Foreign Trade Review

http://ftr.sagepub.com/

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations: A Study on Health-care Sector in India

Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma
Foreign Trade Review 2013 48: 399
DOI: 10.1177/0015732513496621

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ftr.sagepub.com/content/48/3/399

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade

Additional services and information for Foreign Trade Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ftr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ftr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ftr.sagepub.com/content/48/3/399.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 12, 2013

What is This?
Downloaded from ftr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST EIGN TRADE on September 30, 2013
Commentary

Doha Round Sectoral Foreign Trade Review

48(3) 399–411
Negotiations: A Study on ©2013 Indian Institute of
Foreign Trade
Health-care Sector in India* SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0015732513496621
http://ftr.sagepub.com
Rajat Verma
Murali Kallummal
Poornima Varma

Abstract
This article is an attempt to analyze the need for negotiations (if any) for India,
in the sector of ‘Enhanced Healthcare’ which is one of the 14 sectors in the
Sectoral Negotiations (a component of Non Agricultural Market Access) of the
ongoing Doha round. This is done by looking at various components of the Doha
Round Sectoral Proposals specifically from India’s context. We have compared
India’s competitiveness with the four countries, i.e., US; Singapore; Switzerland and
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, which have
proposed 25 product categories (i.e., 25 chapters in HS nomenclature) in this sector
for free trade and hence are called as ‘the proponents’ of this sector. We have used
two trade indicators, growth rate of exports and revealed comparative advantage,
for analyzing the India’s relative competitiveness. Both the trade indicators show
that India does have a comparative cost advantage to be one of key players in this
sector. However, this opportunity has to be reaped judiciously by Indian govern-
ment so as to make best use. Also, at same time the need of the hour is that the gov-
ernment should invest in this sector so as to meet the basic international standards
and thereby helping not only the Indian populace but also the industry as a whole.

JEL: F13, F14, L88, L89

Keywords
WTO, NAMA, sectoral proposals, healthcare sectoral, revealed comparative
advantage
* This is a commentary based on a longer paper. For the full version of the paper, contact
Murali Kallummal.

Rajat Verma, Assistant Professor (Ad hoc), Shaheed Bhagat Singh (Evening) College,
University of Delhi and Guest Lecturer, Gargi College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
E-mail: rajat.verma1988@gmail.com
Murali Kallummal, Associate Professor, Centre for WTO Studies (CWS), Indian Institute
of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India. E-mail: muralik@iift.ac.in; muralikallummal@gmail.com
Poornima Varma, Assistant Professor, Department of Policy Studies, TERI University,
New Delhi, India. E-mail: poornimavarma@gmail.com
400 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

Introduction
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was formed on 1 January 1995 as a con-
sequence of the Uruguay Round of negotiations (1986–1994). After its forma-
tion several rounds of negotiations have taken place, of which the most prominent
and ongoing round is the Doha Round, which was launched in November 2001
in Doha, Qatar. The Doha Round not only consists of negotiations on various
subjects but it also consists of issues regarding implementation of current nego-
tiations. Further, it includes developmental issues primarily pertaining to devel-
oping countries, with special attention to least developed countries (LDCs). For
this reason it is termed the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) by the WTO
(2010).
Of the various negotiations in DDA, the negotiation on non-agricultural prod-
ucts called the non-agricultural market access (NAMA) was adopted by the WTO
General Council on 1 August 20041 (Hilary, 2005). Sectoral initiatives for elimi-
nation or harmonization of tariffs constitute one of the major components of
NAMA. There are various sectors under this category, which are proposed by the
members of the WTO. Of the various sectors, the enhanced health-care sector
assumes a special significance for India. As there are many studies that point out
considerable comparative advantages in the health-care sector for a country like
India, the major objective of this article is to analyze the importance of enhanced
negotiations of the health-care sector, for India, under the current DDA.

NAMA and Its Sectoral Initiatives

There are various issues in NAMA negotiations but the major components of
NAMA are (Centre for WTO Studies [CWS], 2009):

1. Formula for general tariff reductions.

2. Treatment of unbound tariff lines.
3. Flexibilities for developing countries.
4. Sectoral initiatives for elimination or harmonization of tariffs.
5. Non-tariff barriers.

Sectoral Initiatives
In this, the negotiations are particularly restricted to the different sectors identified
under NAMA and the goal is to eliminate or harmonize tariffs on various products
in these sectors. There are 14 sectors identified under the fourth revision of draft
modalities dated 6 December 2008. These sectors are proposed by various members
of the WTO. For example, enhanced health care is proposed by four countries: the
United States; Singapore; Switzerland; and the Separate Customs Territory of

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 401

Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (called ‘Taiwan’ hereafter) (WTO, 2008).
Review of literature in the health-care sector shows that India enjoys relative com-
parative cost advantage when compared with other developed and developing coun-
tries (IBEF, 2010; Pietrasik, 2009; Chanda and Mukherjee, 2008).

Methodology

Statement of Problem
Analysis of the literature on the health-care sector clearly reveals that India does
have a cost advantage when compared to developed and other developing coun-
tries. This advantage is further strengthened by the fact that it also has advanced
technologies for the performance of various surgeries because of which India is
seeing an upsurge in medical tourism. But the problem in this sector is exposed
when we study the health-care sector in India. Various studies and analyses of the
2010–2011 budget show the severe deficit of funding in this sector. Hence, due
to the lack of government support India is not able to exploit its competitiveness
in this sector. It is this primary issue which leads us to study the opportunities
through which this competitiveness can best be taken advantage of. Thus, in this
article, we examine the usefulness of the Doha Round sectoral proposals (DRSPs)
for India.

Objective of the Study

In this article, we attempt to discover India’s competitiveness in the enhanced
health-care sector as suggested by the DRSPs in the 2008 text. For this we com-
pare India’s health-care sector with that of the ‘proponents’ of this sectoral pro-
posal. The sector comprises 25 products which are basically pharmaceuticals and
medical equipment.

Data Sources
The trade data for the present analysis is selected from World Integrated Trade
Solution (WITS), a database of the World Bank. The database provides informa-
tion on the health-care sector. The details are as follows.
The data used for this purpose is from the year 2003 to the year 2011, subject
to its availability for the five countries, namely, the United States, Taiwan,
Singapore, Switzerland and India. It comprises information about the imports/
exports from/to rest of the world to/from the respective countries, for the 165
products classified under the health-care sector which are proposed for negotia-
tions by the proponents of this sector. The harmonized system 2002 (HS 2002) at

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

402 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

the six-digit level nomenclature was used for this analysis and that is how 165
products in total were obtained. For calculating the revenue loss to the Indian
government (computed in the subsection that follows, under the heading of
‘Impact of DRSPs on India’s Trade’), required data on tariff rates is taken from
Trade Analysis and Information System (TRAINS) in WITS. The revealed com-
parative advantage (RCA) data is directly taken from WITS for the above-
mentioned countries, except Taiwan, for which data is not available.

Analysis of Trade Pattern

In this section, we analyze trade patterns in the health-care sector for the four pro-
ponents of this sector, that is, the United States, Taiwan, Singapore and Switzerland,
with India. This is done so as to evaluate the position of India when compared to
these proponents and hence observe how India can participate in the negotiations.

India and the Health-care Sector

India has been a net exporter in the health-care sector of the 165 proposed prod-
ucts to the rest of the world from 2003 to 2011. Figure 1 reveals that India main-
tained a steady increase in its balance of trade until 2007 and then there was a
drastic increase in net exports for the year 2008. It was followed by a decline in
net exports in the year 2009 which could be attributed to the worldwide economic
slump during that period. Post 2009, it increased monotonically. This analysis of
the balance of trade position in the health-care sector clearly reveals that India has
an enormous trade potential in this sector.

6,000,000
in US$ (Thousands)

5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

India

Figure 1. India’s Balance of in the Trade in the Health-care Sector

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the WITS UNITED NATIONS COMMODITE TRADE
database.

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 403

Impact of DRSPs on India’s Trade

As proposed in the fourth revision of draft modalities, dated 6 December 2008,
the tariff rates in this sector would eventually be brought down to zero (barring
LDCs) if the negotiations are kicked off after the critical mass,2 which is 90 per
cent for this sector, is achieved. Since India gets huge tariff revenues from the
import of commodities in this sector, when eventually the tariff rates are
brought down to zero, there will be an enormous revenue loss for the govern-
ment of India.
First, we calculate the revenue loss for the Indian government by taking the
tariff rates to be zero for all 165 products. Therefore, as per tariff rates in the year
2009, the revenue loss would be US$ 456.31 million (TRAINS). This is a huge
loss in terms of revenue for the government (since the balance of trade in 2008
was US$ 3.47 billion), but, as we saw, India is a net exporter of health-care prod-
ucts, so when the tariff rates are brought down to zero, it will be zero for most of
the countries participating in the negotiations (excluding LDCs and some other
developing members). Hence, it will further add to the exports of India as the
goods will become cheaper for the populace of these countries (where the tariffs
are zero). This assumption is realistic because, as we saw, the balance of trade
increased at a steady pace and in the year 2008 it increased drastically due to a
sudden surge in exports.
Second, the average tariff rate for 165 products in India for the year 2008 was
8.73 per cent (WITS, TRAINS) and after negotiations are completed, the prod-
ucts will be freely traded. This will again add to the competitiveness (as dis-
cussed in the literature review) of the Indian health-care industry as the imported
inputs will become cheaper, thereby making health-care services cheaper and
competitive.
Therefore, we can conclude that even though there would be a hefty revenue
loss for the Indian government, the country is also expected to extract benefits
from the DRSPs.

Balance of Trade Comparisons

India, when compared with other countries in terms of balance of trade in the
health-care sector, does not lag much behind and this is apparent from Figure 2. It
only lags behind Switzerland and moves closely with Singapore. In the year 2005,
both India and Singapore had equal balance of trade, but thereafter Singapore’s
exports grew rapidly as compared to India’s. In the later years however Singapore’s
growth in exports was surpassed by India (see Figure 3).
Figure 2 also shows that India is way ahead of Taiwan and the United States as
both countries run large trade deficits in this sector. The only country that India
lags behind substantially is Switzerland and this is evident from Figure 2, which
shows that India is nowhere near Switzerland.

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

404 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

50,000,000
40,000,000
in US$ (Thousands)

30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
–1,000,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
–2,000,000
–3,000,000
–4,000,000
–5,000,000
United States India Switzerland Singapore Taiwan

Figure 2. Comparison of Balance of Trade (Health-care Sector)

Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE database.

This comparison shows that India ranks third with the potential to surpass
Singapore and attain the second spot but even then it lags miles behind Switzerland.
Given the fact that India has enormous potential in this sector, the Indian govern-
ment should come forward to give it a boost so that it can excel in terms of exports
in this sector. This is only possible if it reduces its tariff rates.

Trade Indicators
In this section, we analyze the efficacy of the deal with the help of two trade
indicators—growth rate of exports and RCA.

Annual Growth Rate

Figure 3 shows the complete comparison of the annual growth rate between
Singapore, India, the United States, Taiwan and Switzerland. It is clearly evident
from the figure that initially Singapore attained the highest growth rate amongst
the five countries but it was not able to sustain it during the later periods, that is,
2007 onwards, though it surpassed India in 2010 again, but marginally. Whereas,
India maintained its second spot after the year 2004 and it averaged a growth rate
of 18.69 per cent for a period of eight years. Also, we can see that India’s annual
growth rate declined for two consecutive years after 2005 and then it again surged
to its 2005 level where it attained its maximum of 24 per cent. Here again we see
that India’s growth rate (along with other countries, except Singapore) declined
drastically in the year 2009 which could be attributed to the global recession.
Switzerland depicts a zigzag pattern, as its growth fluctuated every year and it
almost went to zero in the year 2009. It averaged a growth rate of 14.3 per cent for
a period of eight years starting from 2004. The United States also showed a zigzag
path, but not one as steep as Switzerland’s. As we can see, the United States and

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 405

50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
–10.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

–20.00
United States India Switzerland Singapore Taiwan

Figure 3. Comparison of Annual Growth Rates

Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE database.

India started off together from the year 2004 but, India grew at a much faster pace
when compared to the United States. The United States averages around 8.6 per
cent. Taiwan attained the last position amongst the five countries and managed a
growth of only 2.71 per cent with the growth in the last two years being
negative.3
Hence, after analyzing the annual growth rates we can safely say that India’s
performance was sound enough to rate it as one of the key players in the group of
proponents as it only lagged behind Singapore in terms of growth. This growth
pattern again shows that India has vast potential in this sector, which is yet to be
exploited.

RCA
We consider the RCA values taken from WITS and analyze its value for the four
countries, that is, the United States, Singapore, India and Switzerland over a span
of nine years (2003–2011) for the proposed 165 products (this is average RCA for
165 products). We have left Taiwan out of our study because of non-availability
of the data. Our results are summarized in Table 1 and are also expressed with
help of line graphs (see Figure 4).
From Table 1 it is clear that for Singapore there is no comparative advantage
as its RCA remained below 1 for all the years of observation. Hence, for the 165
products taken as a group Singapore has no competitive edge in the world mar-
ket. This result could be biased because of non-availability of the data for many
products amongst the list of 165 for Singapore. Also, from Figure 4 it is evident
that Switzerland is the most competitive in exporting the 165 proposed products.
India stands second in the group and the United States ranks third. For the United
States, over the years the competitiveness is almost the same, that is, around 1.6
but for India the comparative advantage declined steeply in 2009. Post 2009,

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

406 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

Table 1. Comparison of Average RCA for 165 Proposed Products

Year United States India Switzerland Singapore

2003 1.50 3.90 3.99 0.73
2004 1.61 3.58 3.93 0.72
2005 1.63 3.65 4.01 0.75
2006 1.66 3.27 4.01 0.96
2007 1.66 3.69 3.82 0.92
2008 1.66 3.65 3.77 0.85
2009 1.65 2.56 3.25 0.98
2010 1.58 2.47 3.39 0.85
2011 1.49 2.21 3.28 0.90
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE database.

5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United States India Switzerland Singapore

Figure 4. Comparison of Average RCA for 165 Proposed Products
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE database.

India witnessed a monotonic decline, but even then, it remained competitive for
all the years.
The value of RCA for individual products (at disaggregated level), that is, for
all 165 products using the six-digit level of HS 2002 classification, was also cal-
culated. The results are summarized in Table 2.
Aggregated analysis of RCA done before does not show the true picture of the
competitiveness of the countries. This is because of the fact that during the analy-
sis we used average RCA, that is, RCA of all the 165 products and hence what we
got was the average RCA, but as we know, the average is affected by extreme
values, therefore, it did not depict the true picture. For example, in the case of
India we can easily see from Figure 4 and Table 1 that there is a strict or monot-
onic decline in its competitiveness since the year 2008. But when we see the same
picture through Figure 5 and Table 2 we find that the decline is not monotonic;
rather, there was an increase in the competitiveness in the year 2010 when com-
pared to 2009. The total number of products enjoying a comparative advantage

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 407

Table 2. Details of Individual Products Whose RCA>1

Year United States India Switzerland Singapore

2003 86 54 88 30
2004 91 59 82 25
2005 95 55 80 23
2006 97 58 77 29
2007 89 57 76 26
2008 94 54 74 28
2009 85 47 75 28
2010 89 51 74 29
2011 85 47 74 31
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE database.

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United States India Switzerland Singapore

Figure 5. Comparative Advantage at Product Level
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE and WTO databases.

increased from 47 to 51. Though the increase is not substantial, when compared
to the other countries during this period, the increase is the largest in relative
terms. The gradual declining trend in the comparative advantage for India is also
evident here (see Figure 5), which corresponds to Figure 4.
From Figure 5 we can also see that in 2003–2006 there was a monotonic
increase in India’s competitiveness and post 2006, it witnessed a zigzag trend.
Whereas, for Switzerland, there was a continuous decline until 2008 after which
it remained fairly constant. This is in contrast to Figure 4 which depicted a con-
stant pattern until 2006 and thereafter a declining trend. Singapore witnessed a
decline until 2005, after which it depicted a constant pattern. But as mentioned
before, Singapore’s results may be biased because of the limitations in its data.
To further correct for the extremity which might be shown by the average RCA,
we computed a median of the RCA values for those products that enjoy a comparative

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

408 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

advantage for all the four countries so as to further examine the relative comparative
advantage. The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 6.
The results clearly show that the median of the RCA, for those products which
have the comparative advantage, is declining for India over the years. This indi-
cates that even though India still enjoys a substantial comparative advantage, its
competitiveness in the sector has declined over the period of the study.
Therefore, the analysis of RCA in totality does prove that India enjoys a com-
parative advantage in this sector, which is apparent from all the three different angles
of the RCA analysis, that is, aggregated, disaggregated and median values of RCA.
The declining trend in the RCA, which is witnessed for India since 2009, could be
attributed to the ‘predatory pricing’ approach which is practised primarily by China
in the pharmaceutical sector (Kallummal and Bugalya, 2012; Kazmin, 2009). These
pharmaceutical products are within the ambit of DRSPs as they are listed in chapters

Table 3. Median Values for RCA>1

Year United States India Switzerland Singapore

2003 2.01 4.36 3.40 1.96
2004 2.05 3.55 3.69 2.58
2005 2.14 3.63 3.83 2.81
2006 2.17 3.09 3.90 2.54
2007 2.03 2.32 3.98 2.72
2008 1.93 2.26 3.80 2.09
2009 2.03 2.52 3.26 2.99
2010 2.06 2.30 3.88 2.82
2011 2.10 2.46 3.66 2.47
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE and WTO databases.

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United States India Switzerland Singapore

Figure 6. Median Values of RCA>1
Source: Authors’ calculations based on WITS COMTRADE and WTO databases.

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 409

28–30 of the HS nomenclature. ‘Predatory pricing’ or ‘dumping’ practised by a

nation drives out competition in the foreign markets by charging exceptionally low
prices for certain groups. Hence, this eventually hurts the competitiveness of the
foreign nation in respect of that product. This could be attributed to the declining
trend in the competitiveness for India in the health-care sector.

Analysis of Products in which India Enjoys a

Comparative Advantage
In the previous section we concluded that India does enjoy a comparative advan-
tage in approximately one-third of the proposed products (using the six-digit HS
2002 code). Now we analyze those products only from the perspective of India.
Of the 25 proposed product categories of the HS four-digit nomenclature, India
enjoys comparative advantage in only nine categories, but even then this is com-
mendable when compared with the United States, which has a comparative advan-
tage in only 10 categories. As is evident from the previous section, India could be
said to have an advantage in more diverse fields than the United States, given
India’s backwardness in the comparison done at the disaggregated level.
Further, detailed analysis of the HS four-digit nomenclature shows that among
the proposed products, India has the maximum advantage in terms of the number of
products, in the production of ‘Vegetable Alkaloids (natural/produced by synthesis)
and their salts’. It is succeeded by the production of ‘Parts and accessories of vehi-
cles’. For the rest, in the list of 165 products, the number of products which enjoy
comparative advantage ranges from one to four. Following are the nine product
categories under which they lie: organic chemicals; pharmaceutical products;
miscellaneous chemical products; plastic and articles thereof; other made up textile;
nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery, etc.; electrical machinery and equipments;
vehicles other than railways or tramway rolling stock; and optical, photographic,
cinematographic measuring, checking precision, medical or surgical instruments.
Our analysis shows that primarily, it is the production of organic chemicals and
vehicles used in providing medical care in which India has the comparative advan-
tage. We also observe that India enjoys a comparative advantage in the production
of pharmaceutical products such as antibiotics and other medicines. Therefore,
the government should come forward and enhance the infrastructure, if required,
in these sectors so that India can benefit from the post-DRSP agreements.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

The major objective of this article was to analyze the need for enhanced negotia-
tions in the health-care sector under the DDA. This has been accomplished by
observing the pattern of trade for India in the 165 proposed health-care products

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

410 Rajat Verma, Murali Kallummal and Poornima Varma

in relation to their proponents, that is, the United States, Switzerland, Singapore
and Taiwan. We also reviewed the literature in health-care sector for India and
found that it has a comparative cost advantage in performing many surgeries, as
compared to developed and developing countries such as United States, United
Kingdom and Thailand.
India’s competitiveness in this sector was analyzed using two trade indicators,
growth rate of exports and RCA, and it was compared with the four proponents.
Analysis of the growth rate led us believe that India can be amongst the major
players in the health-care sector as it recorded a growth of 18.69 per cent and is
only behind Singapore. The RCA analysis clearly showed that India has a com-
parative advantage in many products amongst the proposed list of 165 goods.
However, it also revealed that this advantage is declining gradually over recent
years. The reason, as discussed previously, for this trend could be the ‘predatory
pricing’ strategy practised by China in the pharmaceutical sector which led to the
decline of India’s competitiveness in this sector in recent years (2009 onwards).
India’s potential in terms of trade in the health-care sector can be enhanced if
the following measures are taken:

1. The Indian government must enhance its investment manifold in this sec-
tor, so as to meet the basic international standards and thereby helping not
only Indians, but also the industry as a whole.
2. The Indian government can also boost infrastructure by attracting private
players by changing foreign direct investment (FDI) norms, providing tax
breaks, etc.
3. The growth in exports can only be maintained if India participates in sec-
toral negotiations and expands its exports by reducing its tariffs. Also, the
negotiations will not only enhance exports but also help in boosting imports
which will reduce input costs and further give India a competitive edge
over the others.

Therefore, we believe that the DRSPs constitute a golden opportunity for India,
which it should judiciously use to exploit its potential and thereby benefit from it.
Also, India can explore the possibility of including its traditional methods of treat-
ment in the DRSPs so that it can prosper in the wake of globalization.

Notes
1. There is a negotiating group for each negotiating subject (under DDA), which is formed
by the trade negotiations committee (TNC). Hence, there is a negotiating group for
NAMA, which is called the negotiating group on market access (NGMA). Luzius
Wasescha is the current chairman of the NGMA.
2. ‘The critical mass in any sectoral is the percentage trade covered (of all WTO members)
in that sector by participating Members’ (CWS).
3. Taiwan’s data is available only from 2004 to 2009. Therefore, its growth rate is for five
years, between 2005 and 2009.

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411

Doha Round Sectoral Negotiations 411

References
Chanda, R., & Mukherjee, A. (2008) India-EU relations in health services: Issues and
concerns in an India-EU Trade and Investment Agreement, ICRIER, New Delhi.
CWS. (2009). Frequently asked questions: Non agricultural market access. New Delhi:
CWS.
Hilary, J. (2005). The Doha deindustrialisation agenda: Non-agricultural market access
negotiations at the WTO. London: War on Want.
IBEF (2010) Cost Comparison of Medical Services Procedure Cost (US$), Viewed On 14 June
2010, http://www.ibef.org/artdispview.aspx?in=29&art_id=25821&cat_id=119&page=1
Kallummal, M., & Bugalya, K. (2012). Trends in India’s trade in pharmaceutical sector:
Some insights. New Delhi: CWS.
Kazmin, A. (2009). China accused of ‘predatory pricing’ tactics. Financial Times, New
Delhi. Retrieved on 7 June 2013 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42bd9a40-5900-
11de-80b3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2VYbjY4TE
Pietrasik, T. (2009) Lessons from a frugal innovator, Economic Times.
WTO. (2008). Fourth revision of draft modalities for non-agricultural market access, TN/
MA/W/103/Rev.3. Geneva: WTO.
———. (2010). Doha development agenda. Geneva: WTO. Retrieved on 10 March 2010
from http://search.wto.org/search?q=Fourth+Revision+of+Draft+Modalities+For+Non
Agricultural+Market+Access%2C+TN%2FMA%2FW%2F103%2FRev.3&site=Engli
sh_website&client=english_frontend&proxystylesheet=english_frontend&output=xml_
no_dtd&numgm=5&proxyreload=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1

Foreign Trade Review, 48, 3 (2013): 399–411