The prospects for a new consensus on trade and development rest on the challenges of recognizing the relationship between openness in trade and finance and development, while positive, is not as automatic or exclusive as some recommendations seem to suggest, and that development policy is something much more complex and varied. Indeed, that development is a multifaceted transformation of societies.
It is also apparent from this perspective that it would be wrong to blame trade liberalization for the failure to achieve development goals (living standards, equity, education, nutrition, and housing) that could not reasonably be expected from trade alone in the first place, or only with an excessive optimism about its power for development (Xirinachs, 1999).
This more sober perspective on the role of trade and trade liberalization in facing new challenges and development process is probably at the basis of the encouraging fact that the Asian crisis has not reversed the commitment of countries throughout the world to open trade and investment policies, and has not seriously challenged the intellectual case for outward orientation nor for having trade as the engine of growth.
While recognizing the importance of systemic openness, developing countries did reiterate a number of important messages: the need for more access to developed country markets, for more flexibility and for more technical assistance. The international trading arena is characterized at present with the existing trade organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union (EU) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC).
From time immemorial, it has long been accepted the fact that – in terms of international market, finance and trade, the world is primarily dictated, governed and operated by the policies and projects that are enacted by the key world players popularly known as the G7 and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
International laws on importing and exporting are undeniably influenced largely by the institutionalized region-based bodies which include the Free-Trade Areas (FTAs) of the Americans and the European Union (EU). Membership with these international organizations guarantees political and economic support and alliance with other co-member countries. This premise is observed by every member nation most particularly with every political decision and business venture that member countries engage in.
Most of the deals are undertaken through partnership with other member countries. However, due to the differing political, social and economic atmosphere of the member countries in these international trading organizations, different issues and problems are the constant challenge that key international market players experience in terms of sustained and long-term economic considerations and .
The agreement and contracts signed by parties in order to promote a continuous flow of money, goods and services between and among nations faces various shortcomings when the agreed upon mutual benefits of participating countries could be hardly observed. International market players are classified according to their economic stability and financial characteristics. Developed and developing countries are economic categorization among member nations.
Viability to business operations and the wealth of a nation almost always tells and predicts the investment flows from which its economy may gain. Entry in the international trade and finance arena faces issues regarding the economic security which every country is entitled to upon signed contracts and agreements between and among member nations of these global organizations. One of the concerns being addressed in the international finance and trading systems and practices is the importance of moneyness over money.