Photograph one of the IGTN participation at the WTO Public Forum in 2006.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, TRADE INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSES AND NATIONAL POLICY-MAKING

Two blocks of official discourses can be identified. The three sisters, the WB, the IMF and the WTO, on one side. The discourse and instruments proposed by the United Nations and its specialized agencies, on the other. The first block working mostly on macro-economic and trade principles, while the second addressing mostly political and social policy issues. A few major institutional differences are to be underlined. The WB and the IMF are lenders. This means that they have a much stronger bargaining power vis-à-vis countries that demand a loan. In the area of trade, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) provides its Members the opportunity to launch a complaint to be compensated for commercial losses resulting from non-compliance of WTO Agreements by another Member. This enforcement mechanism represents a major constraint with regard to trade commitments taken by WTO Members.  The UN system’s enforcement bodies are weak and have no compelling power on its Members. The UN is therefore confined to the so-called declaratory diplomacy.  As a result, its action in response to the WB, the IMF (part of the UN system) and the WTO (not part of the UN) remains fragile. A typical example relates to the WB conditionality of SAPs for its loans. The hunger revolts of the 1980s resulting from the implementation of SAPs have brought developing countries to define that period as the lost decade. At that time the ILO proposed, wherever possible, safety nets, without having any power to question the implementation of SAPs as a political idea of development.