WTO?s Doha Round has so far been unique: it is already a bit long in the tooth, and yet it has proved to be toothless. The short point is that the Doha Development Round, launched in November 2001in Qatar?s capital by WTO member country ministers, has been followed by eight years of fruitless negotiations.

Matters have gone from bad to worse: the Cancun talks of 2003 were intended to fashion an agreement on the Round?s objectives, but agriculture became an unsurmountable hurdle between the North and South. Cancun did, however, impart unity and voice to the South. Two fresh groups came into being?the G-20 comprising middle-income developing countries, and the G-90, made up of poorer developing economies. Then followed meetings in Geneva (2004, 2006), Hong Kong (2005) and Davos (2007).

But none of these annual meetings could agree on any one of two things. One was the freeing of exports of least developed economies from quotas and tariffs, and the second was the elimination of subsidies by 2013 on developed economy agro-exports. But neither of these Hong Kong Summit (2005) pledges found favour, or firm commitments, in the Geneva Summit of 2006. A piqued WTO Secretary General even suspended the Round.

As for this year?s summit, it had been mooted by the trade ministers of 30 WTO member-economies who met in Davos on January 27, 2007. But the assurance that it would indeed be held came only in May 2007.

But even if prospects of fresh talks in 2008 have been underwritten by the US, EU, India and Brazil, a sense of d?j? vu still infuses any review of outstanding issues. And they continue to revolve around agricultural subsidies, industrial and farm tariffs, and (especially of late) movements of workers between economies.

Worst of all, the BRIC economies might be weighty, but they are nowhere near the driving seat. The commerce minister Kamal Nath continues to be vociferous on agricultural issues. But his two pet grouses still echo the old Doha leitmotifs of the need for greater market access and the possibility of ?dumping? via subsidies. Contrast this with the ?look within? attitude of Goldman Sachs? latest opus ?Brics and Beyond?, 2007. It asserts that the first thing needed to make any economy competitive is to rid it of non-performing PSEs and administered pricing.

It also says that the biggest declines in poverty are seen when economies take advantage of increased opportunities for agricultural exports. To illustrate this, the study cites Brazil and China, while it also points out counter-examples like Bangladesh. Russia has yet to become a member of WTO.

Undoubtedly, though, China?s is the economy that has benefited the most from the WTO. It gained by being able to say that WTO membership had provided the government with mandates to deregulate and open up state-owned industries where inefficiencies were rampant. The share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in total industrial output fell to 20% by 2007, compared to over 80% in 1978.

This shake-out and growth coincided with China?s WTO accession?following which, by 2004, it displaced even Japan in terms of exports. Meanwhile, the share of exports in China?s GDP also grew by 15 percentage points over 2002-07. The same years also saw a huge rise in FDI inflows to China.

Brazil, meanwhile, is the world?s fourth largest agro exporter and will profit from any rise in primary prices. That can lead, at best, to a ?Dutch disease? syndrome, but Brazil also has other irons in the fire?ethanol being one of them.

What wannabe agro-exporters like India, and others, forget while pillorying the agro-import policies of the OECD is that the 15 (Bric plus N-11) developing countries account for 43% of the total world population. Their demand for agro-goods is commensurate with their magnitude. BRICs alone account for over a third of the world?s wheat consumption.

Brazil has also become a pioneer in sugarcane-based ethanol and will be increasing production 145% from 2006 to 2016. That, says Goldman Sachs, would make it the world?s top exporter of ethanol. And even China?s corn-based ethanol production is expected to more than double, to 3.8 billion litres, by 2016.

Clearly, the story thus far suggests that trade, and FDI, have been tremendous boosters to the growth of the Bric economies. How then will this group fare if this year?s Doha Summit too disintegrates in a blinding flash of populist rhetoric from leaders loathe to implement reforms? How, in short, will they cope with their political leaders? refusal to grasp the nettle?

One way would be by accepting a scaling down of the rates of growth that is currently expected of them. That would be a sad denouement for economies like India?s whose prospects have only very recently been reassessed, and upgraded, by Goldman Sachs in the report already mentioned. Indeed, the investment bank asserts that its latest take on India yields a ?sustainable growth rate? of around 8% until 2020?or 1.7% above its earlier estimated potential. That means, given the right policies, India could be overhauling the US even before 2050. But, would it come to doing so even if New Delhi helps the Doha Round to self-destruct?

Similar is the lot of eleven other economies?the so-called ?Next 11??identified by Goldman Sachs in 2005. They comprise Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, South Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey and Vietnam. It is a major repository of Chinese investment, including from multinationals with business activities in China wishing to save on costs by outsourcing from contiguous, lower-wage, economies.

They are important because they have been attracting ever-greater investor focus. Also, the last three years saw N-11 GDP growth averaging 5.9%, the strongest in a decade-and-a half. Goldman Sachs points out that Vietnam?s growth rivals even those of the three fastest-growing BRICs China, India and Russia), while six others have elevated themselves to 5%-plus rates over 2002-2007. Even their current accounts are mostly in surplus.

Finally, these economies would just as soon trade, and prosper, regionally as multilaterally. It matters little whether the Doha Round gets consummated. They at least have accepted restructuring, something that the OECD seems to be dead against unless pushed to the wall.

Hence, failure of the Doha Summit this year could even spell an end to multilateralism as one knows (and defines) it. It will result in a world of trade and investment flows that broadly slice up the globe in three parts.

The US gets to retain its influence in the western hemisphere (with the EU getting a look-in via Mercosur), Africa and eastern Europe remain the domains of the 27-member EU, while the economies in the east coalesce around India, China, Japan with active inputs from Oceania and the Asean.