ECONOMY Is there a Good case for a New Bretton Woods International Monetary System? By Michael D.

Boedo

July 1994 marked the 50th anniversary of a historic international conference held at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods,New Hampshire,that created the International Monetary Fund,the International Bank for reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the Bretton Woods

adjustable-peg international monetary system which prevailed from 1946 to 1973.Citing the problems of two decades of floating exchange rates(high transactions cost for business,excess volatility,and prolonged real misalignment of the exchange rates of major countries),many have used the occasion to call for a renewed role for the Bretton Woods institutions and a return to a more managed international monetary system based on principles similar to the Bretton Woods arrangements. A more managed system based on coordinated monetary and fiscal policy and exchange-rate target zones,they argue,would revive the record of stable and rapid economic growth,low interest rates,and relatively low inflation of the original Bretton Woods era. This paper considers the validity of the case for a renewal of Bretton Woods based on an examination of its history,its macro performance,and its record as a credible commitment mechanism compared to that of other historical regimes.

I. The History of Bretton Woods.

Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY The Bretton Woods system faced a number of initial problems,and it took 12 years to achieve full operation in December 1958 when the Western European countries made their currencies convertible for current-account transactions. The period 1959-1967 was the heyday of Bretton Woods.The System had become a gold-dollar standard whereby the United States pegged the price of gold and the rest of the world pegged their currencies to the dollar.The dollar emerged as the key reserve currency,reflecting both its use as an intervention currency and a growing demand by the private sector for dollars as money.This growth in dollar demand was a response to stable U.S. monetary policy.In addition,the adjustable peg system evolved into a virtual fixed-exchange rate system.Between 1949 and 1967,there were very few changes in parities of the G-10 countries. By 1968,the seeds of destruction of the Bretton Woods System were sown.The world was on an unloved dollar standard following the demonetization of gold with the two-tier arrangement of March 1968.European countries were not happy with the dollar standard but were afraid of the alternatives.Both they and the United States were unwilling to allow their exchange rates to adjust.Moreover,the fixed-exchange-rate system was under increased pressure because of growing capital disrepair: The IMF was weak,U.S. power was threatened,and the G-10,the defacto governors were in discord. The Bretton Woods System collapsed between 1968 and 1971.The United States broke the implicit rules of the dollar standard by not maintaining price stability.The rest of the world did not want to absorb additional dollars that
2 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY would lead to inflation.Surplus countries,( especially Germany) were reluctant to revalue. Another important source of strain on the system was the unworkability of the adjustable peg under increasing capital mobility.Speculation against a fixed parity could not be stopped by either traditional policies or international rescue packages.The Americans hands were forced by british and French decisions in the summer of 1971 to convert dollars into gold.The impasse was ended by president Richard Nixons closing of the gold window on August 15,1971.The breakdown of Bretton Woods marked the end of U.S. financial dominance.The absence of a new center of international management set the stage for a centrifugal international monetary system.

II.The Macroperformance of Bretton Woods and other Monetary Regimes Which international monetary regime excels at economic performance? One based on fixed exchange rates,including the gold standard and its variants? One based on adjustable peg regimes such as Bretton Woods system and the
3 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY European Monetary System (EMS) ? Or one based on floating exchange rates? Table 1 offers empirical evidence based on two key measures of economic performance (the inflation rate (GNP deflator) and the growth rate of real per capita GNP) for the G-7 industrialized countries in four regimes: the classical gold standard (1881-1913),and the interwar period (1919-1939),Bretton Woods (1946-1970),and the floating-exchange-rate regime (1971-1989).The Bretton Woods period (1946-1970) is divided into two subperiods: the preconvertible phase (1946-1958) and the convertible phase (1959-1970).For each variable and each country,I present two summary statistics: the mean and standard deviation.As a summary statistic for the countries taken as a group,I show the grand mean A. Inflation Countries under the classical gold standard had the lowest rate of inflation and displayed mild deflation during the interwar period.The rate of inflation during the Bretton Woods period was lower on average ( and for every country except Japan) than during the subsequent floating-exchange-rate period.The average rates of inflation in the two Bretton Woods subperiods were virtually the same. The Bretton Woods convertible subperiod had the most stable inflation rate of any regime,as judged by the standard deviation.By contrast,the preconvertible Bretton Woods period exhibited greater inflation variability than either the gold-standard period or the existing floating-exchange-rate period. The evidence of lower inflation and lower inflation variability under the gold standard and Bretton Woods regimes than under the recent float is consistent with the view that convertible regimes provide a stable
4

nominal

Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY anchor.Further evidence for the importance of the nominal anchor derives from (i) studies showing that inflation persistance,based on AR(1) regressions on the CPI data for each of the countries in Table 1,was the lowest during the period of the classical gold standard,followed by the interwar period,The Bretton Woods period,and the floating-exchange-rate period and (ii) evidence showing low and stable nominal interest rates under the gold standard and Bretton Woods regimes compared to the recent float. B.Real Per Capita Income Growth Generally,the not Bretton the Woods interwar period,especially period exhibited the the convertible output period,exhibited the most rapid output growth of any monetary regime,and surprisingly lowest growth.Output variability was also lowest in the convertible subperiod of Bretton Woods,but because of higher variability in the preconvertibility period,the Bretton Woods system as a whole was more variable than the floating-exchange-rate period.Both pre-World War II regimes exhibit higher variability than their post-World War II counterparts. Adherence to the convertibility rules of the Bretton Woods system,which constrained that policymakersactions,by growth,but of not the the United growth States of real and other industrialized countries,may possibly explain the stability of real output in regime.Money the government spending,was less variable under Bretton Woods than during the succeeding float.Also variance demand (transitory) shocks --presumably incorporating policy actions-- was lower under Bretton Woods than under any other regime. According to Eichengrren (1993),the credibility of commitment to the nominal anchor,as evidenced by the low degree of inflation persistence under Bretton Woods made inflationary expectations mean-reverting.This produced a flatter
5 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY short-run aggregate supply curve than under the float,where in the absence of a nominal anchor,inflationary expectations became extrapolative.Under these conditions stabilization policy could be effective in smoothing output. That activist stabilization policy is in the main responsible for the low real output variability under Bretton Woods is however doubtful.For the United States,activist Keynesian policy were more a product of the late 1960s and 1970s,and for the other countries,the ongoing conflict between internal and external balance dominated policy-making.A more likely explanation for real output stability is the absence of serious supply shocks.I found the variance of supply (permanent) shocks--presumably independent of the monetary regime --to be the lowest under Bretton Woods of any regime. Although the Bretton Woods international monetary system has recently been linked to rapid growth in the industrialized countries in the quarter century following World War II,the evidence seems less compelling than for other aspects of performance.First,there is little conclusive evidence linking exchange-rate volatility to either trade flows or the level of investment,avenues by which a stable -rate regime might have affected

economic growth.Second,although trade liberalization may have played an important role in the acceleration of growth rates in the European economies during the Golden Age,most of the liberalization of trade,before nations declared Article VIII current-account convertibility in December 1958,was under the aegis of institutions developed outside of the Bretton Woods framework-the Marshall Plan,Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC),European Payments Union (EPU),and European Steel and Coal Community (ESCC). Third,in an institutional vein,it has been argued that the Bretton Woods framework contributed to growth by providing an overall framework of rules within which Western European nations solved a hierarchy of coordination
6 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY problems within and between them,allowing them to encourage investment in growth-generating export sectors.The Marshall Plan OEEC,EPU and ESCC solved the coordination problem across individual countries.Despite the argument,given that the European regional arrangements occurred outside of,and because of,shortcomings in the Bretton Woods arrangements,one wonders whether institutional developments would have been much different if the European countries were not party to Bretton Woods at all. Finally,the Bretton Woods arrangements might have contributed to postwar growth by being part of the overall package creating political and economic stability in the postwar era the Pax Americana,that was a reaction to the chaos of the interwar period and World War II.In this view,rapid postwar growth represents a catch up by the European nations and Japan from their low levels of per capita output to that of the leading industrial country,the United States.The catch up by these nations,adopting the best-practice technology so that they grew at a much more rapid rate than the leader,was encouraged by the United States. In sum,there is compelling evidence linking the Bretton Woods regime to superior nominal performance.Whether such a connection can be made for the real side is less obvious.More evidence is required. III. Bretton Woods as a Credible Commitment Mechanism Although the Bretton Woods regime exhibited superior performance compared to other regimes,it was short-lived,its full-convertibility phase lasting only 12 years.Its brevity cannot be explained by shocks to the system since it faced smaller demand and supply shocks than the other regimes.Indeed the gold standard lasted close to 40 years in the face of supply shocks that were a multiple of those facing Bretton Woods.
7 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY The greater success of the gold standard and the short life of Bretton Woods may be attributed to the design of the monetary regime and specifically the incentive-compatibility features of the regime.Successful pegged-rate regimes,in addition to being based on simple transparent rules,contained features that encouraged a center country to enforce the rules and other countries to comply. Both the classical gold standard and the Bretton Woods systems can be viewed as follwing a set of rules based on the convertibility of domestic currency into gold, although under Bretton Woods only the United States was required to maintain it.Under the classical gold standard the monetary authorities committed themselves to fix the prices of their currencies in terms of a fixed weight of gold.The pegged gold price served as a commitment mechanism to prevent monetary authorities from pursuing otherwise timeinconsistent policies. The rule was a contingent one.The monetary authority maintained the standard except in the event of a well-understood emergency such as a major war,in which case it could suspend gold convertibility.The rule was contingent in the sense the public understood that the suspension would only last for the duration of the emergency,after which the original parity would be restored.Under Bretton Woods the contingency,which would allow a change of parity,was a fundamental disequilibrium in the balance of payments,which was never clearly defined. The gold-standard rule,was enforced by, among other factors,a credible commitment to gold convertibility by Britain (the center country) and the other core countries,as well as access to their capital markets.In contrast,the Bretton Woods rule was defective,suffering from three fatal flaws.First,because of the fear of a confidence crisis,the gold-convertibility requirement prevented the United States in the early 1960s from acting as a
8 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY center country and willingly supplying the reserves demanded by the rest of the world.Second,as became evident in the late 1960s,this requirements was useless in preventing the U.S. monetary authorities from pursuing an inflationary policy.Finally,although a mechanism was available for the United States to devalue the dollar,the monetary authorities were loath to use it for fear of undermining confidence.Ultimately,the United States attached greater importance to domestic economic concerns than to its role as the center of the international monetary system. Thus,although the Bretton Woods system can be interpreted as one based on rules,the system did not provide a credible commitment mechanism.The United States was unwilling to subordinate domestic considerations to the responsibility of maintaining a nominal anchor.At the same time,other major industrialized countries became increasingly unwilling to accept the U.S.imposed world inflation rate. On light of Bretton Woods failure,the question arises of whether one could devise a better system devoid of its defects.The European Monetary System (EMS) is just such an attempt to establish an adjustable-peg regime for a handful of countries. After a shaky start from 1979 to 1985,the EMS was successful at stabilizing both nominal and real exchange rates within Europe and at reducing divergences between membersinflation rates.The success of the EMS was attributed in large measure to its evolution as an asymmetrical system,like Bretton Woods,with Germany strongly committed to low inflation and acting as the center country. Despite its favorable performance for a number of years,in 1992 the EMS was subjected to the same kinds of stress that plagued Bretton Woods,although the source of the problem differed.Under Bretton Woods,the shock that led to its collapse was an acceleration of inflation in the United States.Under the
9 Mara Lujn Porcelli

ECONOMY EMS,the shock was bond-financed German reunification and the

Bundesbanks subsequent deflationary policy.In each case,the system broke down because other countries were unwilling to go along with the policies of the center country.As under Bretton Woods,although the EMS had the option for a general realignment,both improved capital mobility and the Maastricht commitment to a unified currency made it an unrealizable outcome. The lesson from Bretton Woods and the EMS is that pegged exchange rate systems do not work for long,no matter how well they are designed.The case made years ago,during the Bretton Woods era,for floating exchange rates for major countries still holds.True,European countries could form a currency union with perfecly fixed exchange rates if member countries were wholeheartedly willing to give up domestic policy autonomy.The likelihood that the United States,Japan,and even Germany would be willing to accept the loss of sovereignity entailed by moving to the much less restrictive restraints(compared to the European Monetary Union) of a resurrected Bretton Woods system seems remote.Judging from the history of Bretton Woods,for them to do so would be folly.The best description for world economic stability is for each country independently to pursue stable monetary and fiscal policies. IV. Conclusion The Bretton Woods era was a period of admirable economic performance,yet it is unclear how much of the favorable behavior of the real economy can be attributed to the regime.The shortt life of the full-fledged Bretton Woods system,the circumstances under which it collapsed,and the uncanny similarity of events in Europe in 1992-1993 to events 20 years earlier,suggest

Porcelli

10

Mara Lujn

ECONOMY that it may well be a long time before an attempt to resurrect a system like it will be taken seriously by the major countries of the world. In short,the case for a new Bretton Woods system is dubious.

THE GATT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The transformation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1,1995,provides an opportune movement to take shock of the GATTs achievements and shortcomings alongside those of its 50-year-old sister international institutions set up at Bretton Woods.It is temptingly easy to attribute the astounding postwar economic expansion,particularly when set against the turbulent interwar period when multilateral efforts to contain protectionist pressures failed miserably,to the economic policies embodied in the GATT and to the initial stability provided by the Bretton Woods institutions.Yet a closer look at precisely what the GATT accomplished in its first decade suggests that trade liberalization under its auspices alone is far from sufficient to explain the postwar economic boom. I.Trade Relations Prior to the GATT Prior to World War I,the world economy enjoyed several decades of relative serenity in terms of both international trade and monetary relations.During 1860-1913,world trade relations centered around a network of bilateral trade treaties containing the most-favored nation (MFN) clause.Each country was generally free to set and change its tariff code so long as it adhered to the
Porcelli 11 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY MFN clause.These arrangements arose without multilateral cooperation.Yet despite the lack of any oversight mechanism or institutional basis,this regime(if it can be called that) brought about relatively low trade barriersalmost exclusively tariffs,with an absence of quantitative restrictions,voluntary restraint agreements,exchange controls,and the likealong with very little trade discrimination. International trade flourished during this period.Figure 1 plots the tradeweighted export volume and real output of 11 major countries during 18701913.Although both enjoyed a smooth expansion for nearly half a century,export volume grew much faster than real output,expanding fourfold in the 43 years prior to World War I,compared to near tripling in output. World War I shattered the treaty network as countries imposed higher tariffs,import quotas,licensing requirements,and foreign-exchange controls.Economic reconstruction following the war lacked any institutional mechanism to facilitate the reduction of the extensive trade barriers that had arisen during the war and had become entrenched thereafter.The political weakness of European countries in trade policy was evident when a proposal for equality of trade conditions in a draft League of Nations charter was rejected in favor of a weaker provision for equitable treatment. The World Economic Conference in 1927 found it necessary to call upon governments to remove the still pervasive controls on trade.A decade after its formation,the League of Nations had yet to sponsor any negotiations on liberalizing world trade from high tariffs. The onset of the depression vanquished any serious prospect of trade reform in Europe and elsewhere,and the 1930s were a disaster in the field of commercial policy.

Porcelli

12

Mara Lujn

ECONOMY An outbreak of even greater protectionism supplemented by discriminatory trade and currency blocks created innumerable impediments to international commerce and hampered economic recovery.Multilateral and bilateral efforts to remove these barriers and to end this discrimination were feeble and amounted to virtually nothing. Partly as a result,economic performance in the interwar period was dismal.As Figure 2 illustrates,exports grew more rapidly than output in the decade after World War I,although that growth was not robust.Between 1929 and 1932,exports plunged more than output,but the real debacle is illustrated by the failure of trade to follow the path of output after 1932.Trade failed to expand in the 1930s not because output growth was sluggish,but because the previous relationship between trade and growth no longer held.Although real output was roughly 15-percent higher in 1938 than in 1929,exports were roughly 15-percent below where they stood in 1929 and had scarcely returned top their prewar level. Greater protectionism and trade discrimination,as well as breakdown in multilateral financing arrangements,were probably the major causes. After the interwar catastrophe,the notion that a beneficent,decentralized,noncooperative equilibrium (like that prior to World War I) could possibly emerge after World War II seemed fanciful.Certain that the nonsystem of the late 19th century would not be automatically resurrected after World War II,the United States and the United Kingdom began preparing the ground during the early 1940s for a postwar international agreement on commercial policy to reduce trade barriers and limit discriminatory tariff preferences. II.Early GATT Efforts on Trade Liberalization
Porcelli 13 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY

The driving force behind the GATT was the same as that which motivated the Bretton Wood conference in 1944: the interwar disaster.The interwar period should not be viewed just as a series of domestic economic failures,but as an international economic failure as well.Just as the architects of the Bretton Woods system envisioned restoring the international monetary system to a sound footing,the purpose of the GATT was to roll back trade barriers and end discriminatory trade policies. The architects of the postwar international economic framework believed that trade liberalization had an important supporting role in achieving the principal economic goals of monetary stability and full employment.But trade reform was not considered an urgent priority in itself,and negotiations over the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO),designed to take a place alongside the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,were not successfully completed until 1948. In the end,the ITO never came to fruition.This may have been a blessing in disguise: with a multifaceted agenda ranging from restrictive business practices to intergovernamental commodity agreements,the ITO risked devolving into a large bureaucracy that would have institutionalized and sanctioned state regulation of international commerce as much as it would have freed trade from such controls. The GATT was formed by carving out and implementing the commercialpolicy sections of the Havana Charter that was to have guided the ITO.The narrow focus of the GATT swerved the process of trade liberalization (and the institution itself) well because the GATTs mission was simple and straightforward.The purpose of the GATT,as stated in its preamble,was to contribute to rising standards of living and full employment by entering into
Porcelli 14 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce. In contrast to the inaction after World War I,trade relations began the postwar period on an encouraging note.Just two years after Germanys surrender,23 countries established a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that set rules to restrict national trade policies and even started to decrease tariffs in blinding agreements.Just five years after the end of the war,all major Western European countries had participated in three separate negotiations rounds that had expanded GATT membership and further reduced import tariffs.The first GATT negotiation round,held in Geneva in 1947,was a tremendous success.The 23 participating countries(accounting for 80 percent of world trade) implemented tariff cuts ( of a still undetermined magnitude) and implemented those cuts on an MFN basis.The United States took the lead by cutting its tariffs by 35 percent,on average.

But the postwar period did not see steady,consistent progress in the reduction of tariff barriers.Rather,such progress came in fits and starts.Indeed,the GATT achieved remarkably little in the 15 years after the Geneva round.The Annecy (1949) and Torquay (1950-1951) rounds expanded GATT membership but made only minor progress in reducing tariffs.The GATTs momentum stalled very early into the postwar economic recovery,and there was widespread pessimism and frustration with the GATT process throughout the 1950s.It is doutboul that the ITO could have expedited this process;negotiations might have proceeded even more slowly under the ITO owing to the greater complexity of issues it was designed to
Porcelli 15 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY address.Fortunately,as world trade reform paused,a European program of trade liberalization proceeded under the auspices of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) and the European Economic Community (EEC). A crucial achievement of the GATT during the 1950s came in preserving the sanctity of the early tariff reductions.Although tariff concessions embodied in Article II of the GATT were considered fixed indefinitely,countries retained the right under Article XXVIII to revoke them in negotiations with their principal supplier.To prevent an erosion in the 1947 tariff cuts,the GATT members agreed to forgo the right to invoke Article XXVIII for three years.This pledge was renewed throughout the 1950s to ensure the continuity and integrity of the tariff reductions and thereby helped prevent the GATTs early successes from unraveling. This lock-in feature prevented backsliding toward higher tariffs and proved particularly important as other trade barriers,notably quantitative restrictions and exchange controls,were being phased out during the 1950s.As these other trade impediments were being removed,the tariff cuts negotiated in the early rounds took on increasing bite and thereby more directly affected domestic import-competing interests. The success of the European program of trade liberalization,capped by the formation of the EEC in 1958,prompted the United States once again to initiate multilateral trade negotiations.Aiming to reduce the EECs common external tariff,Congress gave the president authority to reduce tariffs up to 50 percent.The resulting Kennedy Round of trade negotiations during the 1960s concluded with the most substantial tariff reductions of the postwar period.The Tokyo Round of the 1970s made further progress in reducing tariff and nontariff trade barriers.
Porcelli 16 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY

III.Was the GATT a success? The postwar economic expansion in trade an income surely exceeded all the expectations of those involved in designing the GATT.The main goal, avoiding a repetition of the interwar experience,was clearly averted.Figure 3 illustrates,once again,export volume and real output for the 10 countries for which data exist back to 1870.Because Figure 3 closely resembles Figure 1,the major goal of the GATT founders was achieved;once again,the world economy experienced expanding international commerce facilitated by lower trade barriers,a record that continued after the breakdown of the fixedexchange-rate regime in the early 1970s.

To what extent can the GATT take credit for this happy happenstance? Here it should be noted that the successes and failures of the GATT need to be viewed somewhat differently from those of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.The Bank and the Fund are autonomous institutions that use lending power to affect the economic policies of member countries.The GATT had no autonomous power,independent leverage,or financial sanction.The GATT,in some sense,did not exist beyond the commitment of its members,particularly the United States and the European Community,to reach certain goals through a negotiated consensus.The GATT could have done no more than what these countries,in conjunction with others,were willing to achieve. With this in mind,the GATT process with U.S. leadership did secure the very real accomplishment of eliminating a host of impediments to international trade.Tariffs of the industrialized countries have fallen from roughly 40
Porcelli 17 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY percent after World War II,on average,to about 5 percent now,according to the GATT.On nondiscrimination,the GATT period is perhaps less succesful than the late 19th-century era,but certainly an improvement over the interwar period. Of course,this broad record of success is marred by several gaping holes in the GATTs coverage.Whole areas of trade escaped GATT rules;agriculture and textiles come quickly to mind.New policy instruments arose to replace the reduced tariffs and quotas;voluntary restraint agreements and antidumping measures also come quickly to mind.The developing countries, for much of the postwar period,stood largely outside the GATT system in that membership did not require them to rciprocate fully the actions of other participants. Several factors also moiderate ones conclusions about the GATTs responsibility for the post-war boom.First there is the issuse of timing.If the economic expansion of the 1950s and 1960s is to be attributed to the GATT,then the Geneva Round in 1947 appears pivotal.ASfter all,the GATT was largely inactive during the 1950s and the Kennedy Round was not concluded until 1967,and implemented thereafter.To say that this first negotiating round stimulated two decades of rapidly expanding international trade stretches the imagination and suggests that other sources of trade liberalization (such as by the OEEC and the EEC) or technological catch-up need to be examined.However,the GATTs role in preserving the early tariff cuts cannot be denied. Yet the GATT may be as important for what it represents in terms of process as for what it has accomplished as an institution.The GATT set a standard for commercial policies and stood as a reminder that striving for the objective of freer multilateral trade was worthwhile.As a set of rules,the GATT provided
Porcelli 18 Mara Lujn

ECONOMY some credible assurance that tariff levels could move in only one

direction,unless specific escape-clause procedures were invoked.Providing a quantitative assessment of the importance of these factors,of course,is extremely difficult. By some ideal standard,the GATT has been so far from a complete success.But it is also necessary to consider the counterfactual: how would trade policies have evolved in the absence of the GATT? Given the interwar experience,the founders of the postwar system surely could not imagine a much better scenario unfolding than the one depicted in Figure 3 and could easily envision much worse outcomes occurring. But had there been no GATT,the postwar system would not necessarily have reverted to the interwar chaos.Because the United States had initiated a program of bilateral trade liberalization (largely with Latin American countries) after the passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934,the United States might have become the central mode node of a series of bilateral trade agreements ,although not necessarily with unconditional MFN as the ruling principle. IV. Conclusion One should neither overstate nor understate the impact of the GATT on the postwar world economy.The GATT deserves some contributory credit for the post-World War II economic boom.The GATT scraped along at times but had a distinct,downward rachet effect on world trade barriers.For this reason,in spite of its small size and uncertain place as an economic institution,the GATTs long-run impact on the world economy has (arguably) been more

Porcelli

19

Mara Lujn

ECONOMY significant then either that of the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. The GATTs success was by no means uniform.In replacing the GATT,the WTO promises to fill in some gaps-liberalizing agricultural trade,eliminating voluntary restraint agreements,and strengthening dispute settlement procedures-without entailing a radical innovation in the GATTs primary purposes.Whether these promises will be fulfilled remains to be seen.

Porcelli

20

Mara Lujn