Till Schöfer and co-author study how developing countries navigate international trade

Do emerging powers give up their special privileges vis-à-vis industrialised countries as their economy develops? Yes and no, say recent Hertie School PhD graduate Till Schöfer and co-author Clara Weinhardt, Assistant Professor in International Relations at Maastricht University in their study “Developing-country status at the WTO: the divergent strategies of Brazil, India and China”. In their paper published in the November edition of International Affairs, the authors ask how emerging powers react to pressures by established powers to give up their developing-country status and with it their right to special and differential treatment (SDT). They find that while Brazil and China were willing to refrain from some of their access to differential treatment, India staunchly defended its right to SDT. 

The authors examine negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the period between the mid-2000s and 2022, drawing on submissions and statements made in key WTO forums, expert interviews and informal discussions. 

Brazil accommodates change and China is flexible, but India is resistant

According to Schöfer and Weinhardt, Brazil was willing to give up some of its privileges as a developing country. While Brazil internationally argued for a definition of developing countries that accounts for different levels of development, the country gradually aligned itself more with developed countries. This was mainly due to the fact that these privileges were less useful for the pursuit of its interests in its highly competitive agricultural sector. Despite this shift, the authors stress that Brazil is at times still willing to label itself a developing country. 

While China has claimed developing country status since it joined the WTO in 2001, it accepted less differential treatment compared to other developing WTO members. In general, China took a pragmatic approach to status as its economy grew: the country supported SDT for developing countries in general but often refrained from taking advantage of it itself. On the other hand, China continued to claim privileges in areas where it pursues more protectionist policies, for example in its agricultural sector. 

In contrast to Brazil and China, the authors find that India was a staunch defender of the established practice of self-declaring developing-country status. According to their research, righting both historical and contemporary wrongs in international trade was “a cornerstone of India’s negotiating stance”. Whereas Brazil and China viewed SDT as flexible and dynamic, India saw SDT is an inalienable right. Among other things, the country’ strong stance is influenced by concerns over its food security and the impact of potential reforms on large subsistence farming populations.

Study fills a knowledge gap in international relations and power shift theory

Schöfer's and Weinhardt’s work contributes to the literature on rising powers and global governance. They show that – contrary to common narratives – established powers can also act as challengers of the status quo in international trade. They also underscore the strategies that emerging powers adopt to manoeuvre amidst this contestation.

Read the full paper in International Affairs.

Find out more about research at the Hertie School and our PhD programme.

The Hertie School is not responsible for any content linked or referred to from these pages. Views expressed by the author/interviewee may not necessarily reflect the views and values of the Hertie School.