Historical Background
While the overall goal of GATS is to remove barriers to trade, members are free to choose which sectors are to be progressively "liberalised", i.e. marketised and privatised, which mode of supply would apply to a particular sector, and to what extent liberalisation will occur over a given period of time. Members' commitments are governed by a "ratchet effect", meaning that commitments are one-way and are not to be wound back once entered into. This reason for this rule is to create a stable trading climate. However, Article XXI does allow Members to withdraw commitments, and so far two members have exercised this option (USA and EU). In November 2008, Bolivia notified that it will withdraw its health services commitments.
Some activist groups consider that GATS risks undermining the ability and authority of governments to regulate commercial activities within their own boundaries, with the effect of ceding power to business interests ahead of the interests of citizens. The concerns of these groups would seem to be borne out by the facts: witness the example of the UK and the now-rapid privatisation of all public services — health care, police, education — following the earlier privatisation of telecoms, railways, air traffic control, and so on In 2003 the GATSwatch network published a critical statement which was supported by over 500 organisations in 60 countries. At the same time, countries are not under any obligation to enter international agreements such as GATS. For countries that like to attract trade and investment, GATS adds a measure of transparency and legal predictability. Legal obstacles to services trade can have legitimate policy reasons, but can also be an effective tool for large scale corruption (De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.)
Read more about this topic: General Agreement On Trade In Services
Famous quotes containing the words historical and/or background:
“Some of us still get all weepy when we think about the Gaia Hypothesis, the idea that earth is a big furry goddess-creature who resembles everybody’s mom in that she knows what’s best for us. But if you look at the historical record—Krakatoa, Mt. Vesuvius, Hurricane Charley, poison ivy, and so forth down the ages—you have to ask yourself: Whose side is she on, anyway?”
—Barbara Ehrenreich (b. 1941)
“Pilate with his question “What is truth?” is gladly trotted out these days as an advocate of Christ, so as to arouse the suspicion that everything known and knowable is an illusion and to erect the cross upon that gruesome background of the impossibility of knowledge.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)