This second UNCTAD conference addressed three main topics, all of which required negotiations and resulted in significant confrontation between the G77 and Group B. These included attempts to agree details of a generalised system of trade preferences, discussions on technology transfer and the situation of the Least Developed Countries which followed into UNCTAD III. UNCTAD II was considered a failure by some, but hope remained for a generalised system of trade preferences as one of the outcomes of the conference. (Bell, 1973)

Wall highlights the main causes of conflict at New Delhi as the negotiations between meeting the trade needs of the G77 (especially regarding commodities and the least developed countries (LDCs), and protecting Group B interests. (Wall, 1968:7-8)  In terms of a system of trade preferences, one difference between UNCTAD I and UNCTAD II was that “while in 1964 the problem was to achieve agreement on whether a Generalised System of Preferences was desirable or not, in 1968 the problem was what form, in detail, the Generalised System of Preferences should take.” (Wall, 1968:7) 

What was the Generalised System of Trade Preferences?  Raul Prebisch, economist and founding secretary-general of UNCTAD,  pushed for such a system: “Prebisch put a great deal of emphasis on regional cooperation towards industrialization and also, in the international setting, on the concept of preferences received by developing countries in the developed countries for exports of manufactures. And even at that time he was saying that these preferences should be ‘generalized preferences’, given without discrimination to all developing countries, because otherwise the big powers would group individual developing countries in proximity to them as recipients of preferential treatment, ignoring the rest, and this would then divide the world.” (Corea, 2001:7)

In relation to technology transfer, Geoffrey Oldham and Chris Freeman were commissioned by the UNCTAD Secretariat who were preparing for UNCTAD II to prepare a paper on the technological balance of payments. In this paper, the authors proposed the creation of a new institution which would serve as a go-between between those who had particular technologies and those who wanted or needed the technology. (Oldham, pers. comm.). The paper was well received and subsequently UNCTAD put in place their own programme on technology. Sarandra Patel, from India, was appointed to head the new division.

See UNCTAD III.

 

Sources:

Bell, C. (Ed) (1973) ‘The Future of UNCTAD’ IDS Bulletin Vol 5, No 1. 

Wall, D. (1968) ‘Towards a General Preference System’ in IDS Bulletin Vol 1, No. 1 June 1968.

Oldham, G. personal communication (Recorded Interview  March 2009)

Corea, Gamani. Former Secretary-General of UNCTAD.  Statement. Tribute Lecture to Raúl Prebisch. 2001.  Available online at: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/prebisch11th.en.pdf
Trends and Problems in World Trade and Development: The transfer of technology to developing countries, with special reference to licensing and know-how agreements. Study prepared by C.H.G. Oldham, C. Freeman, and E. Turkcan. Science Policy Research Unit of the University of Sussex, United Kingdom.  Second Session, UN Conference on Trade and Development. New Delhi, India. 1 February, 1968