Talk:Generalized System of Preferences

[Untitled][edit]

I just wrote the first long draft of this article. It was my first on Wikipedia, so I didn't immediately realize that I should have a username. Just got one. I spent 2 years lobbying for reform of the U.S. GSP law in the early 1990s, but that was over 10 years ago, so trade attorneys will undoubtedly find incorrect nuances in my draft. Please fix them if you do. (Professor John Jackson, are you there?) I didn't go into the broad-based controversy surrounding trade policy that has developed in recent years, but that is certainly worth discussion here and elsewhere. The original entry here was just a stub that inaccurately defined GSP (apparently) just to refer to the very real use of the United State's GSP program to promote the U.S. business community's intellectual property agenda in the 1980s and 1990s. I wanted to provide a more complete and accurate description of GSP in general and the U.S. program in particular. Anyone else who wants to describe the controvery, please do so.

GSP from the EU prespective[edit]

what about the EU GSP regime? Also there are GSP+, etc... Alinor 07:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________

The EU system is somewhat different from the US system. The EU system has a better product coverage then the US system, but is still criticised for not including products that would be of most interest to the developing countries. In general the product coverage is presented by two lists. One list with so called 'non-sensitive' products given zero-duty and one list with 'sensitive' products given a reduction in tariff, either a reduction of 3.5 percentage points for ad-valorem or 30 on specific tariffs. There are exceptions, textile and apparel where the tariff reduction is 20 %. If I remember correctly, ethanol (industrial alcohol) was also an exception.

Developed countries can be graduated from the system, either 'country graduation' where the country is removed completely from the system. In the case of the EU system, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong has been completely removed this way. Country graduation is usually not controversial as it is a fairly clear case why the country loses its preferences. There have talks about removing the countries which the EU has bilateral FTAs with. Unfortunately I don't have the latest info on this, as far as I know this is not implemented yet.

The other graduation mechanism is much more controversial, section graduation (used to be sector graduation). If a country has more than 15 % of preferential trade within a section, in addition to fulfilling certain other criteria, the preferences under this section will be removed for that country. A graduated section can be reinserted if preferential export to the EU decreased under the threshold again. Through this mechanism China has lost more or less all its preferences, in principle only agricultural products left.

On GSP+ I would like someone else to give info since this changed a couple of years ago, from three systems to one. I simply don't have the latest info on that. The system gives in principle zero-duty for products that are covered by GSP. In order for countries to benefit from GSP+ they most abide by ILO and some UN-conventions, also they most apply with the EU Commission to the covered by GSP+.

Lastly, for countries that are defined as a Least Developed Country (LDC) the EU GSP gives zero-duty without quantitative limitation. This initiative is called Everything But Arms, EBA. There are/were some exception for sugar, rice and bananas. I think however by now bananas have no limitation. I think however that rice and sugar are in principle also zero-duty due to the zero-duty quotas that the LDCs can benefit from.

I hope this gives some additional info for someone who would like to add to the already existing article. It could be added that most developed countries have a GSP system. There is even a GSP system among developing countries, GSTP. I am not sure how well this system works though.

oh, one additional thing. The so called enabling clause is the clause that give countries the permanent right to divert from the MFN-principle under the WTO-rules. The enabling clause came into light during the Tokyo-round.

Blimp80 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Generalized System of Preferences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]