| Abstract: | The contents of international commodity agreements have changed from those in which open-ended intervention mechanisms regulated the market defending a normative price to those limiting intervention so as not to obscure market forces and consequently the market price. Underlying this change is the principle to which the developed countries accorded the highest priority, namely that the interests of producing and consuming countries must balance to avoid an indiscriminate transfer of resources. On the other hand, the principles which guided agreements that set a normative price were based on the grounds that the market price determined by unequal partners was unfair and that internationally agreed developmental goals implied untied and unconditional resource transfers by means of normative, higher than market, prices. These two sets of principles were incompatible. As a result negotiations were not only difficult but inconclusive. Another reason for this outcome was that the question of the cost effectiveness of market duplicating agreements based on the principle of balanced interests was unresolved. These reasons explain why commodity agreements do not figure currently in substantive discussions on North-South cooperation and why only three commodity agreements have a functional role and even of these three, one is not in force definitively. |
