of Power, edited by Alan Wheatley
- History and Hope: The International Humanitarian Reader, edited by Kevin M. Cahill
