Proposals for Future Trade Strategy

  • Advisory Group


Towards the end of World War II, many of the world’s most expert officials on commercial and monetary affairs, with many of the most highly qualified academics in the field, were engaged on a new and challenging exercise, the deliberate planning of institutional arrangements that would together constitute a viable framework for the re-establishment of a liberal international system of trade and payments. The Bretton Woods negotiations, as they were called, after the location of the exercise in the United States, produced two institutions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established as a means of improving the system of payments and currencies. In order to augment the flow of capital from rich to poor countries, there was also established the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), otherwise known as the World Bank Almost concurrently, negotiations in Geneva produced, in place of the originally intended International Trade Organisation, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as an instrument for pursuing the liberalisation of world trade.1


Capital Movement International Monetary System Market Disruption Multilateral Trade Negotiation European Free Trade Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For authoritative accounts of the development of the post-war system of international trade and payments, see Richard N. Gardner, Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy: Anglo-American Collaboration in the Reconstruction of Multilateral Trade (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956)Google Scholar
  2. and Gerard Curzon, Multilateral Commercial Diplomacy (London: Michael Joseph, 1965).Google Scholar
  3. Also see Karin Koch, International Trade Policy and the GATT 1947–67 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1969) andGoogle Scholar
  4. Kenneth W. Dam, The GATT Law and International Economic Organisation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    The results of the Kennedy Round negotiations are analysed in Ernest Preeg, Traders and Diplomats (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1970).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    For an American critique of the United States Administration’s measures of August is, 1971, see C. Fred Bergsten, “The New Economics and U.S. Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs New York, January, 1972. Also see Dr. Bergsten’s article, “Crisis in U.S. Trade Policy”, in the July, 1971, issue of the same journal.Google Scholar
  7. A statement of the Administration’s position can be found in Peter G. Peterson, A Foreign Economic Perspective (Washington: Council on International Economic Policy, Executive Office of the President, 1971).Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Cf. Theodore Geiger, “Toward a World of Trade Blocks”, The Atlantic Community Quarterly Washington, Winter, 1971–72. The analysis is elaborated upon inGoogle Scholar
  9. Geiger, Transatlantic Relations in the Prospect of an Enlarged European Community (London, Washington and Montreal: British-North American Committee, 1971).Google Scholar
  10. See, for instance, the work of the International Chamber of Commerce, based on a report by Jean Royer, The Liberalisation of International Trade during the Next Decade (Paris: International Chamber of Commerce, 1969).Google Scholar
  11. Among the most notable reports in the United States have been the Presidential Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy, United States International Economic Policy in an Interdependent World, Williams Report (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971);Google Scholar
  12. US Foreign Economic Policy for the 1970s: a New Approach to New Realities a Policy Report by an Advisory Committee (Washington: National Planning Association); and The United States and the European Community: Policies for a Changing World (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1971).Google Scholar
  13. Also see the report of a conference of economists jointly sponsored by the Institut de la Communauté Européene pour les Etudes Universitaires, Brussels, the Japan Economic Research Centre and the Brookings Institution that was published as Bergsten et al., Reshaping the International Economic Order (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1971).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    For a fuller discussion, if in general terms, of how non-tariff barriers to trade might be broached in a multilateral negotiation, see Chapter 6 below. An economic analysis of certain of the principal non-tariff measures can be found in Brian Hindley, Britain’s Position on Nontariff Protection Thames Essay No. 4 (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, 1972).Google Scholar
  15. In addition, see Robert E. Baldwin, Non-tariff Distortions of International Trade (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1971).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Some interesting proposals on how adherence to rules of competition might be secured are contained in Gerard and Victoria Curzon, Global Assault on Non-tariff Trade Barriers Thames Essay No. 3 (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, 1972), pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  17. With this objective in mind, emphasis is put on the role that might be played by regional development policies in the European Community, to provide off-farm employment in rural areas, in all the three contributions to Hermann Priebe, Denis Bergmann and Jan Honing, Fields of Conflict in European Farm Policy Agricultural Trade Paper No. 3 (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, 1972). Increasing emphasis is also being put on “rural development” policies in the United States: seeGoogle Scholar
  18. Don Paarlberg, “Farm Programmes: the American Experience”, an Address to the Trade Policy Research Centre, London, February 28, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    This is demonstrated statistically in a major income-distribution analysis of farm-support programmes in the United Kingdom in T. E. Josling and Donna Hamway, “Distribution of Costs and Benefits of Farm Policy”, in Josling et al., Burdens and Benefits of Farm-Support Policies, Agricultural Trade Paper No. 1 (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, 1972), pp. 50–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Trade Policy Research Centre 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Advisory Group

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations