On the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), Ive read papers and reports which present mixed reviews about their trade and associated welfare impacts. Im yet to be fully convinced partly because I havent gone through all the issues diligently enough to assess potential country level issues on a case by case basis. In the meantime though, I wonder on what policy grounds, document or report the initial signing of the interim EPA by Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire was made. The issues of global trade à la WTO’s Doha and Bali rounds, tariffs, protectionist measures, industry competitiveness, quotas, etc are complicated and not that straight forward. You need the best trade lawyers, negotiators, labour and industrial economists and financial gurus to properly assess its impact on your local economy before initialling anything that has a huge bottomline impact on your country’s enterprises and overall citizen’s welfare. Im glad Nigeria objected to the signing of the EPA on technical grounds, else the other ECOWAS regional leaders would have initialled by now. What gravely irks me is the neocolonialist mindset some of our senior politicos and policy makers still carry. They argue as though our economic fortunes still remains tied to the DEAD AID from these donor countries, which in any case, we’ve woefully failed to leverage upon to develop our local industries and markets to foster regional integration by removing the intra-regional barriers to trade. For example, the Minister of State in charge of Public Private Partnership Rashid Pelpuo says it will be too costly not to sign because the EPA is tied to aid, technical assistance, political assistance and trade. He further remarks “So who do you turn to when you need budgetary support or some technical assistance for ministries if we do not sign this agreement? ... We are ready to sign the EPA, he repeatedly assured. #PoliticalEconomy
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:50:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015