Experts without names were out in force today expressing their unhappiness over the latest failure to reach an agreement in the Doha Round of the WTO. The NYT told readers that "some Doha skeptics about the necessity of a global agreement. But experts said it was important, particularly as a bulwark against rising protectionist sentiments." Later, the article reported that: "A trade deal, economists said, would have been a valuable tonic." While the article does give quotes from named economists and presumed experts who hold the views ascribed, these positions are clearly not shared by all economists and experts. It would have been more appropriate to simply present these opinions as the views of the economists/experts who were consulted for this article rather than imply that these views are held by all economists/experts. The article repeatedly warns about governments being pushed by popular sentiments away from the sort of deal that the negotiators were trying to reach. It might have been worth examining why such agreements are so unpopular. It also would have been appropriate to point out that the proponents of the new WTO deal can't even agree in their public pronouncements about what they expect its effects to be. For many years they have pushed a new WTO agreement as a way to raise the prices of agricultural products and in this way benefit producers in developing countries. After the sharp rise in food prices in the last year, proponents of a WTO argument began pushing the agreement as a way to lower prices. This sort of massive inconsistency on one of the most fundamental goals of the agreement would have been worth discussing. It might have been appropriate to ask the experts about whether they agree with the old view of the expected outcome of a new WTO agreement or the new view.
--Dean Baker
