In WTO terminology, subsidies are generally characterized by boxes that preserve the colours of traffic lights: green (authorized), amber (slower, i.e. reduce), red (prohibited). In agriculture, as usual, it is more complicated. The agricultural agreement does not have a red box, although it is forbidden to provide domestic aid exceeding the obligations of reduction in the amber box; and there is a blue box for grants related to programs that limit production. There are also exceptions for developing countries (sometimes referred to as the “S-D Box” or “development box,” including the provisions of Article 6.2 of the agreement). The most important was a fixed timetable for the dismantling of the Multifibre Agreement (AMF) on textile trade, enshrined in the Textile and Clothing Agreement (ATC) and the Agriculture Agreement (AOA). Look at each one after the other. The United States has also been able to subsidize research and development spending on agriculture, with almost all U.S. agriculture being capital and commercial. Large agricultural enterprises spend considerable money on technology development and research and development. But in India, about 80% of agriculture is subsistence, and so India and other developing countries can seize this opportunity. Coverage of higher education within the GATS will promote the treatment of education as a commercial commodity. Any agreement may limit the Indian government`s authority to provide subsidies and assistance to the sector.
In addition, this will likely affect India`s booking policy. In addition, the foreign university will consume scarce educational human resources available in India, which will lead to the starvation of good teachers by less competitive national and public institutions. There is also concern that this could accelerate india`s process brain drain, as foreign universities are likely to design courses as part of their parenting institution. From India`s point of view, the services give a different picture than agricultural and industrial tariffs. As an emerging global power in information technology and business services, the country is indeed a vector of demand in WTO discussions on services, as it wants more liberal commitments from its trading partners on cross-border service delivery, including the transfer of “individuals” (persons) to industrialized countries or so-called mode 4 for service delivery. With regard to fashion 2, which requires the consumption of services abroad, India has an offensive interest. Some experts believe that, as part of the Uruguay Round commitments, industrialized countries already have a liberal trading system in mode 1 (which includes outsourcing of business processing or BPOs) with respect to some of the Indian princesses. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the autonomous liberalization of developed countries, which can be trapped during the negotiations, and the benefits that can flow from it and which can be generated by India. In addition, India`s services exports would continue to grow despite further liberalization, given its cost advantage and demographics. India could also explore the possibility of excluding mutual recognition agreements with major service importers, in order to prevent differences between domestic regulatory systems from acting as export barriers. d.
Implementation issue: Developing countries say they have had difficulty implementing the agreements reached in the previous Uruguay Round due to limited capacity or lack of technical assistance. They also say that they did not understand some of the benefits they expected from the cycle, such as improving access to their textiles and clothing in markets in industrialized countries.B.