In today's globalised trading environment, the significance of aligning domestic policies with international practices to foster trade cannot be overstated. Domestic policies encompass a wide array of measures aimed at regulating production, consumption, and various activities within a country, ranging from taxation and subsidies to regulatory frameworks. The dismantling of trade barriers since the 1980s and 1990s, particularly among developed nations, has underscored the importance of understanding the international ramifications of domestic policies.
While some argue that well-designed domestic policies alone can address a country's trading needs, others emphasise the necessity of aligning domestic policies with international norms and practices to effectively navigate the complex global trading landscape. This latter perspective has gained prominence, with policymakers increasingly focusing on the domestic policies in place during discussions on international trade issues. This shift in focus reflects the recognition that domestic policies affecting areas such as energy, environment, labour markets, and health not only shape domestic outcomes but also influence international trade and investment dynamics, impacting producers and consumers worldwide. That is to say, domestic policies have international repercussions.
There is no arguing the importance of effective policies that a country needs to frame and execute to facilitate trade, but the question one cannot ignore is: how far can domestic policies hinge on accommodating trading practices, rules and regulations of other trading partners-big or small? Domestic policies such as competition policy, export-import policy and industrial policy are there to facilitate price stability, fairness in businesses, and also to create the environment for producing more for local consumption as well as exports. This, one must agree, is only one side of the coin. On the flip side, it is the rules and practices of trading partners including the asymmetries in economic strength and capacity that come up as potentially impeding factors. This is the case with most developing and less-developed countries which keep looking for a congenial and level playing field to negotiate trade with partners.
This precisely is the reason why countries these days are more eager than ever for tie-ups at regional level, preferably with countries where they can hope to find things less demanding. The logic behind bilateral deals is also strongly backed by this understanding of mutual comfort. Ever since regional and bilateral trade agreements in various shapes and forms began to emerge during the past decades, one of the key factors contracting countries considered motivational was the creation of level playing fields, a scene not in clear sight in the globalised trade environment packaged by the WTO. There can be no denying that regional initiatives are often more encompassing than the focused concerns of the WTO. This is entirely natural, as regional neighbours may share concerns and interests that do not necessarily relate to those further away. There may be more than one agenda for cooperation in similar and sometimes overlapping areas of policy or economic activity.
However, there were many regional trade deals where because of asymmetries in the economic standings of the countries, the playing field did not prove to be level enough for all to take part in equitable terms. Interestingly, as against multilateralism which is viewed to promote global trade irrespective of regions, regionalism in trade is pronounced in terms of promoting both trade and cooperation at regional levels.
At a juncture when multilateral trading is failing the developing countries, and regional trade deals are providing some reprieve, domestic policies can at their best strengthen a country's supply base as well as take care of much of its weaknesses in product development, adaptation and quality assurance, but not guard against its difficulties in international trade, a good deal of which emerges from policies of stronger trade partners that are anti-trade in character. There are so many instances of such barriers and market access difficulties where domestic policies, however proactive from a country perspective, cannot be expected to rise up to the task.
Furthermore, the evolving landscape of international trade underscores the need for continuous adaptation and innovation in domestic policies. As global supply chains become increasingly interconnected and technology-driven, policymakers must remain vigilant enough to address emerging challenges and opportunities. For instance, the rise of e-commerce and digital trade presents both new avenues for growth and regulatory challenges that require agile and forward-thinking domestic policy frameworks. In this context, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing among countries becomes paramount. By learning from each other's experiences and best practices, policymakers can refine their domestic policy approaches and enhance their effectiveness in promoting trade and economic development.
Looking ahead, the imperative to align domestic policies with international practices will only grow stronger as the global economy continues to evolve and interdependence deepens. Embracing principles of transparency, inclusivity, and mutual benefit in policy formulation and implementation will be essential for building trust and fostering cooperation among trading partners. By working together to create an enabling environment for trade, countries can unlock new opportunities for growth, prosperity, and shared progress in today's interconnected world.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
