WTO Simulation

Document Sample
WTO Simulation Powered By Docstoc
					                                  Econ 348: International Economics
                                    WTO Simulation, Spring 201
I. Background
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules
of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the
world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and
services, exporters, and importers conduct their business. The WTO is a rules-based, member-driven
organization — all decisions are made by the member governments, and the rules are the outcome of
negotiations among members. Currently there are 153 country members.

In general, ministerial conferences are the WTO’s highest decision-making body, meeting at least once
every two years and providing political direction for the organization.

At the 4th Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001, WTO member governments agreed
to launch new negotiations for the rules of international trade. The agenda for new negotiations is called
the Doha Development Agenda or Doha Declaration. It set forth a work program that covers 19
negotiating areas. Within each area, WTO members set specific goals. The WTO also established a
Trade Negotiations Committee to oversee the Doha Round’s progress. The Doha Agenda is considered a
package or “single undertaking,” meaning simultaneous agreement on all issues is required to finalize the

Since 2001, the WTO membership has been trying to complete the Doha round of new trade rules; the
negotiations were to be completed by 2005. Currently, we the round will be complete sometime in 2010.
The following is a brief synopsis of what has happened to date.

The Doha Declaration set several goals for the 5th Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico in
September of 2003. However, WTO members were unable to achieve these goals or bridge substantial
differences on individual negotiating issues during this conference.

After the 2003 Cancún Ministerial Conference ended in deadlock, WTO members in Geneva began
efforts to put the negotiations and the rest of the work programme back on track in 2004. In July of 2004,
the WTO members adopted a framework agreement on key negotiating issues called “the July
framework” or “July package.” This framework is credited with putting global trade talks back on track.

The 6th Ministerial Conference was held in Hong Kong, China, in December of 2005, where the goal was
to set the stage for final negotiations of the Doha Round in 2006. WTO members focused on six issues in
the 6th Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong: (1) agriculture, (2) industrial or non-agricultural market
access (NAMA), (3) services, (4) trade facilitation (custom’s reforms), (5) WTO rules, such as rules for
subsides and anti-dumping, and (6) development.

But, the 6th Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong made clear: negotiations are stuck on agriculture. The
objective of the Agriculture Agreement is to reform trade in agriculture and to make policies more
market-oriented. The new rules and commitments apply to (Three Pillars of Agriculture):
     market access — various trade restrictions confronting imports
     domestic support — subsidies and other programs, including those that raise or guarantee farm
        gate prices and farmers’ incomes
     export subsidies (export competition) - and other methods used to make exports artificially

Ministers and heads of delegations met in Geneva in July of 2006 for intensive negotiations on template
agreements, known as “modalities”, for trade in agriculture and industrial products. The negotiations

                                               Page 1 of 13
were suspended at the end of July after an attempt by ministers from six key players to break the deadlock

What are “modalities”? “Modalities” are ways or methods of doing something. Here, the ultimate
objective is for member governments to cut tariffs and subsidies and to make these binding commitments
in the WTO. The “modalities” will tell them how to do it, but first the “modalities” have to be agreed
upon. An example of a modalitie is a formula to be applied to how each country will make cuts to a tariff
on a specific product. Once they have been agreed, governments can apply the formulas to their tariffs
and subsidies to set new ceiling commitments. However in order to agree to the formulas, members want
a number of other concerns to be part of the deal. These include flexibility to allow some deviation from
the formulas, tighter disciplines to ensure loopholes are plugged and trade-distorting subsidies are not
camouflaged in permitted policies, and different treatment for developing countries and some other
groups of members. The result is a document that is considerably more complicated than formulas alone.

Since September 2008, much of the negotiating has taken place in the chairperson’s consultations with
groups of delegates. He has nicknamed these “walks in the woods” partly because they have taken place
outside the WTO. Before that, up to July, 2008 the hard talk on agriculture took place in meetings of 36–
37 representative delegations, a more manageable size than sessions of the full membership. The process
was controlled by meetings of the full membership and was chaired by the talks’ chairperson.

On November 30-December 2nd of 2009 the 7th Ministerial Conference took place in Geneva,
Switzerland, where working sessions were devoted to discussions on the Doha Work Program and the
WTO’s contribution to recovery, growth and development. This discussion highlighted the challenge that
negotiations on agriculture still present, in light of the fact that the least develop countries are a primary
concern and that the global economic crisis of the past two years makes the urgency of conclusion of the
Doha round and increased trade as important for global economic recovery. In fact, the WTO Director
General, Pascal Lamy, urged all members of the WTO to conclude the Doha Round in 2010.

In the end, we are a bit closer to a trade agreement…but much more needs to be done. Issues are even
more complicated and distressing with the current, downturn of the global economy and rising food
prices. This may likely make any future negotiations more difficult. However, in a recent speech to the
Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva on 29 June 2010, Director-General Pascal Lamy
                 In agriculture, there is an agreement to eliminate export subsidies,
                 considered as the most damaging type of agricultural subsidies. On the
                 table there is capping of the total amount of trade-distorting subsidies
                 that developed countries can provide to farmers, as well as caps on
                 specific products to avoid an excessive concentration of aid. On
                 agricultural tariffs, developed countries would cut tariffs by no less than
                 52 per cent and emerging countries by no more than 36 per cent.
                 Flexibilities exist for both to address specific sensitivities. Since it is
                 often argued that developing countries have a comparative advantage in
                 many agricultural products, increased opening up of the agricultural
                 sector will be of great benefit to them.
                Source: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl161_e.htm

                                                 Page 2 of 13
II. Your assignment:
You will be placed into one of 4 key alliances. Your alliance will be responsible for generating a series of
position papers which 1. Describe your alliance’s current position on agricultural trade policy and 2.
Support the position using positive economic analysis and academic literature. Each group member
writes their own paper. Then as a group, you will use the papers to develop a 20 minute class presentation
describing and justifying your alliance’s position on agriculture trade policy. Each person is required to
present a portion of the presentation.

After being assigned to an alliance and a trade policy topic:

Your 6-10 page paper should include (This is a check list to be handed in with your paper!!):
1. ____ A clear introduction to the specific trade policy on which you will be writing your position.
   This will include a clear definition of the policy.
2. ____ A clear, normative statement of your alliance’s position on the specific trade policy in your
   opening paragraph(s). (note: this is not what you personally believe should be the alliance’s position
   on a trade policy)
        Ex: Write a sentence like, “We the members of the G20 hold the following position on
            export subsidies….”.
        Your paper is written in 1st person, using statements like “We believe…”.
        Once you stated your position, the remainder of your paper is dedicated to using positive
            statements, research, facts and importantly economic analysis to convince your reader (the
            other WTO country members) that your stated position is correct.
3. _____ A well written paper will also include a discussion of:
        Basic intuition and background of why your alliance holds the trade policy position. Has
            your alliance changed its position over time?
        Some context about the controversy over the policy. Briefly explain how your position
            differs in important ways from the other 3 alliances. In some cases, your position may differ
            from only one alliance.
        Better papers will use information from academic literature (from journal articles and books)
            as a source of information for this section.

To successfully support/justify your alliance’s position you must provide:
4. _____Sufficient background information on your alliance’s trade in agriculture through data, tables
    and charts that places your position paper into context.
         Why? In order to convince the WTO that they should accept your position, you need to
            convince the audience that agriculture is crucial to your economy.
         Your goal is to use the data/charts to explain to your reader why trade in agriculture is
            important to your alliance.
         _______You must carefully explain the important points that your tables/charts show in the
            main text of your paper. Do not assume your reader will do this for you.
         Note: you may not find data specific to the G20 or G90 countries as a group. Thus, for this
            section, take some countries that are somewhat representative and use these few countries to
            tell a compelling story of the role of agriculture for your alliance.


                                                Page 3 of 13
5.  _____Economic analysis that supports your alliance’s position positive economics. This is the
   critical part of your paper and should make up the largest section of your written paper! You
   are required to use economic and international trade theory to support your alliance’s position. For
   some policies and some countries this will be quite easy – for others it may be more difficult. Please
   seek help if you need it!
        _____Graphical analysis of the trade policies and models discussed in class and your text.
            You must hand draw your graph(s) and may not scan or cut and paste it from the internet
            and/or text. You must completely label your graph(s)
        _____ Better papers will include more than one graph and will include a relevant welfare
        _____ You must carefully and thoroughly explain your graph within the main text of your
            paper. Use the graph to explain to your reader how trade policies affect the flow of trade and
            the resulting: prices, volume of trade and income distribution.
        _____ You must use the results of your analysis to carefully justify your alliance’s position
            that you described in your introduction.
        ______Better papers will further support their position using academic literature found and
            academic journals and books. Be leery of websites /sources that take a specific position or
            make explicit normative statements. Your support should be based on positive analysis (not
6. _____ Conclusions. This is where you tie carefully and thoughtfully tie your position statement and
   your economic analysis together. Be sure to put in a final, compassionate pitch!
7. ____Your paper must be written in APA format (including all in-text citations and reference list):
8. _____ Before you hand in your paper in: carefully consider whether you have avoided plagiarism.
   See the Avoiding Plagiarism link on the course website.

Your name: __________________________

Signature: ___________________________

The WTO Simulation
    At the WTO in-class simulation, alliances will be seated next to each other.
    Alliances will be randomly chosen to present their work.
    While your papers are individually written, you should formulate a group presentation of
     your alliance’s position on trade in agriculture, where you carefully explain your alliance’s
     position and discuss the economic support for your position.
    At the end of each alliance’s presentation, questions/challenges will be taken from the
     audience alliances.
    The audience is expected to challenge positions that conflict with that of your own alliance.
    Your final grade for this project will directly reflect your active participation in this aspect of
     the simulation.
    After all presentations have been completed, the simulation will end with an attempt to come
     to any consensus on the rules for international trade in agriculture.

                                               Page 4 of 13
III. Potential position paper topics:
1. Domestic support
    In WTO terminology, domestic subsidies are categorized into three different colored “boxes.” The
    boxes separate domestic support policies (subsidies) between those that are trade distorting and those
    that are non or minimally trade distorting.
     Amber Box: Trade distorting domestic support policies are categorized in the Amber Box.
         Trade distorting subsides – those in the Amber and Blue Box – have been subjected to reduction
     Green Box: Non or minimally trade distorting policies are categorized in the Green Box. Non or
         minimally trade distorting subsides – those in the Green Box – have not been subjected to
         reduction commitments.
     Blue Box: The Blue Box, contains those policies that are trade distorting, but have mechanisms
         that see to limit agricultural production.

       “Domestic Support in Agriculture: The Struggle for Meaningful Disciplines” Harry de
        Gorter and J. Danier Cook (2005)
       “Domestic Farm Policies and the WTO Negotiations on Domestic Support” invited paper
        at the International conference Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: where are we
        heading? Josling, T. (2003)
       WTO Fact sheet on domestic support
       WTO Background info on domestic support
       “The new Blue Box: A step back for fair trade” (2005) IATP Note: this publication is a bit biased,
        but should provide you with a starting frame of reference for US, EU and developing countries on
        blue box issues.

    There are 1-2 potential papers that can be written:
     Most agree that subsidies classified in the Amber Box should be eliminated. Your group should
       cover both the Blue and Green Box subsidies. You can do this in 1-2 separate papers.
     Please address: What is your alliance’s position on the Green and/or Blue Box?
           o Should they be redefined or eliminated?
           o Should the Blue Box be expanded?
           o By how much should domestic support subsidies in each box be cut?
           o The Green Box is supposed to allow subsidies that are not trade distorting. Can all the
                policies in this box be classified as not trade distorting? Is “box shifting” a problem?

                                               Page 5 of 13
2. Export Subsidies and Competition
     Export subsidies
     Export credits
     Food aid

      “Export Subsidies: Agricultural Policy Reform and Developing Countries” Harry de
       Gorter (2005
      “Export Competition Issues in the Doha round” invited paper at the International
       conference Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: where are we heading?” Abbott,
       P.C. and L. M. Young, (2003)
      WTO: Background info on export competition
      WTO: Decision on net importing developing countries
      WTO: Recent report on food aid to Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing
       Countries (NFIDC)
      Food aid: What role for the WTO? (2005) IATP. Note: this publication is a bit biased, but should
       provide you with a starting frame of reference for US, EU and developing countries on food aid.

   There are 1-2 potential papers that can be written:
    Tentative agreements have been reached to cut export subsidies, thus your group should cover
      both Export Credits and Food Aid. You can do this in 1-2 separate papers.
    Please address: What is your alliance’s position on export credits and/or food aid?
      o Should export credits be eliminated or reduced? Should specific limits be placed on it?
      o How does food aid distort trade for your alliance?
           For receiving countries does it interfere with your domestic agricultural sector or the
               sector of neighboring countries?
           For donating countries does it artificially support your domestic agricultural sector?
           How should food aid be granted to countries that need food with without distorting trade?

                                             Page 6 of 13
3. Market access
    Tariffs
    treatment of special products
    treatment of sensitive products
    special safeguard measures

      “Capping Unusually High Tariffs: The WTO Doha Round and ‘Tarff Peaks’” ICTSD
       Information Note No. 9, Nov. 2009
      “Market Access Barriers in Agriculture and Options for Reform” Kym Anderson, Harry
       de Gorter and Will Martin
      Bureau, J. and L. Salvatici, (2003) “WTO Negotiations on Market Access: What We
       Know, What We Don’t and What We Should” invited paper at the International
       conference Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: where are we heading?
      WTO: Background on market access
      WTO: Background on tariffs and tariff quotas
      WTO: Background on special safeguard measures
      “Capping Unusually High Tariffs: The WTO Doha Round and ‘Tariff Peaks’” Information Note
       Number 9, November 2009. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development
       (background on sensitive products)

   There are 1-3 potential papers that can be written:
    Tariffs: Most agree at this point that tariffs should be cut (thus it is a less interesting paper
    Special Products (for developing countries only): In the Doha Round, negotiators introduced the
      idea of a provision that would allow developing countries to designate certain products that are
      particularly important for food security as Special Products.
          o Should developing countries be allowed provisions for special products? If so how?
          o For example, country A should be allowed to protect (via a high tariff rate) an industry if
               the volume of imports reaches a specified level or if the price of the sensitive good falls
               to a certain level.
          o By what criteria should one measure whether a good is considered a special product?
    Sensitive Products (for any country): Similarly, the concept of Sensitive Products has been
      introduced as designation that would offer any country – developing or developed – the ability to
      protect an industry that is particularly sensitive to international trade.
          o Should countries be allowed to protect sensitive products? If so how many goods or
               industries should countries be allowed to protect? How should countries be allowed to
               protect a sensitive industry?
    Special Safeguard Measures (SSM): In the previous round of trade negotiations, countries
      agreed to convert all forms of protection into tariffs. The countries that were able to meet this
      goal tend to be developed countries. As compensation for this conversion, these countries were
      allowed to use special safeguards as a way to employ a barrier to trade if a particular industry was
      suddenly subjected to a high level of imports.
          o Should developing countries be allowed special safeguards? Or should special
               safeguards should be eliminated for those who have them.
          o Note: SSMs are particularly contentious in current negotiations (thus a good topic for
               each alliance)

                                              Page 7 of 13
IV Alliance groups
1. European Union: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK

Helpful Documents/Resources:
 Gateway to the European Union
 European Commission on Trade: EU & WTO. From this site, see links to information on topics like:
   Doha, Trade Topics, Export Credits, Market Access, the agricultural sector
 EU Trade in Agriculture
 2004 Moves, Statements and Proposals on Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO (US, EU,
    G20), ICTSD Quarterly Intelligence Report No. 10.
   ICTSD Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO ‘Framework Phase’ Update Report, Quarterly
    Intelligent Report No. 11 (2004)
   United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

2. United States
Helpful Documents/Resources:
 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service
 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, The WTO and the U.S. Proposal for Global Agricultural Trade
 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Agricultural Trade Policy
 2004 Moves, Statements and Proposals on Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO (US, EU,
    G20):, ICTSD Quarterly Intelligence Report No. 10.
   ICTSD Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO ‘Framework Phase’ Update Report, Quarterly
    Intelligent Report No. 11 (2004)
   United States Trade Representative (USTR), WTO & Multilateral Affairs

3. G20: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
* Don’t confuse the G20 countries listed above with The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank
Governors established in 1999 to bring together important countries to discuss key economic issues.
* Some countries listed here over-lap with G90 countries – don’t worry about it.

Helpful Documents/Resources:
   WTO: Background on the G20:
   WTO AoA Problems and Prospects (some G20 info):
   G20 and Cairns Group joint statement, ICTSD (2008):
   Summary of G20 position on Agriculture, March 2005, ICTSD Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest
   G-20 New Delhi Declaration Text of the G20 Ministerial declaration adopted at the ministerial
    Meeting on March 19, 2005.
   A G20 Position on Agriculture, December 15, 2005 TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade
   2004 Moves, Statements and Proposals on Agriculture Negotiations at the WTO (US, EU,
    G20): ICTSD Quarterly Intelligence Report No. 10.
   ICTSD Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO ‘Framework Phase’ Update Report, Quarterly
    Intelligent Report No. 11 (2004)
   2003 Proposal on Agriculture submitted for the 5th Ministerial Conference in Cancun
   Rebuilding Global Trade: Proposals for a Fairer, More Sustainable Future (a G20

                                                 Page 8 of 13
4. G90 (African Union Group; African, Caribbean and Pacific Group(ACP); least-developed
countries known as “G-90” but with 64 WTO members):
Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia. Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia,
Ghana, Grenada, Guinea (Conakry), Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
* Some countries listed here over-lap with G20 countries – don’t worry about it.

Helpful Documents/Resources:
 Note: Finding G90 specific information may be difficult. It is OK to substitute with information that
   refer to developing countries, least developed countries or poor countries in general.
 Note: the following Oxfam reports are not “G90” specific, but refer in general to developing countries
   or least developed countries. Further, be cautious as they are written with a strong bias.
    ICTSD Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO ‘Framework Phase’ Update Report, Quarterly
        Intelligent Report No. 11 (2004)
    2003 Proposal on Agriculture submitted for the 5th Ministerial Conference in Cancun:
    Oxfam International, Policy & Research site. Key word search: “WTO”
    2009 Oxfam Briefing Paper, “Empty promises: What happened to ‘development’ in the WTO’s
        Doha Round?”
    2008 Oxfam Briefing Note, “Square pegs in round holes: How the Farm Bill squanders changes
        for a pro-development trade deal”
    2006 Oxfam Briefing Paper, “A recipe for disaster: Will the Doha Round fail to deliver for
    2005 Oxfam Briefing Paper, “What happened in Hong Kong? Initial analysis of the WTO
    2005 Joint NGO Briefing Paper, “Green by not clean: Why a comprehensive review of Green
        Box subsides is necessary”
    2005 Oxfam Briefing Note, “From development to naked self-interest: The Doha Development
        Round has lost its way.”
    2005 Oxfam Briefing Note, “A little blue lie: harmful subsidies need to be reduced, not
    2005 Oxfam Briefing Paper, “Making trade work for development in 2005: What the EU should
    2005 Oxfam Briefing Paper, “Food aid or hidden dumping? Separating wheat from chaff”
    2002 Oxfam report: Rigged Rules and Double Standards: trade, globalization, and the fight
        against poverty. See Chapter 4. Note: if you would like to use some of the tables, please update
        the data!

                                                    Page 9 of 13
V. Research Hints and Additional resources
Hint 1: Start early in your search for relevant information for your paper.
Hint 2: Some information you encounter may be outdated - do your best to update it. For example be
careful of writing about a 2001 claim about a country/group position; it may have changed since then.
Hint 3: If you find a relevant paper, look at the reference list for more sources.
Hint 4: Ask for help early!
Hint 5: Read the papers written by your group members early!
Hint 6: As with any resource, read with caution any source that tends to use a lot of normative statements.

WTO website
www.wto.org is probably the most important website for your preparation. There are also NGO position
papers on the website, as well as country specific information and legal texts.

Background on WTO
Overview Videos (1) and (2)
Understanding the WTO
WTO Organizational Chart
WTO Member countries
WTO Definitions
WTO News
WTO Statistics Database (trade profiles, tariff profiles, time series selection – by country by year)
WTO Statistics Gateway Other statistics links provided by the WTO
WTO: Trade Profiles 2010

Agreement on Agriculture
Legal text of the Agreement on Agriculture
Understanding the Agreement on Agriculture

Background on the Doha Agenda
 What is it?
 How are negotiations conducted?
 An Overview Assessment of the Revised Draft WTO Modalities for Agriculture (June 2008) ICTSD
 Where are we with the Doha Round (Sept, 2005) brief by the IISD
 WTO Current Agricultural Negotiations: The issues, and where we are now (as of December 2004)
 ICTSD 2004 Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO ‘Framework Phase’ Update Report, Quarterly
   Intelligence Report No. 11
 August 2004 Historic Breakthrough, plus video news release.
 Text of July 2004 Package, “July Package”:
 ICTSD 2001 Agricultural Negotiations Proposal Analysis

Other international organizations and resources
   WTO: Report detailing agricultural exports
   FAOSTAT: data on imports and exports by countries
   The Cairns Group – coalition of 19 agricultural exporting countries with a commitment to reforming
    agricultural trade.
   International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) - Publishes a weekly and
    monthly newsletter with current WTO negotiations.
   International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council. See Agricultural Trade Negotiations
   International Trade Centre (ITC) - Technical cooperation agency of UNCTAD and WTO

                                                Page 10 of 13
   Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
   Oxfam International, Policy & Research site. Key word search: “WTO”
   United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
   The World Bank

                                           Page 11 of 13
VI. Evaluation
Paper                                                              F      D      C      B     A
1. Effective use of economic and international trade               11    14.3   16.5   18.7   22
   tools/theory to justify your position. Did you properly use
   the theory and/ or academic literature? Did you get the
   analysis correct, or did you have some mistakes?
     Failure to include a graphical analysis (where
     Failure to completely label your graph(s)
     Failure to thoroughly describe and explain your graph
         within the text of your paper – left explanation in an
         appendix or did not explain at all

2. Sophistication and depth of economic analysis. Did you          8.5   11.05 12.75 14.45    17
    make more sophisticate use of economic theory and
    graphical analysis? Is there more substance in the analysis?
    Did you apply concepts of welfare analysis and/or use more
    than one graph? Did you make use of academic literature to
    support your alliance’s position? Did you use multiple
    sources of academic literature and data or does your
    support come from only 1-2 sources?

3. Background on your alliance’s trade in agriculture. Did you     8     10.4    12    13.6   16
    make effective use of data, tables and charts to place your
    position paper into context? Did you carefully explain the
    important points that your tables/charts show in the main
    text of your paper?

4. Clarity of writing and organization of writing. Is your paper   7.5   9.75   11.25 12.75   15
well written and well organized? Is there a lot of redundancy?
     Failure to write a clear introduction to the trade policy.
     Failure to make a clear statement of your alliance’s
        position on the trade policy.

5. Presentation. Did you make strong efforts to proofread your     5     6.5    7.5    8.5    10
    paper or did you have grammatical and spelling mistakes?
     Failure to use APA format for in-text citations and
       reference list results in zero points

6. Extra Credit: Visit the Center for Writing before Friday                                   6
    April 29. To receive credit you must:
     Call to make an appointment (you may not get in if you
        call too late!)
     Attach a “pink slip” to final draft
     Attach a one paragraph reflection (separate piece of
        paper) of 1. What you did at the Center and 2. What you
        learned at the Center

7. Required Drafts: 4 pt deduction for each late draft

                                               Page 12 of 13
WTO simulation:
                                                                      F     D      C      B     A
1. Quality of alliance group presentation – was it a cohesive        3.5   4.55   5.25   5.95   7
   effort to present your alliance’s position on trade in
   agriculture. Did your alliance support your position on
   agriculture using economic theory and/or arguments for
2. Quality of your component of the group presentation. Was          2.5   3.25   3.75   4.25   5
   your presentation clear and well articulated? Were you able
   to effectively respond to questions from the other alliance
   groups when asked?
3. Quality of participation in Q&A/Debate/Discussion following       4     5.2     6     6.8    8
   the presentation of other groups. Did you engage in the
   discussion and ask at least one question? Did you ask
   additional questions?

Total:_____, Grade:____
Note – even with the extra credit, the maximum total score is 100%

                                                  Page 13 of 13

Shared By: