Trade Negotiations in World Trade Organization: The Indian perspective

Written By: Saket Ambarkhane Dated: January 12, 2008

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Trade profile of India 3. Policy position in Doha round 4. Singapore Issues 5. International Economic Diplomacy theory 6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography

Introduction
The Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations which culminated in the establishment of World Trade Organization (WTO) brought about fundamental changes in the multilateral trading system. Many countries made significant compromises to create the new system, India being one of them. From its inception, India has been an active member in WTO negotiations. The rapid growth in its economy since the 1990s and subsequent growth in its clout at regional level has given it the extra impetus to ward off any agreement or policy position from the developed world that will lead to a downward spiral in its overall growth pattern. Moreover, it has now acquired leadership role to negotiate pressing concerns of the developing world. India is a part of various small working groups of WTO such as G20, G4, G6, and G110 amongst others. In each of these groupings, India has been at the forefront of policy position formation and consolidated a strong attack against the protectionist advances of the developed world. The following essay analyses the trade profile of India and lists out its key concerns on the trade negotiations in WTO.

Trade profile of India

1. General According to the World Bank (June 2007), India is classified as a developing economy and low income country. As per WTO (2007), Indias population, till 2006, was 1109.8 million with an area of 5.1 million square kilometers. It has been a GATT and WTO member since inception in 1948 and 1995 respectively. 2. Economy India's economic performance has been impressive (WTO, 2007), averaging over 7% between 2001/02 and 2006/07. Growth has been particularly rapid since 2003/04, averaging over 8.5%, with over nine % expected for 2006/07. Indias Gross National Income (GNI) per capita is $ 820 whereas its trade per capita is $ 321. It is categorized as the fourth largest economy after the US, China and Japan by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) (2007). Indias share in world GDP (PPP) has increased from 4.3% in 1991 to almost 6 % in 2005. With a trade value of $120.3 billion (WTO, 2007) and a trade share of 1.43 % (World Bank, 2007), India is rated as the 28th largest trader in the world for merchandised goods and services. Its current GDP is $906.3 million and its current account balance, as of 2003, was $ 6853 million (2007). 3. Key Sectors Agriculture sector in India employs around 60% of the working population, but its contribution to GDP continues to decline from 23 % in 2000/01 to 18% 2005/06,

suggesting that labour productivity is only around one-sixth of its level in the rest of the economy (WTO, 2007). Services have been the main engine of growth in recent years. Average annual growth over the last four years has been 9.8%, largely due to greater progress in reform, especially for certain services. Between 2002/03 and 2006/07, it contributed 68.6% of the overall average growth in GDP. In 2005/06, manufacturing accounted for 16% of GDP as growth in the sector has been rapid, on average almost seven % per year since 2000/01. This can be attributed, in part, to continued structural reforms and a relaxation in licensing and FDI restrictions (2007). The textile and clothing sector contributes about 14% to the industrial production of the country. The sector is the second largest provider of employment after agriculture, employing close to 85 million people; 35 million directly in textiles and 50 million in allied activities. It also contributes substantially to Indias export earnings, accounting for nearly 17% of the countrys total exports. 4. Tariffs Tariff is India's main trade instrument as well as an important source of tax revenues. They are expected to account for over 23% of net tax revenue in 2006/07 (30% in 2001/02) (WTO, 2007). India has been moving towards a market-oriented trade regime since the early 1990s (World Bank, 2007). However, its trade regime is still comparatively restrictive, as compared to others from low income category. Moreover, in agriculture India retains one of the most restrictive regimes in the world. India levied an average 49.2% (2006) final bound tariff which includes an average 114.2% tariff on agricultural products. But import barriers and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) applied tariffs have continued to fall at 15.8% (WTO, 2007). 5. Imports and Exports The Ministry of Commerce and Industry in India (2007) claims that countrys exports crossed US $ 100 billion in 2005-06, but according to the World Bank (2007), Indias real growth in total trade of goods and services has declined from a per annum average of 13.3% in 1995-99 to 9.2% in 2005-06 (Figure 1). The ministry argues that exports have grown more than twice the GDP since last few years at a rate of 20% and hence buoyant by this growth, the country has set an export target of $ 150 billion by 2009. Its trade share in GDP climbed from 23.6% to 39.7% over the same period, a remarkably high ratio for a large country, although it remains below the group averages of South Asia (48.6%) in 2005-06 and low income countries (79.7%). As per the Ministry (2007), for the year 2006-07 (April-October), the export growth was mainly driven by petroleum and chemical products, engineering goods and textiles (Figure 2). The import growth was mainly driven by petroleum crude along with fertilizers, wheat, newsprint, non-ferrous metals, metaliferrous ores and products. Machinery and project goods import was also significant (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Trade figures from 2002 to 2006 as per Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India

Figure 2: India's exports according to Ministry of Commerce and Industry report

Figure 3: India's imports as per the Ministry of Commerce and Industry report

During the first seven months of 2007, the share of South Asia, North-East Asia and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region accounted for nearly 49.87% of India's total exports (Commerce Ministry, 2007). The share of Europe and America in India's export stood at 22.28% and 19.83% respectively of which EU (25) comprises 20.74 % (Figure 4). During the period, USA was the largest export destination (15.47 %) followed by United Arab Emirates (10.06%), Singapore (5.45%), China (5.66%), Hong Kong (3.71%), UK (4.46%) and Germany (3.15%). During the same period, Asia and ASEAN accounted for 61.56% of India's total import during the period followed by Europe (19.91%) and America (9.4%). Among individual countries the share of China stood highest at (9.1%) followed by USA (5.7%), and Germany (3.99%) (Figure 5).

Figure 4: India's exports according to Ministry of Commerce and Industry report

Figure 5: Indias imports according to Ministry of Commerce and Industry report

6. Regional grouping India is a part of six Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) in the goods category and has notified one Economic Integration Agreement to WTO (2007). India is a member of South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA) with Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan, the Bangkok Agreement with Laos, Republic of Korea, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand and a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Sri Lanka (2007). India also has several bilateral agreements in force with the European Union, including an agreement on Sugar Cane, the Co-operation Agreement, the Science and Technology Agreement and the Customs Co-operation Agreement. It also has bilateral preferential trade with Mauritius, Tonga, Seychelles, Nepal and Singapore. India is also seeking to develop ties with other regional groupings, such as ASEAN and MERCOSUR (WTO, 2007).

Policy position in Doha round

India has effectively used the international forum provided by WTO to raise its concerns on trade issues affecting the developing countries. Given its trade profile, India has maintained a consistency in reiterating concerns over specific trade issues which have not been resolved through the six rounds of negotiations at the WTO. After the failure of the Seattle round of negotiations (1999) followed by the walk out of developing countries, there was a growing realisation amongst developed countries to address major trade concerns of the developing countries. Hence the Doha round of negotiations called for the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), which was a time-lined approach to multilateral free and fair trading system. It saw the formation of many new agreements and working groups to realise greater market access for all. Some of the issues DDA looked at were:

1. Agriculture
Agriculture as a sector has been the bone of contention at WTO negotiations and India, along with other developing countries, has argued against the protectionist policies of developed countries in this sector. It believes that international trade structure is most distorted in the agriculture sector (WTO, 2005) as is the primary reason for the stalled negotiations. DDA paved the way for trade negotiations in agriculture in specific areas (2002). They are: A) Export Subsidies: India, through various rounds of WTO negotiations has argued in favour of elimination of export subsidies by developed countries (2003). Since the livelihood of 650 million people in India depends on agriculture (2003), it is particularly dismayed at imbalances related to export subsidies. In the Geneva round, it was argued that while developing countries are restricted to subsidise exports, most developed countries which are responsible for distorting the market are allowed to do so provided it is within the reduction commitments agreed in UR AoA(1998). It contends that most

developing countries have a comparative advantage in agricultural products and hence elimination of export subsidies by developed countries is essential for furthering of global trade (2005). Pascal Lamy, Director of WTO, expects that with the elimination of export subsidies by 2013 and a significant part frontloaded by 2010, distortion to Indian food exports will be eliminated (2006). B) Domestic Support: India believes that developed countries should reduce domestic support which distorts international trade. It says that agricultural subsidies in developed countries are not targeted at keeping small struggling family farms in business but to provide hefty rents to large farmers and corporate houses (2003). It also contends that Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, including the US, the UK, France, Japan, Australia and Germany, support sugar producers at the rate of US $ 6.4 annually an amount nearly equal to all developing country exports (2003). Through various rounds of negotiations at WTO, India has maintained that a special safeguard mechanism needs to be in place for securing and ensuring livelihood and food to people dependent on agriculture. It has stressed the need for a multilateral trade system to ensure food security in developing countries (2003). C) Market Access: India has been fighting for increased market access with reduction in tariffs for agricultural products in the developed markets. In return, it also agrees to provide reasonable market access to her agricultural commodities market. India has committed to 100% bound tariff on primary agricultural products, 150% bound tariff on processed foods and 300% tariff on edible oil (2002). In the Cancn round, India argued that over past few years, agricultural exports from developing countries to developed countries has grown at just half the rate they did with other developing countries (2003). This argument is valid since Indias share in world agricultural exports has increased marginally from 1.77% in 1995 to 1.87% in 2003 (ICRIER, 2005). In fact the graph shows that for the UR AoA implementation period (1995- 2001), Indias share in total agricultural exports was on a decline (Figure 6). Indias farm exports have marginally recovered in the last two years.

(2005) Figure 6: India's Agricultural Exports as per a working paper of Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)

2. Implementation issues of Uruguay round

From the Singapore round of WTO negotiations, India has conceded implementation issues related to this round of negotiations (1996). Apart from procedural problems of innumerable notifications and inadequate financial as well as human resource, India has faced problems in building political consensus to implement certain segments of the agreement (1996). India was specifically concerned about the implementation of agreement on textiles and clothing, as it is a key industrial sector of its economy employing many people. As per the agreement, action could be initiated under the exceptional transitional safeguard mechanism to restrict export of a countrys textiles. India has repeatedly accused certain countries of indiscriminate use of this action. It has hence been stressing the significance of this agreement being multilateral so that individual trading partners do not target a single country (1996). India has been particularly dismayed at the fact that inspite of negotiating commercial phasing out of the restrictions on its textile exports, restrictions continued for long (1998).

10

3. Intellectual property
In every round of trade negotiations, India has referred to imbalances in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement signed during the Uruguay round of negotiations. Indias Commerce minister in his speech at the Singapore round of negotiations said, There is a feeling that developing countries may have to incur heavy costs in implementing this agreement by way of high royalty payments, increased administrative costs and possible transnational monopolistic controls in some sectors (1996). There are two major concerns here: A) Generic drugs and public health: India has held that the TRIPS agreement was an initiative taken by the developed world and has the potential of adverse effect on prices of pharmaceutical and agro chemicals in developing countries (1996). It also argued that the 10 year transition period for implementation of the agreement was ineffective as it mandates developing countries to grant exclusive marketing rights for patents to pharmaceutical companies at any time after their entry into the developing market (1998). Also, India believed that availability and affordability of essential medicines was a universal human right and TRIPS agreement should look at measures to protect public health. Hence in DDA, a separate agreement on TRIPS and public health was conceded which looked at interpretation and implementation of TRIPS agreement in such a way that it will support the right to public health and ensure access to generic drugs for all (2001). B) Geographical indications: Geographical indications are place names (in some countries also words associated with a place) used to identify products with particular characteristics because they come from specific places. Since the Geneva round of negotiations, India has been critical of the developed world for protecting their products such as wine and spirits while reluctance to extend the same protection to products from developing countries. India has been particularly concerned over patenting of Basmati rice, an indigenous cultivation, by foreign companies without obtaining prior consent or any agreement on benefit sharing to those who have been traditionally involved in the production (1998). It has time and again sought amendment to TRIPS agreement to protect the knowledge of these indigenous communities, which are in large number in developing countries, calling such activities of developed countries as iniquitous. It also argues that such a practice where the right of a patent holder is on a higher pedestal than that of the indigenous communities whose bioresources or traditional knowledge are used, is in direct misalignment with the United Nations Convention on Bio-diversity (UNCBD) (1999). The DDA says that TRIPS council will look at bridging gaps between TRIPS agreement and UNCBD.

11

4. Services
Services is the most productive sector of Indian economy and hence India is particularly interested in greater market access on the movement of natural persons. Successive commerce ministers in India have raised the issue at WTO negotiations. During the Singapore round of trade negotiations, Indian Commerce minister said, It is no exaggeration to say that in some cases access to skilled persons from India have been made more restrictive during the last two years. India has time and again argued that developed countries put pressure on developing countries to open market to goods and capital where the former has decisive advantage and no attention is paid to providing market access to professionals from developing countries, where the latter is in a better position. According to Commerce and Industry minister, Kamal Nath, Less than 1% of global trade in services is in the movement of natural persons whereas about 57% of global trade is in commercial presence. Countries which are strong in terms of capital and technology, have an overwhelming interest in services trade in commercial presence but are unwilling to take on board the concerns of developing world, which are heavily dependent upon liberalisation in movement of natural persons. The developed countries are also unwilling to agree to any disciplines in their domestic regulations such as economic tests, which restrict access to movement of natural persons severely (2007). India has staunchly defended its position against inclusion of labour related issues in WTO, arguing that International Labour Organization (ILO) was best suited to deal with it.

5. Anti-Dumping
Dumping is defined as sale of products by a country in another country at a relatively lower price or lower than the cost of production. India has come down heavily upon developed world for initiating frequent and unwarranted antidumping investigations and countervailing duty actions against exports of developing countries. It argues that most of the times the charges are not proven but it caused significant loss to those businesses in terms of litigation costs and risk of uncertainty (1996). India has also presented a case for bilateral consultations or prior warning systems before such investigations are launched. India has been particularly unhappy with the initiation of anti-dumping measures on textile and clothing exports, as the sector accounts for 20% of industrial output of the country and provides livelihood to 30 million people (1999). Against total initiation of 115 cases since 1995, 62 definitive measures have been imposed by various member countries of WTO against Indian exports accounting for 3.6% of all anti-dumping measures in force in the world (2006). Out of 53 new measures imposed by the members of WTO during the first half of 2005 one (1) measure is against the Indian exports imposed by the USA. The European Union (16), South Africa (10), and the USA (10) continue to be the countries with maximum number of anti-dumping measures in force against Indian exports (Figure 7). Product wise analysis of AD

12

measures against Indian exports indicates that highest number of anti-dumping cases continue to be on the base metals including steel products and Engineering products, which account for 32% of the total cases, followed by chemicals and allied products including drugs and pharmaceuticals, which account for about 25 % of all anti-dumping measures against India (Figure 8).

Figure 7: Anti-dumping measures against India

13

Figure 8: Sector wise distribution of Anti-dumping cases against India as per Ministry of Commerce

6. Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)

NAMA deals with reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export interest to developing countries. India was in favour of NAMA negotiations but in the initial rounds of WTO talks had held that agreeing on any text on this issue depended on progress in other areas (2007). However, in DDA, ministers agreed to negotiations keeping into account the special needs and interests of developing and leastdeveloped countries, and recognize that these countries do not need to match or reciprocate in full tariff-reduction commitments by other participants. A simple Swiss formula created by developing countries to calculate tariffs was rejected by India saying it did not take into consideration the development needs of developing countries (2005). Further, India, Brazil and Argentina proposed a new flexible formula which would use the average bound tariff of every country to calculate industrial tariff reduction. At the Hong Kong ministerial conference, Indian minister

14

argued that, Elimination of tariff peaks and escalations are needed to support livelihood of many industrial workers in developing countries. Industries such as textiles, clothing, leather products, and footwear have long faced barriers. It is of no use having zero duty levels on airplanes while maintaining 30% duty on leather handbags! But a NAMA proposal translated into 75% cut for developing countries as against a 25% cut for developed countries.(2005).

Singapore Issues
The Singapore round of WTO talks saw developed countries introducing more areas for trade negotiations where developing countries were struggling with the implementation of the Uruguay round of negotiations. These areas were trade and investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation. Since Singapore talks kicked off work on these areas, they are called Singapore issues. These four areas were originally included on DDA. The carefully-negotiated mandate was for negotiations to start after the 2003 Cancn Ministerial Conference, on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that session on modalities of negotiations. There was no consensus, and the members agreed on 1 August 2004 to proceed with negotiations in only trade facilitation. The other three were dropped from the Doha agenda (2007). India had argued against the inclusion of new areas of trade from the beginning of the WTO negotiations. It has been against a multilateral framework on investment policy as it would leave no choice with developing countries to carve out independent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy. It also demanded a review of the competition policy under United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the Singapore round of talks (1999). It is also opposed to multilateral rules with respect to trade facilitation and transparency in government procurements (2003).

International Economic Diplomacy Theory

Indias stance in WTO can be analyzed by John Odells theory of negotiations (Woolcock, 2003). Odell argues that in trade negotiations, there are resistance points, which can be defined as the point where no agreement is better than a bad agreement. This is also called best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This is a situation where no agreement has happened but there is something to salvage the deal and prove as a breakage point for furthering the negotiations. Similarly, the frequent missing of deadlines and fast-tracking of Doha round of negotiations had generated frustration among those that had assumed the role of prime movers: the ministers of Australia, Brazil, Japan, India and the US, and EU which formed G6 to resolve major issues amongst themselves. Odell also argues that a negotiator will less likely go for value creation when opposition is expected from negotiating partners. The stand of developing countries regarding

15

negotiations on NAMA and Singapore issues has been relative of progress on other areas which are of interest to developing countries (2007). The hardliner approach taken by G4 bloc( including India, China, Brazil and South Africa) against the protectionist approaches of the developed countries just goes on to prove that. Value claiming can also be explained by the decision of G6 countries suspending joint deliberations (TWN, 2006) when negotiations were stalled and countries reiterated same positions. Also, Poor countries are not being given enough time or space to negotiate a deal that will help them to develop. Many of them are being excluded from the process, as small groups of influential countries meet in an effort to make progress (for example the G6 group of Australia, Japan, the EU, USA, Brazil, and India)(Oxfam, 2006).

Conclusion
Although the WTO negotiations have missed many deadlines, trade as a whole has grown significantly. In 2006, the volume of world merchandise trade grew by 8% while world GDP recorded a 3.5% increase. This confirms the trend of world merchandise trade growing by twice the annual growth rate of output since 2000. Similarly, global tariffs have significantly reduced since 1948 after the formation of GATT. India has made considerable progress in WTO trade talks to ensure a hard bargain for its goods and services in the global market. But the growing clout of economies such as India, China and Brazil in trade negotiations coupled with their hardliner approach towards negotiations has led to increasing frustration in the developed world. Countries such as the US is looking at alternative ways of getting its way through the stalled WTO negotiations by signing large number of bilateral agreements. These countries are also seriously looking at engaging countries such as India outside the ambit of WTO, which are at the forefront of the developing world delegation. It then might agree to give special benefits which would deny greater market access to the rest of the world. These fears are best cited by the Indian commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath. He says, There are aplenty opportunities for the developing countries to benefit from successful conclusion of the Doha round of talks through increased access for their products and services by providing a level playing field. But there are looming threats to divide the developing countries by creating a category of advanced developing countries which would be totally unacceptable to India and other developing countries. Any such attempts would lead to collapse of the talks.

16

Bibliography
The New Economic Diplomacy [Book] / auth. Nicholas Bayne & Stephen Woolcock. - Hampshire : Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003. - pp. 37-42. Agriculture Framework Proposal [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India. - August 29, 2003. - January 03, 2008. http://commerce.nic.in/trade/international_trade_papers_nextDetail.asp?id=4. Annual Report 2006 [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry. - 2007. http://commerce.nic.in/publications/annualreport.asp?id=2. Annual Report 2006-2007 [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry,India. - 2007. - January 1, 2008. - http://commerce.nic.in/publications/annualreport.asp?id=2. Annual report on Anti Dumping [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry India. - 2005-06. January 04, 2008. - http://commerce.nic.in/traderemedies/ANNUAL_REPORT_2005_2006.pdf?id=1. Briefing Paper 34 [Online] // Third World Network. - September 2006. - January 04, 2008. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/briefing_papers/No34.pdf. Briefing paper on trade [Online] // Oxfam. - May 2006. - January 04, 2008. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/trade/downloads/bp87_recipe.pdf. Briefing paper: Difficult Time ahead for WTO [Online] // Third World Network. - February 2007. January 05, 2008. - http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/briefing_papers/No36.pdf. Country report [Online] / auth. Statistics World Bank // www.worldbank.org. - 2007. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/tradeindicators/CountryReports/report8. Doha Development Agenda [Online] // World Trade Organization. - 2002. - January 04, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/symp_devagenda_02_e.htm. India and WTO [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry,India. - 1999. - January 05, 2008. http://commerce.nic.in/trade/international_trade_tig_agriculture_wtoaoa.asp#b3.

17

India and WTO newsletter [Online] // Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India. - February-March 2007. - January 1, 2008. - http://commerce.nic.in/writereaddata/publications/Feb-March-2007.pdf. India Trade at a glance [Online] / auth. Statistics World Bank // World Bank. - December 2007. - January 03, 2008. - http://info.worldbank.org/etools/tradeindicators/CountryReports/report86. International Trade Statistics [Online] // World Trade Organization. - 2007. - January 01, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2007_e/its2007_e.pdf. Ministerial Statement at Cancun Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - September 10, 2003. December 12, 2007. - http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min03_e/statements_e/st7.pdf. Ministerial Statement at Doha Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - November 14, 2001. December 12, 2007. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/statements_e/st10.pdf. Ministerial Statement at Geneva Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - May 18, 1998. December 12, 2007. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min98_e/mc98_e/engstate_e.htm. Ministerial Statement at Seattle Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - November 30, 1999. December 12, 2007. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/state_e/d5194e.pdf. Ministerial Statement at Singapore Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - December 9, 1996. December 12, 2007. - http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/st27.htm. Minsterial Statement at Hong Kong Round [Online] // World Trade Organization. - December 14, 2005. - December 12, 2007. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/min05_statements_e.htm. NAMA Negotiations [Online] // Agriculture Trade Iinitiative from South. - June 2005. - January 05, 2008. - http://www.atisweb.org/sections/wto/news/2005/june/nws8_NAMA_Negotiations.htm. Pascal Lamy's Speech [Online] // World Trade Organization. - April 06, 2006. - January 03, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl23_e.htm. Tariff profiles [Online] // World Trade Organization. - 2006. - January 02, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/tariff_profiles_2006_e/ind_e.pdf. Trade Policy Review [Online] // World Trade Organization. - April 18, 2007. - January 03, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp283_e.htm. Trade profiles [Online] // World Trade Organization. - 2007. - January 1, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/trade_profiles07_e.pdf.

18

Working Paper [Online] // Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. - December 2005. - January 02, 2008. - http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP%20177.pdf. World Bank List of Economies [Online] // World Bank website. - July 2007. - January 01, 2008. siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS. World Development Indicators [Online] // World Bank. - April 2007. - January 03, 2008. http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?SelectedCountry=SAS&CCODE=SAS&CNAME=Sout h+Asia&PTYPE=CP. WTO Agreements [Online] // World Trade Orgaisation. - 1994. - January 02, 2008. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ursum_e.htm#aAgreement.

19