International Trade Problems and India: A Case Study

Authors

  • Dr. R. Ramachandran Assistant Professor in Commerce, DDE, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26703/jct.v6i2.332

Keywords:

International Trade, India, Exports, Imports

Abstract

The liberalisation of international trade in services will put them at an even greater disadvantage in terms of their government’s sovereignty and of developing their domestic service industries. However, just as there are vastly different levels of development among Third World countries, especially in India there are also differing views on the costs and the magnitude of these costs of freeing-up the trade in services. For instance, India had led a number of developing countries in opposing the inclusion of discussions on the trade in services in the Uruguay Round. Broadly speaking, both developed and developing countries benefit from a liberalisation of trade in services in terms of efficiency and competitiveness. The industrial countries would accrue large trade benefits from more liberal trade in services, since services constitute a large portion of their total exports. The paper emphasises on modern international trade, began with the industrial revolution and the decline of mercantilism. As the industrialised nations, became richer due to their control over manufacturing commodities and trade, they began demanding and producing more sophisticated and expensive products. They found that the only feasible sources of the goods they wanted were from other countries, and were also the only countries rich enough to buy the new manufactured goods they were producing. Thus, India has had a major challenge in the changing composition of imports and exports when effects of independent India’s economic polices started becoming clear.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Abreu, M.D. 1996. “Trade in Manufactures: the Outcome of the Uruguay Round”, in W. Martin and L.A. Winters (eds) The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.59-88.

Anderson, K.1998. “Domestic Agricultural Policy Objectives and Trade Liberalization: Synergies and Trade-offs”, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. COM/AGR/CA/TD/WS (98)101.

Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, L.L. Perez and W.S. Tseng, ‘Trade Policy Developments in Industrial countries’, IMF Occasional paper No.5 Washington, DC 2000.

Ashish Aggarwal, ‘GATT and the Developing Countries’, Mohit Publications, New Delhi, 1994.

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2000. Asian Development Outlook 2000., New York: Oxford University Press.

Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC). 2000 Twelfth APEC Meeting, Brunei Darussalam, 12-13 November.

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (ADFAT). 1999. Global Trade Reform: Maintaining Momentum, Camberra.

Baldwin, R.E. 1970. Non-tariff Distortions of International Trade, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Baldwin, R.E. and A.J. Venables. 1995. “Regional Economic Integration”, in G. Grossman and K. Rogoff (eds) Handbook of International Economis, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp.1597-643.

Barro, R. 1998. “Recent Developments in Growth Theory and Empirics”, Cambridge MA: Harvard University, Mimeo.

B.Balassa, ‘Exports and Economic Growth: Further Evidence’, Journal of Development Economics, 5(1999) pp.181-9.

B. Balassa, The Newly Industrializing Developing Countries and the World Economy, New York: Pergamom, 2002

Ben-David, D., H. Nordstrom and L.A. Winters. 1999. Trade Income Disparities and Poverty, Geneva: World Trade Organization, Special Studies No.5.

Ben-David, D. and M.B. Loewy.2000. “Knowledge Dissemination, Capital Accumulation, Trade and Endogenous Growth”, Oxford Economic Papers, 33(2), pp.433-58.

Bergsten, C.F. 1996. “Competitive Liberalization and Global Trade”, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics. APEC Working Paper No.96-15. Available at http://www.iie.com/CATALOG/WP/1996/9615. htm

Cline, W.R. 1997. Trade and Income Distribution, Washington DC: Institute for International Economies.

Coppel, J. and M. Durand.1999. “Tends in Market Openness”, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Economic Department Working Paper No.221. August.

Dilip K.Das, Global Trading System at the crossroads – A Post-Seattle Perspective, London, 2001.

Either, W.J. 1998. “The International Commercial System”, Princeton NJ: International Finance Section, Princeton University. Essays in International Finance No.210. September.

Fernandez, R. and J.Ports. 1998. “Returns to Regionalism: An Analysis of Non-traditional Gains from Regional Trade Ageement”, World Bank Economic Review, 12(2), pp.197-220.

Mann, C.L. 2000. “Electronic Commerce in Developing Countries”, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics. Working Paper No.3. March.

McDougall, R. 1998. Global Trade: Assistance and Protection: GTAP-4 Database, West Lafayette IN: Purdue University.

McKibbin, W.J. 1997. “Global Consequences of Financial Market Liberalization”, paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Region, Sydney, 29-31 August.

Panagariya, A.2000. “The Millennium Round and Developing Countries: Negotiating Strategies and Areas of Benefit”, Cambridge MA: Centre for International Development, Harvard University.

Whalley, J. 1996. “Developing Countries and System Strengthening in the Uruguay Round”, in W. Martin and L.A. Winters (eds) The Uruguay Round and the Developing Counties, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.409-35.

Will Martin, Developing Countries and the WTO – A Pro active agenda, Blackwell Publishing, USA, 2003.

World Development Report 1999/2000 (WDR).2000. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.

World Economic Outlook 2000 (WEO). 2000. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. May.

Additional Files

Published

01-11-2011

How to Cite

Ramachandran, R. (2011). International Trade Problems and India: A Case Study. Journal of Commerce and Trade, 6(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.26703/jct.v6i2.332

Issue

Section

Research Paper