




































Economy 
ISSN(E) : 2313-8181 
ISSN(P) : 2518-0118 
Vol. 3, No. 2, 51-73, 2016 
www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/Economy 

  

 

 

 

 

51 

 

A Measurement of Annual GDP Performance of the 162 

WTO Members between 1989-2001 and 2002-2014 

 
Alan Bayham1      

1
UofP Phoenix, Arizona USA 

 
Abstract 

The annual GDP performance mean between all 162 World Trade Organization countries was  measured 

between two time periods: 1989-2001 and 2002 and 2014.  The 10 best and worst performing nations 

were measured and analyzed against each other for each time period.  The 10 nations with the largest 

positive and negative annual GDP mean performance shift was compiled and discussed.  Discussion 

regarding the data, WTO membership, and external trade networks is included, and the article 

incorporates an analysis effective austerity measures, lack of diversification, and membership in trade 

and political organizations, which have led to both positive and negative outcomes in relation to annual 

GDP mean economic performance for WTO member nations over the two time periods measured.  

Analysis regarding the annual GDP mean performance concludes that the WTO has promoted world 

trade throughout the world, and this has directly resulted in an increase of annual GDP mean 

performance by 29% over the two time periods studied for WTO member nations. 
 

Keywords: World, Trade, Organization, Gross, Domestic, Product, Economics 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 

2. Purpose, Rationale, and Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................... 54 

3. Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 54 

4. Results .................................................................................................................................................................................. 54 

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 65 

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 70 

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 73 

 
 

Citation | Alan Bayham (2016). A Measurement of Annual GDP Performance of the 162 WTO Members between 1989-2001 and 2002-2014. Economy, 

3(2): 51-73. 

DOI: 10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73       

ISSN(E) : 2313-8181   

ISSN(P) : 2518-0118 

Licensed:  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License  

Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper. 

Transparency: The author confirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that 

no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been 

explained. 

Ethical: 

History: 

This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

Received: 17 May 2016/ Revised: 16 June 2016/ Accepted: 20 June 2016/ Published: 24 June 2016 

Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Alan Bayham
http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Alan Bayham
http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Alan Bayham
http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.20448/journal.502/2016.3.2/502.2.51.73


Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

52 

 

1. Introduction 
1.1. Gross Domestic Product 

The gross domestic product of a nation is used by economists as one of the primary economic indicators to 

measure the strength and health of countries economies (Investopedia, 2016). The GDP represents the total monetary 

value of all goods and services produced by a nation over a period of time, and it should be thought of as a 

representation of the size of a country's economy.  Economists arrive at the figure of a country's GSP in one of two 

ways: by adding up the annual income of a nation or by adding up the money spent within a nation.  The income 

approach is calculated by adding up employees' salaries, gross profits of companies within a nation, and taxes minus 

subsidies.  The expenditure method, which is considered to be more common, is calculated by adding a nation's total 

consumption, investments, government spending, and net exports.  A country's GDP figures, which show a nation's 

economic production and growth, impacts everyone within an economy because it reflects a country's economic 

health.  Significant changes in a nation's GDP has a large impact on its unemployment rate, wage increases, and 

stock markets.  Thus, poor GDP figures results weakened economic growth for a nation, which results in fewer jobs, 

fewer profits, and lower stock prices.  Negative GDP growth is what investors use to determine the strength of a 

nation's economy and whether or not it has entered an economic recession.   

 

1.2. The World Trade Organization 
The World Trade Organization was developed in 1995 from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 

(Heakal, 2016). The goal of GATT was to reduce tariffs and facilitate the global trade of goods following WWII, and 

it was based on the Most Favored Nation clause that allowed selected countries privileged trading rights within 

specific national economies.  The goal of GATT was to increase competition between nations by permitting them to 

have equal trading rights, so individual nations would not have trading advantages over others.  From 1947 to 1994, 

the trading regulations established through GATT governed multilateral trading between participating nations, and it 

worked to address agricultural issues and anti-dumping regulations between its members as well.  The Uruguay 

round is of particular importance in the history of GATT because it laid the framework for a general agreement on 

trade for services, and it established regulations to protect intellectual property rights within nations.   

Neither GATT nor the WTO have made public a list of definitive governing rules between member nations, but 

there is a consensus among most economists that the organization should be rules-based (Baldwin, 2016). The five 

governing principles agreed upon by most economists that should be interpreted as constitutional are as follows: 

nondiscrimination, transparency, reciprocity, flexibility, and consensus in decision-making.   Nondiscrimination 

refers to the lack of favoritism that can be displayed toward member nations, transparency refers to the reduction of 

conflicts regarding trade when policies are made public, reciprocity refers to what nations can expect from other 

nations when they remove national trade barriers, flexibility refers to permission of nations to use tariffs against 

member nations in order to maintain domestically significant industries, and consensus refers to decision-making 

processes in which agreements are made regarding regulations by member nations.    

The goal of the WTO is to ensure that global trade functions in free and predictable manner, and, as a result of 

establishing ground rules for global trade within member nations, it has laid the legal framework for a system of 

international commerce between the majority of nations embodying the planet (Heakal, 2016). The stated purpose of 

the organization is "economic peace and stability in the world through a multilateral system based on consenting 

member states", and the organization currently has 162 member nations who have consented to the regulations and 

upheld ordinances from the organization at the national level (Heakal, 2016). This means that the WTO's regulations 

are adopted and become part of a national framework of legislation that is wholly adopted by a member nation's 

domestic legal system.  The regulations outlined in the agreement of member nations are applied at the national level 

to local and national companies when conducting international business, and these regulations extend to national 

companies that set up organizations in other countries throughout the world.    

Decisions regarding the regulations imposed by the WTO are generally made by a consensus, but a majority vote 

is periodically used (Heakal, 2016). The Ministerial Committee is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and it holds 

meetings to make top decisions at least every two years.  There are also a number of councils and committees 

working to ensure freer trade within the organization.  The WTO resolves disputes between nations in regards to 

trade barriers placed on particular goods, and, if a resolution does not occur following negotiations, the organization 

can issue trade sanctions against nations in violation of their regulations.   

 

1.3. Criticisms of the WTO 
The WTO has been the target of protests around the world because individuals within member nations feel that 

the multilateral trading systems have led to policies that are undemocratic and result in a lack of transparency during 

negotiations of the Ministerial Committee (Heakal, 2016). Critics also believe that nations who are members of the  

WTO compromise national sovereignty because the organization functions as a global authority on trade and 

constantly has the right to review a member nation's domestic trade policies.  Member countries often have to 

sacrifice national interests to maintain membership in the WTO and not to violate agreements, which limits a nation's 

choices and ability to protect key industries within its domestic market.  Opponents also note that democratic 

countries may continue to do business with totalitarian regimes in the name of free trade as a result of the WTO, and 

they feel that these instances, specifically when democratic governments continue to conduct trade with 

nondemocratic governments, that big business is favored over human rights and individuals' right to freedom.   

Other instances that have alarmed critics of the WTO's regulations are in relation to intellectual property, and it 

has sparked debate surrounding human rights (Heakal, 2016). A well-known instance is in regards to the patenting of 

medicines in which national governments in both sub-Saharan Africa and South America forbid the manufacture of 

generic drugs that are needed by the poor to save lives because they do not want to violate ordinances set forth by the 

WTO and comprise their nation's membership.  The reality is that individuals in many of these nations are in need of 

these drugs, but they simply cannot afford the non-generic versions of them.  They, however, are left to die by the 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

53 

 

WTO and their governments to avoid possible trade sanctions resulting from violations of intellectual property 

imposed through the organization's regulations.   

Membership in the WTO typically benefits member nations and can facilitate investment in nations, which can 

assist in boosting national economies and increase the standard of living for all participating nations (Heakal, 2016). 

Investors from developed economies have historically been at an advantage over nations with less wealth, and this 

results in a cycle in which investors developed economies end up having great influence over poorer nations.  These 

regulations, however, are in investors' interest and can help facilitate an investment process that would not exist on 

such a large scale without the WTO, but it is clear that controversy surrounding free trade and freedom will continue 

to persist well into the future as the WTO continues to grow in conjunction with the continued evolution of the global 

economic system it has helped to create.   

 

1.4. Benefits of the WTO to Member Nations 
Theoretically, members of the WTO should have equal access to each other's markets, and no nation should have 

superiority over other members of the organization in relation to trade (Beattie, 2016). This, however, does not 

happen in practice in consideration of the system of tariff brokering in which nations are permitted to protect vital 

national industries if the removal of tariffs would lead to the loss of crucial national industries.  Presently, WTO 

members nations are permitted to add most industries considered to be of national importance, and developed nations 

are attempting to presently add the effects of lost labor and lack of production to this list to justify an increase in 

tariffs. In general, tariffs are taxes imposed on purchases of specific products in most nations, and they result in 

increasing government revenue and, potentially, have negative side effects for consumers (Beattie, 2016). When 

tariffs are imposed on a product, foreign products cost more at the domestic level, and national manufacturers often 

raise their prices as well to increase profits.   

This unfortunately results in higher prices being paid by consumers and less competition in domestics markets, 

and the result is often national governments use public money from tariffs to produce and support inferior products.  

Ultimately, WTO-sanctioned tariffs, anti-dumping measures, and restrictive quotas used to protect national industries 

end up hurting national industries because they do not expose them to international competition, which results in the 

removal of necessary competition needed to invest in new technologies, control costs, and improve production.  This 

essentially results in international competitors becoming more innovative and stronger, which makes national core 

industries increasingly vulnerable to true free trade and forces consumers to pay premium prices for domestic goods.  

Domestic consumers are typically unaware of these taxes because they take the form of stealth tariffs, and this results 

in increasing governments revenue at the expense of the consumer to make foreign products less competitive in 

comparison to lower quality national products through hidden and smaller taxes than most citizens are used to.   

 

1.5. WTO Transparency 
One of the main criticisms of the WTO is the lack of transparency it has during its meetings, which contradicts 

one of the main objectives that it set for itself when the organization was GATT (Beattie, 2016).  In settling disputes 

or developing new regulations, it has regularly been unclear which nations were involved in the decision making 

process.  Liberals view this lack of transparency as the result of committees made up of economically stronger 

nations within the WTO conspiring to exploit less developed and economically weaker nations.  This view appears to 

be true because historically the most economically powerful nations set the WTO's agenda, and they were the first to 

endorse anti-dumping acts to protect domestically vital industries.  Free market supporters have attacked the WTO 

policymaking process on the grounds that the organization has increasingly made free trade heavily politicized and 

complicated.  They argue that if free trade were to exist between nations that the organization would be completely 

unneeded and that to properly encourage trade governments would permit private companies to trade on a deal-by-

deal basis with no international oversight.   

 

1.6. The Evolution of the WTO 
The WTO started with 23 member nations in 1947, but it has grown to 162 members nations today that have 

universally accepted and follow the regulations set forth by the organization (Baldwin, 2016).For most imports 

among these nations, tariffs imposed are below 5%, but there are no tariffs for a large share of the imports among 

member nations. Since 2001, there have been 20 nations that have joined the WTO, which includes both China and 

Russia.  Over the last 15 years, the majority of WTO members have substantially lowered trade barriers among 

member nations, but, depending on how it is viewed, these tariffs, fortunately or unfortunately, have been made 

bilaterally, regionally, and unilaterally, which has effectively diminished the power of the WTO and the trade 

agreements through it between nations.    

As a result of the weakening of the WTO through alternative trade negotiations between nations and regions, 

there has been little progress on the liberalization of trade for over the last two decades, and, in some ways, the 

implications of both multilateral and regional trade talks has minimized the effectiveness and power of GATT as the 

WTO (Baldwin, 2016). The WTO has dramatically shifted power since its inception from the Quad to the emerging 

economies who have taken up membership.  This has been a significant development and reflects a dramatic shift in 

power from the Quad, which are developed economies, to the emerging markets throughout the world.  The Quad 

used to account for 75% of the world's imports, but, over the last two decades, this has changed to 50% of the world's 

imports.  The result is a weakening of negotiation power during trade talks for developed nations because of the 

power adjustment and the subsequent wealth transfer to the developing economies throughout the world.  This power 

shift has resulted from coalitions between developing nations, and it has resulted in increased economic and 

blocking-power by them in negotiations with the Quad, which has permitted them to effectively block efforts by 

developed economies to enter into politically sensitive domestic markets.  Thus, it has undermined in many ways the 

original principals set forth in GATT and adopted by the WTO because the addition of more member nations to the 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

54 

 

organization has not lead to increased demand and better access to markets for all member nations, especially 

developed nations.   

The WTO stands as a pillar of multilateral economic governance today, similar to GATT, despite superlative 

trade agreements made bilaterally, regionally, and unilaterally (Baldwin, 2016). The WTO still oversees universal 

norms of rule-based trade for all 162 participating nations, and it still settles trade disputes between member nations 

and issues regulations that are followed by nearly all its members.  It, however, has not updated its rules since 1994, 

and it has failed to adopt to the growth of businesses and the adoption of the Internet for business by most business 

worldwide in the twenty-first century.  Although no new regulations have been set by the WTO for over 20 years, 

there have been substantial regional trade agreements between advanced and developing economies and continued 

tariff cutting, and there has been over 3,000 bilateral international investment treaties signed to date.   Thus, global 

trade and rule writing have continued over the last two decades, but they have circumvented both the regulations and 

regulatory processes set forth by the WTO.   

The regional agreements, tariff cutting, and bilateral investment treaties conducted outside of the WTO has kept 

the level of free trade high (Baldwin, 2016). Trade diversion, resulting from bilateral and regional trade agreements, 

has shown little economic evidence that has impacted the world economy a great deal, and, in instances were tariffs 

remain high, these trade deals have a tendency to exclude sensitive items as a result of these regional trade 

agreements, which has resulted in few preferences created that negatively impacting the WTO's outdated rules.  

Although there has been little impact on the WTO's antiquated regulations to date, most economists feel that the 

future of megaregional agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership, present a threat to the present status quo of international trade regulations governed by the WTO.  They 

feel that this will result in an international trading system that is fragmented, and it will ultimately exclude nations 

that are not partners, like China and India.  It will most likely end up weakening the WTO, and it will result in a 

second pillar of systems that circumvent the WTO and weaken its power over free trade on goods and services, 

investment and intellectual property regulation, and the movement of personnel by multinational organizations.  This 

will most likely have a domino effect throughout regions and indirectly impact all 162 nations that are currently part 

of the WTO who will follow the larger economies trade models that are looking to adopt regional protectionism for 

national interests against fast growing developing economies, like China and India.   

 

2. Purpose, Rationale, and Hypothesis 
The purpose of this study was to investigate WTO member nations over two periods: 1989 to 2001 and 2002 to 

2014.  The rationale for choosing to measure WTO member nations GDPs is based in economic theory because it is 

used by economists worldwide in measuring the strength and performance of economies.  Therefore, to measure the 

strength and performance of WTO member nations, the annual GDP mean performance was used for the two 

aforementioned periods of time and measured against each other.  The periods selected represent the annual GDP 

mean performance of the present 162 members previous to China's entrance to the WTO and thereafter.  This is 

substantial because China is presently the one of the world's largest, the most populated country in the world, and, in 

many ways, represents a shift in power from the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Canada or the Quad 

to developing economies throughout the world.  This is an investigation on whether or not the effects of joining the 

WTO has been beneficial for both developed and developing economies, and it will analyze and compare the best 

and worst annual GDP mean performance by all member nations over the two periods of time mentioned above.  It 

will also investigate the effect of increased free trade on the newer member nations of the WTO in comparison to 

longtime members of the organization.  It is hypothesized that the increased free trade and membership in the WTO 

have been beneficial for the developing economies and has negatively impacted the developed economies throughout 

the world who are members of the WTO. 

 

3. Methods 
The study was conducted by retrieving annual growth from all countries who were members of WTO in 2014 for 

two periods of time: 1989 to 2001 and 2002 to 2014.  Member nations' annual GDP mean performance data was 

recovered from both comparative periods from the World Bank's website, and current membership information was 

recovered and verified from the WTO's website (World Trade Organization, 2016).  Because of the political situation 

and size of the market, nations that are members of the European Union and the EU are considered separately by 

both the World Bank and the WTO, so they are done so as well in this study.   

Data from annual GDP mean performance was categorically compiled for each year and separated into the two 

periods being studied, and the mean for each period was calculated as well as the mean for all nations per time 

period.  The raw data includes GDP performance for all present members of the WTO, but the data compiled did not 

distinguish between GDP performance in accordance with the date of membership.  This was done intentionally for 

comparative purposes.  Member nations that failed to report GDP data for any given year of the time periods were 

excluded from the performance data to maintain the integrity of the statistical data and the investigation.   

Finally, the 10 best and worst performing nations were extracted from each time period tested.  There 

performance was then measured against the opposing time period tested, and a percentage of performance increase or 

loss was factored individually as well as the mean performance gain or loss for each group.  Also, the 10 nations with 

the largest positive and negative annual GDP mean performance shift was compiled, investigated, and discussed.   

 

4. Results 
The gross domestic product annual mean for all countries who were world trade organization members by 2016 

was calculated individually from 1989 to 2001 and, then, averaged.  An average for all member nation was also 

calculated to derive a base mean for WTO's members performance for this period, and member nations that failed to 

report annual GDP data for each established time frame analyzed were not included in this research.  All nations 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

55 

 

included in this analysis reported national annual GDP data to the World Bank in 12 out of the 12 years studied.  The 

average GDP mean for all member nations from the years 1989 to 2001 was 3.10. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 

Albania 2.311617942 

Angola 1.352123317 

Antigua and Barbuda 3.134286381 

Argentina 2.501374337 

Armenia not enough data 

Australia 3.272611315 

Austria 2.756691749 

Bahrain 4.873541092 

Bangladesh 4.641561628 

Barbados 0.798559926 

Belgium 2.300586939 

Belize 6.836949903 

Benin 4.44300709 

Bolivia 3.685936611 

Botswana 5.328176416 

Brazil 2.139919138 

Brunei Darussalam 1.949438381 

Bulgaria -1.329080131 

Burkina Faso 4.755378365 

Burundi -0.906530597 

Cabo Verde 9.504301006 

Cambodia not enough data 

Cameroon 0.869067276 

Canada 2.539873857 

Central African Republic 1.297202206 

Chad 2.909345526 

Chile 6.320067352 

China 9.311780299 

Colombia 2.932544795 

Congo, Dem. Rep. -4.997698797 

Congo, Rep. 1.716874318 

Costa Rica 4.824672024 

Cote d'Ivoire 1.958998992 

Croatia not enough data 

Cuba -0.782850534 

Cyprus 4.711197845 

Czech Republic not enough data 

Denmark 2.296494483 

Djibouti not enough data 

Dominica 1.799723482 

Dominican Republic 4.750037102 

Ecuador 2.251503827 

Egypt, Arab Rep. 4.402023761 

El Salvador 4.133946872 

Estonia not enough data 

Fiji 3.028358746 

Finland 2.456558114 

France 2.32631411 

Gabon 2.58107361 

Gambia, The 3.716320604 

Georgia -6.980494665 

Germany 2.362603226 

Ghana 4.264427823 

Greece 2.497079815 

Grenada 3.155316376 

Guatemala 3.888851239 

Guinea 3.930348983 

Guinea-Bissau 2.057034761 

Guyana 3.369386179 

Haiti not enough data 

Honduras 3.104705697 

Hong Kong SAR, China 3.604751076 

Hungary not enough data 

Iceland 2.44131016 

India 5.561437644 

Indonesia 5.076590863 

Ireland 7.216977262 

 Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

56 

 

Israel 5.194818351 

Italy 1.824300893 

Jamaica 2.384664038 

Japan 1.744543148 

Jordan 3.469609584 

Kazakhstan not enough data 

Kenya 2.423876636 

Korea, Rep. 6.683490592 

Kuwait not enough data 

Kyrgyz Republic -1.591536826 

Lao PDR 6.806081578 

Latvia not enough data 

Lesotho 4.13611013 

Liechtenstein 4.924449166 

Lithuania not enough data 

Luxembourg 5.230377011 

Macao SAR, China 3.361538458 

Madagascar 2.387265703 

Malawi 3.020189257 

Malaysia 6.993458832 

Maldives not enough data 

Mali 3.985437368 

Malta 5.076343387 

Mauritania 2.549565422 

Mauritius 5.20483739 

Mexico 3.465007677 

Moldova -6.251362832 

Mongolia 0.38666376 

Montenegro not enough data 

Morocco 3.348326072 

Mozambique 7.392397747 

Myanmar 6.921814059 

Namibia 3.234835794 

Nepal 4.906089847 

Netherlands 3.376149948 

New Zealand 2.641633436 

Nicaragua 2.721804863 

Niger 1.955267849 

Nigeria 3.265903504 

Norway 3.225039703 

Oman 4.808520207 

Pakistan 3.919808467 

Panama 4.704571173 

Papua New Guinea 3.007368954 

Paraguay 2.668900972 

Peru 1.772207721 

Philippines not enough data 

Poland not enough data 

Portugal 3.183605039 

Qatar not enough data 

Romania not enough data 

Russian Federation not enough data 

Rwanda 2.908670222 

Sao Tome and Principe not enough data 

Saudi Arabia 2.806968676 

Senegal 2.993064976 

Seychelles 4.545094885 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 

Singapore 7.010095099 

Slovak Republic not enough data 

Slovenia not enough data 

Solomon Islands not enough data 

South Africa 1.781180022 

Spain 3.126010187 

Sri Lanka 4.566023751 

St. Kitts and Nevis 4.325982174 

St. Lucia 5.02420705 

St. Martin (French part) not enough data 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2.982979936 

Suriname 1.722153991 

Swaziland 4.97430539 

Sweden 2.048091705 

 Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

57 

 

Switzerland 1.658807186 

Chinese Taipei data unavailable 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 

Tanzania 3.643031864 

Thailand 5.54652273 

Togo 2.142562201 

Tonga 2.374305096 

Trinidad and Tobago 3.875578525 

Tunisia 4.696782165 

Turkey 3.165451222 

Uganda 6.424508048 

Ukraine -5.380148215 

United Arab Emirates 6.08853304 

United Kingdom 2.5129679 

United States 3.159219881 

Uruguay 2.484168802 

Vanuatu 3.392430272 

Venezuela, RB 1.780294958 

Vietnam 7.271912916 

Yemen, Rep. not enough data 

Zambia 1.639158487 

Zimbabwe 2.510640155 

European Union 2.461259566 

 

3.101241111 
                                              (The World Bank Group, 2016)  

 

The countries that had the best annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 are shown below. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 

Cabo Verde 9.504301006 

China 9.311780299 

Mozambique 7.392397747 

Vietnam 7.271912916 

Ireland 7.216977262 

Singapore 7.010095099 

Malaysia 6.993458832 

Myanmar 6.921814059 

Belize 6.836949903 

Lao PDR 6.806081578 
                                                         (TWBG, 2016) 

  

The countries that had the worst annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 are shown below. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 

Georgia -6.980494665 

Moldova -6.251362832 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 

Ukraine -5.380148215 

Congo, Dem. Rep. -4.997698797 

Russian Federation -2.830654114 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 

Kyrgyz Republic -1.591536826 

Burundi -0.906530597 

Cuba -0.782850534 
                                                       (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The annual GDP mean performance for all countries who were world trade organization members by 2016 was 

calculated individually from 2002 to 2014 and, then, averaged.  An average for all member nations was also 

calculated to derive a base mean for WTO's members' performance for this period, and member nations that failed to 

report annual GDP data for each established time frame analyzed were not included in this research.  All nations 

included in this analysis reported national annual GDP data to the World Bank in 12 out of the 12 years studied.  The 

average GDP mean for all member nations from the years 2002 to 2014 was 3.98. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Albania 4.200480835 

Angola not enough data 

Antigua and Barbuda 2.359754509 

Argentina 4.434059798 

Armenia 7.08906658 

Australia 3.04005939 

 Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

58 

 

Austria 1.395975154 

Bahrain 5.142389819 

Bangladesh 5.828453736 

Barbados 1.048899107 

Belgium 1.434693085 

Belize 3.512692585 

Benin 4.193767524 

Bolivia 4.566784375 

Botswana 5.106034757 

Brazil 3.433064673 

Brunei Darussalam 0.877008274 

Bulgaria 3.495996432 

Burkina Faso 5.886659662 

Burundi 3.761180688 

Cabo Verde 5.033380159 

Cambodia 7.799371353 

Cameroon 3.755457047 

Canada 2.063321989 

Central African Republic -0.572636895 

Chad 9.298498454 

Chile 4.055133657 

China 9.930601164 

Colombia 4.565567226 

Congo, Dem. Rep. 6.208615572 

Congo, Rep. 4.655027718 

Costa Rica 4.57405269 

Cote d'Ivoire 2.700226996 

Croatia 1.389341888 

Cuba not enough data 

Cyprus 1.29963754 

Czech Republic 2.440374652 

Denmark 0.574761357 

Djibouti 4.411079064 

Dominica 2.165657905 

Dominican Republic 5.015845612 

Ecuador 4.546396546 

Egypt, Arab Rep. 4.106219635 

El Salvador 1.939147044 

Estonia 3.595392752 

Fiji 1.898764843 

Finland 1.12946317 

France 1.029704438 

Gabon 2.81893769 

Gambia, The 3.106488387 

Georgia 6.151998314 

Germany 1.048742318 

Ghana 6.806071989 

Greece -0.368343853 

Grenada 2.240793191 

Guatemala 3.557639732 

Guinea 2.550064665 

Guinea-Bissau 2.518479482 

Guyana not enough data 

Haiti 1.370275065 

Honduras 4.05477804 

Hong Kong SAR, China 4.06333125 

Hungary 1.731024652 

Iceland 2.552136508 

India 7.421030206 

Indonesia 5.501492594 

Ireland 2.641640315 

Israel 3.546962581 

Italy -0.217399168 

Jamaica 0.610085685 

Japan 0.801266029 

Jordan 5.318082928 

Kazakhstan 7.130769231 

Kenya 4.72591074 

Korea, Rep. 4.003284039 

Kuwait 4.883735767 

Kyrgyz Republic 4.362538586 

Lao PDR 7.505378426 

 Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

59 

 

Latvia 3.870219485 

Lesotho 4.106580651 

Liechtenstein not enough data 

Lithuania 4.306282144 

Luxembourg 2.749488361 

Macao SAR, China 12.2342128 

Madagascar 2.436397205 

Malawi 5.191249487 

Malaysia 5.1843119 

Maldives 7.090048773 

Mali 4.367571967 

Malta 1.950765629 

Mauritania 5.40827235 

Mauritius 3.78015728 

Mexico 2.343983753 

Moldova 5.057245246 

Mongolia 8.576687919 

Montenegro 3.214146029 

Morocco 4.404602601 

Mozambique 7.515159205 

Myanmar not enough data 

Namibia 5.285416702 

Nepal 4.013067579 

Netherlands 0.942477985 

New Zealand 2.454916352 

Nicaragua 3.551506321 

Niger 4.976720612 

Nigeria 8.328758113 

Norway 1.561398087 

Oman 3.211493986 

Pakistan 4.278290935 

Panama 7.40712873 

Papua New Guinea 5.674796951 

Paraguay 4.466728524 

Peru 5.851971998 

Philippines 5.26274734 

Poland 3.7311988 

Portugal -0.038584171 

Qatar 12.13820867 

Romania 3.596786253 

Russian Federation 4.143228731 

Rwanda 7.592289805 

Sao Tome and Principe 5.154614654 

Saudi Arabia 5.5797297 

Senegal 3.921816934 

Seychelles 3.682721307 

Sierra Leone 9.175773867 

Singapore 5.928084078 

Slovak Republic 4.190457732 

Slovenia 1.868699401 

Solomon Islands 4.589176484 

South Africa 3.177893418 

Spain 1.117273419 

Sri Lanka 6.074210713 

St. Kitts and Nevis 2.335321549 

St. Lucia 1.689560422 

St. Martin (French part) not enough data 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2.399540815 

Suriname 4.494141226 

Swaziland 2.404029962 

Sweden 1.991507546 

Switzerland 1.839724552 

Chinese Taipei data unavailable 

Tajikistan 7.753788504 

Tanzania 6.750608354 

Thailand 4.19569941 

Togo 3.46375423 

Tonga 0.924841511 

Trinidad and Tobago 4.410427926 

Tunisia 3.558410736 

Turkey 4.904028897 

Uganda 6.98796523 

 Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

60 

 

Ukraine 2.684614815 

United Arab Emirates 4.558053334 

United Kingdom 1.66894009 

United States 1.858759643 

Uruguay 4.037286915 

Vanuatu 3.134639431 

Venezuela, RB 2.950117993 

Vietnam 6.36823974 

Yemen, Rep. not enough data 

Zambia 7.311541048 

Zimbabwe -1.079090737 

European Union 1.144316488 

 

3.988777743 
                                                    (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The countries that had the best annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014 are shown below. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Macao SAR, China 12.2342128 

Qatar 12.13820867 

China 9.930601164 

Chad 9.298498454 

Sierra Leone 9.175773867 

Mongolia 8.576687919 

Nigeria 8.328758113 

Cambodia 7.799371353 

Tajikistan 7.753788504 

Rwanda 7.592289805 

 
9.282819065 

                                                            (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The countries that had the worst GDP performance from 2002 to 2014 are shown below. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Greece -1.239518088 

Central African Republic -0.519661276 

Italy -0.287251327 

Portugal -0.031230692 

Jamaica 0.239799255 

Brunei Darussalam 0.458505288 

Denmark 0.599189118 

Tonga 0.614594398 

Croatia 0.720533739 

Japan 0.770255353 

 

0.132521577 

 

The data from the countries with the best GDP performance from 1989 to 2001 was then compared to their GDP 

performance from 2002 to 2014 as well as the statistical mean for each data set. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Cabo Verde 9.504301006 5.033380159 

China 9.311780299 9.930601164 

Mozambique 7.392397747 7.515159205 

Vietnam 7.271912916 6.36823974 

Ireland 7.216977262 2.641640315 

Singapore 7.010095099 5.928084078 

Malaysia 6.993458832 5.1843119 

Myanmar 6.921814059 not enough data 

Belize 6.836949903 3.512692585 

Lao PDR 6.806081578 7.505378426 

 

7.52657687 5.957720841 
                                           (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The data from the 10 countries with the worst GDP performance from 1989 to 2001 was then compared to their 

GDP performance from 2002 to 2014 as well as the statistical mean for each data set. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Georgia -6.980494665 6.151998314 

Moldova -6.251362832 5.057245246 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 7.753788504 

  Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

61 

 

Ukraine -5.380148215 2.684614815 

Congo, Dem. Rep. -4.997698797 6.208615572 

Russian Federation -2.830654114 4.143228731 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 9.175773867 

Kyrgyz Republic -1.591536826 4.362538586 

Burundi -0.906530597 3.761180688 

Cuba -0.782850534 4.831512942 

 

-3.793348154 5.413049727 
                                           (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The data from the countries that had the best GDP performance from 2002 to 2014 was then compared to their 

GDP performance from 1989 to 2001 as well as the statistical mean for each data set. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Macao SAR, China 3.36 12.23 

Qatar not enough data 12.14 

China 9.31 9.93 

Chad 2.91 9.30 

Sierra Leone -2.00 9.18 

Mongolia 0.39 8.58 

Nigeria 3.27 8.33 

Cambodia not enough data 7.80 

Tajikistan -6.22 7.75 

Rwanda 2.91 7.59 

 
1.741462101 9.282819065 

                                  (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The data from the countries that had the worst GDP performance from 2002 to 2014 was then compared to their 

GDP performance from 1989 to 2001 as well as the statistical mean for each data set. 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 

Greece 2.497079815 -1.239518088 

Central African Republic 1.297202206 -0.519661276 

Italy 1.824300893 -0.287251327 

Portugal 3.183605039 -0.031230692 

Jamaica 2.384664038 0.239799255 

Brunei Darussalam 1.949438381 0.458505288 

Denmark 2.296494483 0.599189118 

Tonga 2.374305096 0.614594398 

Croatia not enough data 0.720533739 

Japan 1.744543148 0.770255353 

 

2.172403678 0.132521577 
                                  (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The percentage of change for the annual GDP mean performance for all countries who were world trade 

organization members by 2016 was then calculated individually from the time period of 1989 to 2001 against the 

time period of 2002 to 2014.  

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 % of Change 

Albania 2.311617942 4.200480835 0.817117249 

Angola 1.352123317 not enough data not enough data 

Antigua and Barbuda 3.134286381 2.359754509 -0.247115859 

Argentina 2.501374337 4.434059798 0.772649432 

Armenia not enough data 7.08906658 not enough data 

Australia 3.272611315 3.04005939 -0.07106005 

Austria 2.756691749 1.395975154 -0.493604914 

Bahrain 4.873541092 5.142389819 0.055164966 

Bangladesh 4.641561628 5.828453736 0.255709652 

Barbados 0.798559926 1.048899107 0.313488284 

Belgium 2.300586939 1.434693085 -0.37637954 

Belize 6.836949903 3.512692585 -0.486219347 

Benin 4.44300709 4.193767524 -0.056097044 

Bolivia 3.685936611 4.566784375 0.238975288 

Botswana 5.328176416 5.106034757 -0.041691874 

Brazil 2.139919138 3.433064673 0.604296448 

Brunei Darussalam 1.949438381 0.877008274 -0.550122598 

Bulgaria -1.329080131 3.495996432 -3.630388003 

Burkina Faso 4.755378365 5.886659662 0.237895118 

Burundi -0.906530597 3.761180688 -5.148983719 

Cabo Verde 9.504301006 5.033380159 -0.470410275 

Cambodia not enough data 7.799371353 not enough data 

   Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

62 

 

Cameroon 0.869067276 3.755457047 3.321250093 

Canada 2.539873857 2.063321989 -0.187628164 

Central African Republic 1.297202206 -0.572636895 -1.441439964 

Chad 2.909345526 9.298498454 2.196079108 

Chile 6.320067352 4.055133657 -0.358371765 

China 9.311780299 9.930601164 0.066455699 

Colombia 2.932544795 4.565567226 0.556861888 

Congo, Dem. Rep. -4.997698797 6.208615572 -2.242294869 

Congo, Rep. 1.716874318 4.655027718 1.711338663 

Costa Rica 4.824672024 4.57405269 -0.051945362 

Cote d'Ivoire 1.958998992 2.700226996 0.378370794 

Croatia not enough data 1.389341888 not enough data 

Cuba -0.782850534 not enough data not enough data 

Cyprus 4.711197845 1.29963754 -0.72413862 

Czech Republic not enough data 2.440374652 not enough data 

Denmark 2.296494483 0.574761357 -0.7497223 

Djibouti not enough data 4.411079064 not enough data 

Dominica 1.799723482 2.165657905 0.203328137 

Dominican Republic 4.750037102 5.015845612 0.055959249 

Ecuador 2.251503827 4.546396546 1.019271072 

Egypt, Arab Rep. 4.402023761 4.106219635 -0.067197303 

El Salvador 4.133946872 1.939147044 -0.53092115 

Estonia not enough data 3.595392752 not enough data 

Fiji 3.028358746 1.898764843 -0.373005313 

Finland 2.456558114 1.12946317 -0.540225341 

France 2.32631411 1.029704438 -0.557366551 

Gabon 2.58107361 2.81893769 0.092157031 

Gambia, The 3.716320604 3.106488387 -0.164095696 

Georgia -6.980494665 6.151998314 -1.881312659 

Germany 2.362603226 1.048742318 -0.556107303 

Ghana 4.264427823 6.806071989 0.596010595 

Greece 2.497079815 -0.368343853 -1.147509844 

Grenada 3.155316376 2.240793191 -0.289835654 

Guatemala 3.888851239 3.557639732 -0.085169498 

Guinea 3.930348983 2.550064665 -0.351186198 

Guinea-Bissau 2.057034761 2.518479482 0.224325194 

Guyana 3.369386179 not enough data not enough data 

Haiti not enough data 1.370275065 not enough data 

Honduras 3.104705697 4.05477804 0.306010436 

Hong Kong SAR, China 3.604751076 4.06333125 0.12721549 

Hungary not enough data 1.731024652 not enough data 

Iceland 2.44131016 2.552136508 0.045396259 

India 5.561437644 7.421030206 0.334372635 

Indonesia 5.076590863 5.501492594 0.083698242 

Ireland 7.216977262 2.641640315 -0.633968597 

Israel 5.194818351 3.546962581 -0.317211432 

Italy 1.824300893 -0.217399168 -1.119168482 

Jamaica 2.384664038 0.610085685 -0.744162836 

Japan 1.744543148 0.801266029 -0.540701513 

Jordan 3.469609584 5.318082928 0.532761194 

Kazakhstan not enough data 7.130769231 not enough data 

Kenya 2.423876636 4.72591074 0.949732371 

Korea, Rep. 6.683490592 4.003284039 -0.401018976 

Kuwait not enough data 4.883735767 not enough data 

Kyrgyz Republic -1.591536826 4.362538586 -3.741085544 

Lao PDR 6.806081578 7.505378426 0.102745881 

Latvia not enough data 3.870219485 not enough data 

Lesotho 4.13611013 4.106580651 -0.007139432 

Liechtenstein 4.924449166 not enough data not enough data 

Lithuania not enough data 4.306282144 not enough data 

Luxembourg 5.230377011 2.749488361 -0.474323102 

Macao SAR, China 3.361538458 12.2342128 2.639468343 

Madagascar 2.387265703 2.436397205 0.020580659 

Malawi 3.020189257 5.191249487 0.718849067 

Malaysia 6.993458832 5.1843119 -0.258691296 

Maldives not enough data 7.090048773 not enough data 

Mali 3.985437368 4.367571967 0.095882726 

Malta 5.076343387 1.950765629 -0.615714407 

Mauritania 2.549565422 5.40827235 1.121252627 

Mauritius 5.20483739 3.78015728 -0.273722309 

Mexico 3.465007677 2.343983753 -0.323527111 

Moldova -6.251362832 5.057245246 -1.808982838 

   Continue 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

63 

 

Mongolia 0.38666376 8.576687919 21.18125619 

Montenegro not enough data 3.214146029 not enough data 

Morocco 3.348326072 4.404602601 0.315464058 

Mozambique 7.392397747 7.515159205 0.016606447 

Myanmar 6.921814059 not enough data not enough data 

Namibia 3.234835794 5.285416702 0.633905718 

Nepal 4.906089847 4.013067579 -0.182023219 

Netherlands 3.376149948 0.942477985 -0.72084238 

New Zealand 2.641633436 2.454916352 -0.070682435 

Nicaragua 2.721804863 3.551506321 0.304835027 

Niger 1.955267849 4.976720612 1.545288419 

Nigeria 3.265903504 8.328758113 1.550215615 

Norway 3.225039703 1.561398087 -0.515851515 

Oman 4.808520207 3.211493986 -0.332124261 

Pakistan 3.919808467 4.278290935 0.091454078 

Panama 4.704571173 7.40712873 0.574453538 

Papua New Guinea 3.007368954 5.674796951 0.886964 

Paraguay 2.668900972 4.466728524 0.673620929 

Peru 1.772207721 5.851971998 2.302080184 

Philippines not enough data 5.26274734 not enough data 

Poland not enough data 3.7311988 not enough data 

Portugal 3.183605039 -0.038584171 -1.012119648 

Qatar not enough data 12.13820867 not enough data 

Romania not enough data 3.596786253 not enough data 

Russian Federation not enough data 4.143228731 not enough data 

Rwanda 2.908670222 7.592289805 1.610227089 

Sao Tome and Principe not enough data 5.154614654 not enough data 

Saudi Arabia 2.806968676 5.5797297 0.987813312 

Senegal 2.993064976 3.921816934 0.310301302 

Seychelles 4.545094885 3.682721307 -0.1897372 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 9.175773867 -5.595192759 

Singapore 7.010095099 5.928084078 -0.154350405 

Slovak Republic not enough data 4.190457732 not enough data 

Slovenia not enough data 1.868699401 not enough data 

Solomon Islands not enough data 4.589176484 not enough data 

South Africa 1.781180022 3.177893418 0.784150607 

Spain 3.126010187 1.117273419 -0.642588043 

Sri Lanka 4.566023751 6.074210713 0.330306421 

St. Kitts and Nevis 4.325982174 2.335321549 -0.460163853 

St. Lucia 5.02420705 1.689560422 -0.663716004 

St. Martin (French part) not enough data not enough data not enough data 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2.982979936 2.399540815 -0.195589355 

Suriname 1.722153991 4.494141226 1.609604745 

Swaziland 4.97430539 2.404029962 -0.51671042 

Sweden 2.048091705 1.991507546 -0.027627747 

Switzerland 1.658807186 1.839724552 0.109064735 

Chinese Taipei data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 7.753788504 -2.247515455 

Tanzania 3.643031864 6.750608354 0.8530193 

Thailand 5.54652273 4.19569941 -0.243544178 

Togo 2.142562201 3.46375423 0.616641154 

Tonga 2.374305096 0.924841511 -0.610479078 

Trinidad and Tobago 3.875578525 4.410427926 0.138005048 

Tunisia 4.696782165 3.558410736 -0.242372626 

Turkey 3.165451222 4.904028897 0.549235339 

Uganda 6.424508048 6.98796523 0.087704331 

Ukraine -5.380148215 2.684614815 -1.49898529 

United Arab Emirates 6.08853304 4.558053334 -0.251370847 

United Kingdom 2.5129679 1.66894009 -0.335868918 

United States 3.159219881 1.858759643 -0.411639673 

Uruguay 2.484168802 4.037286915 0.625206351 

Vanuatu 3.392430272 3.134639431 -0.075990019 

Venezuela, RB 1.780294958 2.950117993 0.657095067 

Vietnam 7.271912916 6.36823974 -0.124268977 

Yemen, Rep. not enough data not enough data not enough data 

Zambia 1.639158487 7.311541048 3.460545521 

Zimbabwe 2.510640155 -1.079090737 -1.42980701 

European Union 2.461259566 1.144316488 -0.535068749 

 
3.101241111 3.988777743 0.286187562 

                (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The percentage of change of the annual GDP mean performance for the 10 countries with the best GDP 

performance from 1989 to 2001 was measured against their performance from 2002 to 2014.  



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

64 

 

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 % of Change 

Cabo Verde 9.504301006 5.033380159 -0.470410275 

China 9.311780299 9.930601164 0.066455699 

Mozambique 7.392397747 7.515159205 0.016606447 

Vietnam 7.271912916 6.36823974 -0.124268977 

Ireland 7.216977262 2.641640315 -0.633968597 

Singapore 7.010095099 5.928084078 -0.154350405 

Malaysia 6.993458832 5.1843119 -0.258691296 

Myanmar 6.921814059 not enough data not enough data 

Belize 6.836949903 3.512692585 -0.486219347 

Lao PDR 6.806081578 7.505378426 0.102745881 

 

7.52657687 5.957720841 -0.208442172 
                         (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The percentage of change of the annual GDP mean performance for the 10 countries with the worst GDP 

performance from 1989 to 2001 was measured against their performance from 2002 to 2014.  

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 % of Change 

Georgia -6.980494665 6.151998314 -1.881312659 

Moldova -6.251362832 5.057245246 -1.808982838 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 7.753788504 -2.247515455 

Ukraine -5.380148215 2.684614815 -1.49898529 

Congo, Dem. Rep. -4.997698797 6.208615572 -2.242294869 

Russian Federation -2.830654114 4.143228731 -2.463700108 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 9.175773867 -5.595192759 

Kyrgyz Republic -1.591536826 4.362538586 -3.741085544 

Burundi -0.906530597 3.761180688 -5.148983719 

Cuba -0.782850534 4.831512942 -7.171692721 

 
-3.793348154 5.413049727 -2.426984687 

                      (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The percentage of change of the annual GDP mean performance for the 10 countries with the best GDP 

performance from 2002 to 2014 was measured against their performance from 1989 to 2001.   

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 % of Change 

Macao SAR, China 3.361538458 12.2342128 2.639468343 

Qatar not enough data 12.13820867 not enough data 

China 9.311780299 9.930601164 0.066455699 

Chad 2.909345526 9.298498454 2.196079108 

Sierra Leone -1.996820231 9.175773867 -5.595192759 

Mongolia 0.38666376 8.576687919 21.1812562 

Nigeria 3.265903504 8.328758113 1.550215614 

Cambodia not enough data 7.799371353 not enough data 

Tajikistan -6.215384727 7.753788504 -2.247515455 

Rwanda 2.908670222 7.592289805 1.610227089 

 

1.741462101 9.282819065 4.330474351 
                 (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The percentage of change of the annual GDP mean performance for the 10 countries with the worst GDP 

performance from 2002 to 2014 was measured against their performance from 1989 to 2001.   

 

Country Name GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 % of Change 

Greece 2.497079815 -1.239518088 -1.496387052 

Central African Republic 1.297202206 -0.519661276 -1.400601597 

Italy 1.824300893 -0.287251327 -1.157458305 

Portugal 3.183605039 -0.031230692 -1.009809851 

Jamaica 2.384664038 0.239799255 -0.899441074 

Brunei Darussalam 1.949438381 0.458505288 -0.764801344 

Denmark 2.296494483 0.599189118 -0.739085322 

Tonga 2.374305096 0.614594398 -0.741147673 

Croatia not enough data 0.720533739 not enough data 

Japan 1.744543148 0.770255353 -0.558477327 

 
2.172403678 0.132521577 -0.93899772 

              (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The top 10 countries with the largest positive annual GDP mean performance gain between 1989 to 2001 and 

2002 to 2014 was calculated. 

 

 

 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

65 

 

Country Name Positive GDP of Gains Between 1989-2001 and 2002-2014 

Tajikistan 13.97 

Georgia 13.13 

Moldova 11.31 

Congo, Dem. Rep. 11.21 

Sierra Leone 11.17 

Macao SAR, China 8.87 

Mongolia 8.19 

Ukraine 8.06 

Chad 6.39 

Kyrgyz Republic 5.95 
               (TWBG, 2016) 

 

The top 10 countries with the largest negative annual GDP mean performance loss between 1989 to 2001 and 

2002 to 2014 was calculated. 

 

Country Name Negative GDP of Losses Between 1989-2001 and 2002-2014 

Ireland -4.58 

Cabo Verde -4.47 

Zimbabwe -3.59 

Cyprus -3.41 

St. Lucia -3.33 

Belize -3.32 

Portugal -3.22 

Malta -3.13 

Greece -2.87 

Korea, Rep. -2.68 
          (TWBG, 2016) 

 

5. Discussion 
The annual GDP mean performance between all member nations from 1989 to 2001 was compared to the annual 

GDP mean performance between all member nations from 2002 to 2012.  The GDP mean for all member nations 

rose by .29 when comparing the two time periods, 1989 to 2001 and 2002 to 2012.   

 

 
 

As can be seen in the chart above, the annual GDP mean performance of all member countries for the two given 

periods difference is 0.29, which means the average annual GDP mean performance increase of all member countries 

from the first data set to the second data set was 29%.  This is a substantial increase, and it is clear there were a 

number of factors that contributed to this growth.  It is clear that the WTO has made the world a more prosperous 

place, and it has assisted governments in resisting national pressure to return to protectionists policies embraced prior 

to the formation of the organization (Porter, 2015). The WTO has resulted in strengthening developing economies 

and weakening developed ones in many ways, but it is clear from the data in this study that it has made the world 

economy and free trade grow as can be seen in the percentage of growth between the two time periods above.  The 

result of bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements has weakened the WTO organization, and, in many ways, 

it sits on the sidelines in today's global economy.  This has resulted from many factors, but it is due to frustration 

over the current policies and national pressure to maintain strong annual GDP growth within nations.  The nations 

with the best annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 were then extracted from the 162 nations measured, 

and there performance was then compared to their annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014. 

A comparison 10 countries with the best annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 was compared to 

their annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014. 

 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

66 

 

 
 

In the above chart, Series 1 represents the annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 of the top 

performing countries from this time period, and Series 2 represents the annual GDP mean performance of the same 

nations from 2002 to 2014.  Myanmar was not included in this analysis because it failed to report all of its annual 

GDP performance data to the World Bank from 2002 to 2014.  There is clearly a dramatic shift with an average 

decline of the entire group's annual GDP mean performance between the two time periods has declined 21%.  The 

most important changes of annual GDP mean performance from the two time periods of note in the chart shown 

above are Ireland, Cabo Verde, and Belize.  Ireland joined the WTO in 1995 and became a GATT member in 1967, 

and it is clear that their economy has suffered dramatically between the two periods analyzed.  Ireland's annual GDP 

mean performance shifted 63% between the two periods, which represents a decrease in annual GDP mean 

performance by 4.58.  This suggests that membership in the WTO may no longer be benefitting the nation as it has in 

the past, and that they have not established significant bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements necessary 

to maintain economic competitiveness in the twenty-first century despite their membership in the WTO.  Cabo Verde 

joined the WTO organization in 2008, and Cabo Verde's annual GDP mean performance shifted 47% between the 

two periods, which represents a decrease in annual GDP mean performance by 4.47.  The decline in Cabo Verde's 

annual GDP mean performance over the two periods suggests that in fact joining the WTO has not helped the 

nation's economic growth.  Belize joined the WTO in 1995, and it became a GATT member in 1983.  Belize's annual 

GDP mean performance shifted 49% between the two periods, which represents a decrease in annual GDP mean 

performance by 3.32. Its economy is clearly suffering from similar economic woes that Ireland has faced, and the 

data suggests that, despite being a member of the WTO, they have not developed the necessary bilateral, regional, 

and unilateral trade agreements to maintain economic strength in the twenty-first century.  Also, the data suggests 

that there may be little benefit to the nation in maintaining WTO membership in the future in relation to its annual 

GDP mean performance.  The nations with the worst performing annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 

were then extracted from the 162 nations measured, and there performance was then compared to their annual GDP 

mean performance from 2002 to 2014. 

A comparison 10 countries with the worst annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 was compared to 

their annual GDP performance from 2002 to 2014. 

 

 
 

The nations with the worst annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 is compared to their annual GDP 

mean performance from 2002 to 2014.  Important annual GDP mean performance shift were seen from Tajikistan, 

Georgia, and Moldova.  The group's annual GDP mean performance positively shifted 243% overall from 1989 to 

2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014.  This is a remarkable gain, and it shows that membership in the WTO has 

benefitted nations that were once suffering.  All members of this group show large shifts in their annual GDP mean 

performance from 1989 to 2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014.  Tajikistan who joined the WTO in 2013 has shown 

the largest reversal in GDP performance, but it is not clear if this is a result of membership in the WTO or bilateral, 

regional, and unilateral trade agreements because they have only reported 2 years of annual GDP performance as a 

member nation of the WTO to the World Bank.  Tajikistan's annual GDP mean performance shifted between the two 

time periods measured 224%, and its annual GDP mean performance increased by 13.96.  There is a clear correlation 

between annual GDP mean performance and membership in the WTO for both Georgia and Moldova.  Georgia 

joined the WTO in 2000, and Moldova joined in 2001.  Georgia's annual GDP mean performance grew from 1989 to 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

67 

 

2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014 by 188%, and its annual GDP mean performance increased by 13.13.  Moldova's 

annual mean GDP growth grew from 1989 to 2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014 by 181%, and its annual GDP 

mean performance increased by 11.31.  These statistics and the level of growth are tremendous in comparison to past 

annual mean GDP performance, and it is clear that membership in the WTO has benefitted these nations' economies.   

For new member nations, WTO benefits create favorable business environments for other members to conduct 

business, and it has resulted in positive investment climates for new members (Lee and Kolesnikova, 2008). This has 

been especially true for member nations that have substantial natural resources and developed industries within them.  

There is a negative effect initially on regional trading partners, but the ultimate effect can be seen in the economic 

growth resulting in increased annual GDP mean performance and secondary effects like improved legal systems 

within nations and increased competition in specific sectors. The nations with the best performing annual GDP mean 

performance from 2002 to 2014 were then extracted from the 162 nations measured, and there performance was then 

compared to their annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001. 

A comparison 10 countries with the best annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014  was compared to 

their annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001. 

 

 
 

In the above chart, Series 1 represents the annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 of the top 

performing countries from this time period, and Series 2 represents the annual GDP mean performance of the same 

nations from 2002 to 2014.  The 3 nations with the largest percentage change from 2002 to 2014 in comparison to 

1989 to 2001 were Mongolia, Sierra Leone, and Macao, SAR, China.  The entire group of nations showed strong 

annual GDP mean performance gains when comparing the annual GDP mean performance data from 2002 to 2014 

against the annual GDP mean performance data from 1989 to 2001.  The entire group's annual GDP mean 

performance increased 433% from 1989 to 2001 to the 2002 to 2014 time period.  It is clear from the growth of the 

above nations in the comparative time periods that the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility that was launched in 

2013 and other previous measures have positively impacted the growth of developing economies (Akhtar, 2014). The 

WTO's support and increased multilateral trading opportunities for developing nations will continue to benefit free 

trade and boost the GDPs of developing economies throughout the world.  These countries will most likely continue 

to face challenges at the national level in the future in relation to legislation, but the benefits of free trade will 

continue to increase standard of living within these nations and increase access to markets throughout the world.  

This will ultimately continue to raise economic standards within these nations, and force countries to remove 

bureaucratic administrative burdens in relation to trade to increase global access to markets.  Mongolia, Sierra Leone, 

and Macao, SAR, China showed the largest percentage increase of annual GDP mean performance between 1989 to 

2001 and 2002 to 2014.  Mongolia's annual GDP mean performance increased 2,118%, and its annual GDP mean 

performance increased by 8.19.  Sierra Leone's annual GDP mean performance increased by 560%,and its annual 

GDP mean performance increased by 11.17.  Macao, SAR, China's annual GDP mean performance increased by 

264%, and its annual GDP mean performance increased by 8.87.Qatar and Cambodia were not considered in this 

analysis because they failed to report the necessary annual data from 1989 to 2001 required for this study.  Mongolia 

joined the WTO in 1997, and it is clear that the nation's economy has benefitted from its WTO membership and other 

trade partnerships.  Sierra Leone has been a WTO member since 1995, and it became a GATT member in 1961.  It is 

clear that some of the initiatives put forth by the WTO, like the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility that began in 

2013, in conjunction with bilateral, regional, and unilateral trades agreements have had a remarkable impact and 

reversed the poor economic performance of the nation from 1989 to 2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014.  Macao, 

SAR, China has been a WTO member since 1995, and it became a GATT member in 1991.  Macao, SAR, China's 

astonishing annual GDP mean performance growth over the period is not surprising in consideration of China's GDP 

data reported to the World Bank over the same period and geographic location.  The performance of nations like 

Mongolia, Sierra Leone, and Macao, SAR, China are a great example of how WTO membership can benefit nations 

and regions, and it shows WTO's policies and other international trade agreements are directly improving economic 

performance in member nations.  The nations with the worst performing annual GDP mean performance from 2002 

to 2014 were then extracted from the 162 nations measured, and there performance was then compared to their 

annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001. 

A comparison 10 countries with the worst annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014 was compared to 

their annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001. 

 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

68 

 

 
 

In the above chart, Series 1 represents the annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 of the worst 

performing countries from this time period, and Series 2 represents the annual GDP mean performance of the same 

nations from 2002 to 2014.  The 3 nations with the largest percentage change from 2002 to 2014 in comparison to 

1989 to 2001 were Greece, the Central African Republic, and Italy.  The entire group of nations showed low annual 

GDP mean performance gains when compared to their annual GDP mean performance data from 1989 to 2001.  

Croatia was not considered in this analysis as a result of not reporting an adequate amount of data from 1989 to 2001 

to meet the criteria set forth in this study. Often, countries suffering from economic downturns will implement 

austerity measures in an attempt to reduce national debt and boost national economics (Jadhav et al., 2013). This 

typically results in the elimination of social services, government programs, and the reduction of grants to private 

sector projects considered to be dispensable by policymakers currently holding office.  Economic downturns for 

national economies result in increased unemployment rates and poor GDP growth, which essentially forces 

governments to adopt austerity measures to survive among economic crises.  There has been significant research out 

of the Eurozone supporting the adoption of austerity measures to quickly remedy economic downturns, which was 

seen specifically seen in Greece and Spain when both nations reported unemployment rates higher than 25% in the 

first half of 2013.  Unfortunately, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that austerity programs are 

incorrectly implemented by policymakers and that the effect of austerity measures taken in economic crises takes a 

great deal longer than a single political cycle.  Many economists also believe that the current austerity measures that 

are accepted by most governments lead to future recessions and typically lead to an increased debt-to-GDP ratio 

higher than nations previously experienced prior to austerity measures being implemented.  Nations suffering from 

economic problems should focus on long-term solutions for long-term economic growth that are driven by quality-

improving innovations that highlight the importance of technological integration.  The downside to this approach is 

that it has the potential for income inequality because it rewards people with education at the cost of the less 

educated, especially in developed economies.  The performance of Greece, the Central African Republic, and Italy 

show a large decrease in economic growth and failing austerity measures implemented by policymakers within the 

nations.  The entire group showed an annual GDP mean performance loss of .94 or 94% from the 1989 to 2001 

period in comparison to the 2002 to 2014 period.  Greece showed an annual GDP mean performance loss of 150%, 

and its annual GDP mean performance decreased by 3.73.  The Central African Republic showed an annual GDP 

mean performance loss of 140%, and its annual GDP mean performance decreased by 1.81.  Italy showed an annual 

showed an annual GDP mean performance loss 116%, and its annual GDP mean performance decreased by 2.11.  It 

is clear that WTO membership is not benefiting these nations, and they have not properly diversified their economies 

and adopted policies that support innovation within their nations.  All of these nations' debt-to-GDP ratios will most 

likely continue to increase and the inevitability of forthcoming recessions and, possibly, depression is likely.  To 

improve their economic growth, nations showing poor annual GDP mean performance from the 2002 to 2014 in 

comparison to their annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2002 should adopt responsible austerity measures 

and analyze their current bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements.  Greece joined the WTO in 1995, and it 

has been a GATT member since 1950 (European Union, 2016).  It is clear that the measures taken by the WTO to 

boost developing economies has negatively impacted Greece in conjunction with its national policymaking, and it 

should be reanalyzing its membership in the WTO and the European Union, which was formed in 1993, because the 

economic benefits seen as being a member nation to both organizations are clearly not beneficial to its economy.  

The Central African Republic became a member nation of the WTO in 1995, and it joined GATT in 1963.  The 

Central African Republic is one of the world's least developed nations, and it is clear that WTO membership and 

GATT membership can be said to have had little impact on the nation's economic development.  The nation is clearly 

suffering from poor policymaking, infrastructure, and trade partnerships leading to sustainable economic growth and 

investment.  Italy became a WTO member in 1995, and a GATT member in 1950.  Its economic problems are similar 

to Greece's, and it should be reviewing its decision to being a member to the WTO and the European Union.  It 

should also be reviewing it bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements.   

The top 10 countries with the largest positive annual GDP mean performance shift between 1989 to 2001 and 

2002 to 2014 are shown in the graph below. 

 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

69 

 

 
 

In the above chart, Series 1 represents the annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 of the WTO 

member nations who had the largest positive annual GDP mean performance shift in comparison to the annual GDP 

mean performance reported in Series 2, which represents the annual GDP mean performance of the same nations 

from 2002 to 2014.  The information from this data is extremely positive for the economic growth and citizens of the 

nations listed.  Tajikistan joined the WTO in 2013, Georgia joined the WTO in 2000, the Republic of Moldova 

joined the WTO in 2001, the Democratic Republic of the Congo joined the WTO in 1997, Sierra Leone joined the 

WTO in 1995 and was a GATT member since 1961, Macao SAR, China joined in 1995 and was a GATT member 

since 1991, Mongolia joined the WTO in 1997, the Ukraine joined the WTO in 2008, Chad joined the WTO in 1996 

and was a GATT member since 1963, and the Kyrgyz Republic joined the WTO in 1998.  Between the two periods, 

Tajikistan's annual GDP mean performance increased by 13.97, Georgia's annual GDP mean performance increased 

by 13.13, Moldova's annual GDP mean performance increased by 11.31, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's 

annual GDP mean performance increased by 11.21, Sierra Leone's annual GDP mean performance increased by 

11.17, Macao SAR, China's annual GDP mean performance increased by 8.87, Mongolia's annual GDP mean 

performance increased by 8.19, Ukraine's annual GDP mean performance increased by 8.06, Chad's annual GDP 

mean performance increased by 6.39, and Kyrgyz Republic's annual GDP mean performance increased by 5.95.  The 

commonality among all of these nations is serious economic improvement between the two time periods measured.  

It is clear that WTO membership can be said to be working for most of these nations in conjunction with national 

policymaking in relation to their bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements.  Tajikistan and the Ukraine are 

the newest members of the above group, and it is not clear from this data which has benefitted them more, their 

WTO membership or their former bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade agreements, because they have reported less 

economic data as WTO members in comparison to other members who have shown drastic economic performance 

changes within this group.  It is clear that the WTO's focus on assisting developing nations has clearly benefitted the 

other members of the group and that Macao SAR, China has clearly increased its annual GDP mean performance 

over the two time periods measured because of East Asian Regional success over the same time period, specifically 

the People's Republic of China.  Many economists continue question the effectiveness of WTO membership, and 

they claim the WTO fails in promoting trade (Subramanian and Wei, 2007). This, however, is untrue, and the WTO 

has been shown by many economic studies to have increased trade throughout the world by over 120%.  Studies have 

also shown that WTO membership helps nations develop bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade networks through its 

trade promotion, but this has come at a cost, specifically to developed countries, who have not seen as much 

economic in comparison WTO members who are considered developing nations.  

The top 10 countries with the largest negative annual GDP mean performance loss between 1989 to 2001 and 

2002 to 2014 are shown in the graph below. 

 

 
 

In the above chart, Series 1 represents the annual GDP mean performance from 1989 to 2001 of the WTO 

member nations who have had the largest negative annual GDP mean performance shift in comparison to the annual 

GDP mean performance reported in Series 2, which represents the annual GDP mean performance of the same 

nations from 2002 to 2014.  The information from this data is extremely negative for the economic growth and 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

70 

 

citizens of the nations listed, and it should act as a signal to the policymakers who have implemented austerity 

measures in some of these countries and economists within these countries who advise policymakers regarding 

economic policy and trade memberships.  Ireland joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member since 

1967, Cabo Verde joined the WTO in 2008, and Zimbabwe joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member 

since 1947, Cyprus joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member since 1963, Saint Lucia has been a WTO 

member since 1995 and has been a  GATT since 1993, Belize has been a WTO member since 1995 and has been a 

GATT member since 1983, Portugal joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member since 1962, Malta 

joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member since 1964, Greece joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a 

GATT member since 1950, and the Republic of Korea joined the WTO in 1995 and has been a GATT member since 

1967 (European Union, 2016).  Between the two periods, Ireland's annual GDP mean performance decreased by 

4.58, Cabo Verde's annual GDP mean performance decreased by 4.47, Zimbabwe's annual GDP performance 

decreased by 3.59, Cyprus's annual GDP performance decreased by 3.41, Saint Lucia's annual GDP performance 

decreased by 3.41, Belize's annual GDP performance decreased by 3.42, Portugal's annual GDP performance 

decreased by 3.22, Malta's annual GDP performance decreased by 3.12, Greece's annual GDP performance decreased 

by 2.87, and the Republic of Korea's annual GDP performance decreased by 2.68.  With the exception of Cabo Verde 

in this group, there is an alarming trend that shows long time members of the WTO, who were formerly GATT 

members, economies are currently suffering.  This is clearly the result of many world economic factors, but 

policymakers and economists advising them within these nations should be extremely cautious in continuing their 

current membership in trade organizations and continuing trade partnerships.  For these nations, it can be said that 

the economic benefits previously brought to them as members of GATT, the WTO, and, for some, the European 

Union are no longer being seen.  Some economists have shown that both GATT and the WTO have not had a 

dramatic effect on trade, and that bilateral trading partnerships and Generalized System of Preferences in trade have a 

more measurable effect on national economies (Rose, 2004). Although it is difficult to say whether WTO has had an 

effect on world trade, it is commonly accepted that it has had a positive effect on trade relations and encouraged 

world trade that may not have existed without the organization.  It is clear that the WTO has had little effected on 

forcing developing countries to alter trade significantly, and its focus on assisting to promote developing economies 

throughout has left many long-time members to the organization economies behind, which has caused some of the 

European Union members nations, who are also WTO member nations, economies to contract and resulted in the 

adoption of austerity measures.    

 

6. Conclusion 
The comparative analysis of the two time periods annual GDP mean performance for all 162 member nations of 

the WTO from the time period 1989 to 2001 against the time period 2002-2014 shows a radical change in annual 

GDP mean performance for many countries.  It can be said with certainty that many WTO member nations are 

benefitting from current WTO promotion of free trade and the bilateral, unilateral, and regional trade networks their 

governments have negotiated.  It can also be said with certitude that many long-time WTO and GATT members are 

not currently benefitting economically as they once had from the historically beneficial trade networks.  It is clear 

that many developed nations economies have suffered under WTO's trade policies and promotion of developed 

nations over the last 20 years has led to some substantial positive annual GDP mean performance by newer members 

to the WTO.   

It can be definitively concluded the annual GDP mean performance for all member nations increased by 29% 

between the two time periods measured.  This measurement shows that the WTO's policies regarding free trade and 

the addition of new members over the two time periods has benefitted world trade as a whole, specifically for the 162 

member nations of the WTO.  The second measurement analyzing the top annual GDP mean performance from the 

1989 to 2001 time period against their annual GDP mean performance from 2002 to 2014 shows a decrease of 21% 

or a decrease in annual GDP mean performance by 1.57 by the WTO nations in the group.  Out of the entire group, 

we see a trend of longtime WTO members economically suffering.   

 

Country Name Year of Acceptance GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014  GDP Shift 

Cabo Verde 2008 9.504301006 5.033380159 -4.470920847 

China 2001 9.311780299 9.930601164 0.618820865 

Mozambique 1992 7.392397747 7.515159205 0.122761458 

Vietnam 2007 7.271912916 6.36823974 -0.903673176 

Ireland 1967 7.216977262 2.641640315 -4.575336947 

Singapore 1973 7.010095099 5.928084078 -1.082011021 

Malaysia 1957 6.993458832 5.1843119 -1.809146932 

Myanmar 1948 6.921814059 not enough data not enough data 

Belize 1983 6.836949903 3.512692585 -3.324257318 

Lao PDR 2013 6.806081578 7.505378426 0.699296848 

 1984.9 7.52657687 5.957720841 -1.568856029 
  (TWBG, 2016) 

 

This data shows that these nations are not benefitting from trade partnerships created through the WTO, and they 

have failed to adequately create innovation within their economies necessary to be competitive in the global 

marketplace when adopting austerity measures.  It also shows that these economies have not properly diversified 

themselves, and they are suffering from cyclical changes in the global economy, which is negatively impacting their 

annual GDP mean performance.  Finally, it shows that these nations have not set up the necessary bilateral, regional, 

and unilateral trade networks to be economically successful as a nation in today's global trade network.  For Ireland, 

it is clear that being a member of the European Union may be having negative effects on its economic growth as a 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

71 

 

nation.  This is beyond the scope of this analysis, but the data does show that the present trading partnerships the 

nation has are not benefitting it economically in the same manner as it once did.   

The third measurement analyzing the worst annual GDP mean performance from the 1989 to 2001 time period 

against the their annual GDP mean performance from the 2002 to 2014, which shows an increase of 243% or an 

increase in annual GDP mean performance by 9.21 by the WTO nations in the group.    

 

Country Name Year of Acceptance GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014 GDP Shift 

Georgia 2000 -6.980494665 6.151998314 13.13249298 

Moldova 2001 -6.251362832 5.057245246 11.30860808 

Tajikistan 2013 -6.215384727 7.753788504 13.96917323 

Ukraine 2008 -5.380148215 2.684614815 8.06476303 

Congo, Dem. Rep. 1997 -4.997698797 6.208615572 11.20631437 

Russian Federation 2012 -2.830654114 4.143228731 6.973882845 

Sierra Leone 1961 -1.996820231 9.175773867 11.1725941 

Kyrgyz Republic 1998 -1.591536826 4.362538586 5.954075412 

Burundi 1965 -0.906530597 3.761180688 4.667711285 

Cuba 1948 -0.782850534 4.831512942 5.614363476 

 
1990.3 -3.793348154 5.413049727 9.20639788 

     (TWBG, 2016) 

 

This annual GDP mean performance shift is for some members of this group is clearly the result of the WTO's 

focusing on opening up developing economies to the world markets to increase trade, and this has resulted in a 

positive shift in annual GDP mean performance of these nations between the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison 

to the 2002 to the 2014 time period.  It is also clear that the austerity measures implemented at a national level during 

the economic contractions experienced by these nations during the 1989 to 2001 time period where effective in 

boosting national economies between the 2002 to 2014 time period.  These nations have also clearly established the 

necessary bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade networks necessary to increase access to global markets in the 

twenty-first century in conjunction with their membership in the WTO.  For the nations among the group that 

recently joined the WTO, Tajikistan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, it is difficult to say with certainty if the 

annual GDP mean performance success that they experienced between 2002 to 2014 time was a result of WTO 

membership.  Acceptance to the WTO in conjunction with establishing bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade 

partnerships is the most likely factor in increasing annual GDP mean performance of these nations, so the result of 

the positive shift of annual GDP mean performance is most likely a combination of the simultaneous effect of both 

trade partnerships and WTO memberships.  An examination of each country's economic reforms implemented during 

the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to their annual GDP mean performance in the 2002 to 2014 time period 

would have to be analyzed to say with complete certainty, which is beyond the scope of this study.   An examination 

of some of the other nations that are part of the group whose membership in the organization is more than 50 years 

old, Cuba, Sierra Leone, and Burundi, suggests that some of the economic hardships experienced by these nations 

between the 1989 to 2002 time period in relation  to annual GDP mean performance could have been cyclical, but it 

is more likely that they are showing annual GDP mean performance increases directly as a result of increased trade 

and the WTO's promotion of free trade throughout the world in combination with the WTO's focus on opening up 

developing economies to increased trade opportunities.   

The fourth measurement analyzed the best annual GDP mean performance from the 2002 to 2014 time period 

against the annual GDP mean performance of the same WTO members from 1989 to 2002 time period, and it shows 

an increase of 433% or an increase in annual GDP mean performance by 7.54 by the WTO nations in the group.   

 

Country Name Year of Acceptance GDP Mean 1989-2001 GDP Mean 2002-2014  GDP Shift 

Macao SAR, China 1991 3.361538458 12.2342128 8.872674344 

Qatar 1994 not enough data 12.13820867 not enough data 

China 2001 9.311780299 9.930601164 0.618820865 

Chad 1963 2.909345526 9.298498454 6.389152928 

Sierra Leone 1961 -1.996820231 9.175773867 11.1725941 

Mongolia 1997 0.38666376 8.576687919 8.19002416 

Nigeria 1960 3.265903504 8.328758113 5.062854608 

Cambodia 2004 not enough data 7.799371353 not enough data 

Tajikistan 2013 -6.215384727 7.753788504 13.96917323 

Rwanda 1966 2.908670222 7.592289805 4.683619583 

 1985 1.741462101 9.282819065 7.541356964 
   (TWBG, 2016) 

 

This data shows many members who joined the WTO in the 1990s and newer members who have recently been 

accepted to the organization have benefitted significantly to  increased access to global markets.  It is clear that WTO 

membership and bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade networks that have been put in place at the national level are 

having a direct impact of positive annual GDP mean shift.  The intertwined global network of trade has clearly 

increased access to new markets for these nations to sell manufactured goods and raw materials needed to produce 

these goods.  Individuals within these nations are clearly seeing the benefit at the local level of their nations being 

members of the WTO with increased standards of living, improved legislation regarding trade, and better 

employment opportunities.  The WTO's promotion of trade networks for developing nations has changed the lives of 

millions of individuals within these nations, and it is clear from their annual GDP mean performance that WTO 

membership has continued to assist in the development of wealth within most of these nations that began previously 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

72 

 

to the 1989 to 2001 time period and continued into the 2002 to 2014 time period, specifically the Asian nations.  For 

other nations in the group, the WTO has assisted in helping in ending economic contractions and stagnant economic 

development between the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to the 2002 to 2014 time period. 

The fifth measurement analyzed the worst annual GDP mean performance from WTO member nations from the 

2002 to 2014 time period against the annual GDP mean performance of the same WTO members from 1989 to 2002 

time period, and it shows a decrease annual GDP mean performance of 93% or a decrease in the annual GDP mean 

performance by 2.04 by the WTO nations in the group.   

 

Country Name Year of Acceptance 

GDP Mean 1989-

2001 

GDP Mean 

2002-2014  GDP Shift 

Greece 1950 2.497079815 -1.239518088 -3.736597903 

Central African Republic 1963 1.297202206 -0.519661276 -1.816863482 

Italy 1950 1.824300893 -0.287251327 -2.11155222 

Portugal 1962 3.183605039 -0.031230692 -3.214835731 

Jamaica 1963 2.384664038 0.239799255 -2.144864783 

Brunei Darussalam 1993 1.949438381 0.458505288 -1.490933093 

Denmark 1950 2.296494483 0.599189118 -1.697305365 

Tonga 2007 2.374305096 0.614594398 -1.759710698 

Croatia 2000 not enough data 0.720533739 not enough data 

Japan 1955 1.744543148 0.770255353 -0.974287795 

 1969.3 2.172403678 0.132521577 -2.039882101 
        (TWBG, 2016) 

 

An analysis of this group of WTO nations with the worst annual GDP mean performance during the 2002 to 

2014 time period is startling.  The majority of nations shown above are longtime WTO members, and 5 of the nations 

listed are EU members.  This data suggests that, despite increasing and promoting world trade, WTO membership 

does not necessarily result in strong annual GDP mean performance.  For Greece, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, and 

Croatia, it can also be said that EU membership does not necessarily lead to strong annual GDP mean performance or 

increased access to trade networks that benefit annual GDP mean performance.  All nations listed above have 

suffered drastic economic contractions in comparison to the overall performance of other WTO members during the 

2002 to 2014 period, and they must reevaluate their WTO membership and other trade partnerships.  It is clear that 

unemployment rates within these nations can be said to be high, the standard of living is decreasing, and austerity 

measures must be underway to avoid further economic contractions.  The goal of these nations should be to 

implement austerity measures that focus on long-term growth of the nation that incorporate technology and supports 

innovation within its society.  These nations should also consider establishing new bilateral, regional, and unilateral 

trade partnerships, and the EU member nations listed above should be reexamining the benefit derived from their 

membership in the EU or lack thereof.   

The sixth measurement analyzed the largest positive annual GDP mean performance shift by WTO member 

nations from the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to the 2002 to 2014 time period, and  the seventh 

measurement analyzed the largest negative annual GDP mean performance shift by WTO member nations from the 

1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to the 2002 to 2014 time period. 

 

 
 

The information received from this analysis displayed on the above chart shows a dramatic difference in the 

effectiveness of the WTO promotion of developing economies versus developed, and the lack of benefit derived by 

many longtime WTO members.  One could easily argue that there is an imbalance of support by the organization for 

developed nations, and they are suffering from being WTO members as it pertains to the annual GDP mean 

performances in comparison to the 1989 to 2001 time period and the 2002 to 2014 time period.  The chart also shows 

substantial growth by newer members to the WTO, and the obvious benefit to their economies displayed in their 

annual GDP mean performance as a result of increased access to the global markets through the WTO and other 

trade partnerships.   

 



Economy, 2016, 3(2): 51-73 

 

 

 

 

73 

 

Country Name 

Year of 

Acceptance 

Positive GDP of 

Gains Between 

1989-2001 and 

2002-2014 Country Name 

Year of 

Acceptance 

Negative GDP of 

Losses Between 

1989-2001 and 2002-

2014 

Tajikistan 2013 13.97 Ireland 1967 -4.58 

Georgia 2000 13.13 Cabo Verde 2008 -4.47 

Moldova 2001 11.31 Zimbabwe 1948 -3.59 

Congo, Dem. Rep. 1997 11.21 Cyprus 1963 -3.41 

Sierra Leone 1961 11.17 St. Lucia 1993 -3.33 

Macao SAR, China 1991 8.87 Belize 1983 -3.32 

Mongolia 1997 8.19 Portugal 1962 -3.22 

Ukraine 2008 8.06 Malta 1964 -3.13 

Chad 1963 6.39 Greece 1950 -2.87 

Kyrgyz Republic 1998 5.95 Korea, Rep. 1967 -2.68 

 1992.9 9.825 

 

1970.5 -3.46 
(TWBG, 2016) 

 

The sixth measurement, displayed on the left, shows a positive annual GDP mean performance shift by the 

nations.  The commonality among these nations is that they are newer members of the WTO in comparison the 

nations analyzed in the seventh measurement.  Geographically, the majority of these nations are in Eastern Europe or 

Asia.  They show an average date of acceptance to the WTO in 1993, and they showed an average annual GDP mean 

positive performance shift between 1989 to 2001 in comparison to 2002 to 2014 of 9.83.  The seventh measurement, 

displayed on the right, shows a negative performance shift  by the nations.  The commonality among these nations 

are that they are  older members of the WTO in comparison to the nations analyzed in the  sixth measurement, the 

majority are islands, and 5 of the nations are members of the EU.  The first commonality shows that long-term WTO 

membership does not necessarily benefit nations in relation to trade in the twenty-first century, which suggests that 

nations constantly must work to establish and maintain bilateral, regional, and unilateral trade partnerships outside of 

the WTO.  This data also suggests that small island nations are vulnerable to economic fluctuations as a result of a 

lack of resources and diversification among economic sectors within their nations.  This also shows that smaller 

nations can potentially be economically ostracized when they are not included large trade agreements, like the Trans-

Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, because of the size of their national 

economies.  Finally, this data shows that nearly 20% of EU member countries are suffering in relation to annual GDP 

mean performance from the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to the 2002 to 2014 time period.  This is 

alarming in consideration of the fact that the EU is one of the world's largest economies, and this information 

suggests that not all EU members benefit economically from EU membership. 

This study shows that free trade has increased throughout the world because of the WTO's promotion of it and 

other trade networks established between nations.  Free trade has benefitted many that are WTO member nations that 

are considered developing economies and caused other WTO member nations that are considered developed 

economies to contract.  It cannot be said that the WTO's focus on developing economies has been bad specifically for 

developed economies in relation to the data reviewed in this study, so the initial hypothesis in this study is incorrect.  

China's entrance as well as other newer members of the WTO have had a positive overall effect on the annual GDP 

mean performance of the 162 WTO member nations, which can be seen in the increase of the annual GDP mean 

performance overall of the 162 member nations by 29% from the 1989 to 2001 time period in comparison to the 

2002 to 2014 time period.  This investigation has clearly shown that many longtime member nations of the WTO are 

suffering economically, specifically smaller economies, island nations, and nations that are members of the EU.  It 

cannot be specifically said that this is a result of WTO's current policies or the entrance of large developing 

economies to the WTO.  It is, however, clear that the benefits seen between the two time periods measured are not 

being experienced by all member nations of the WTO.  Many of the members who are presently suffering from poor 

annual GDP mean performance are longtime members of the WTO, and some are conjunctively members of the EU.                                                                                                                                            

 

References  
Akhtar, S., 2014. Asia-pacific ready to lead and shape sustainable trade and development. International Trade Forum, 3(1): 16-18. 

Baldwin, R., 2016. The world trade organization and the future of multilateralism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(1): 96-115. 

Beattie, A., 2016. The dark side of the WTO. Available from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/dark-side-of-the-

wto.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch. 
European Union, 2016. Official website of the European Union. Available from http://europa.eu/index_en.htm. 

Heakal, R., 2016. What is the world trade organization? Available from 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/040203.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch. 

Investopedia, 2016. What is GDP and why is it so important to economists and investors? Available from 
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp. 

Jadhav, A., J. Neelankavil and D. Andrews, 2013. Determinants of GDP growth and the impact of austerity. Journal of Applied Business and 

Economics, 15(1): 15-29. 

Lee, C.Y. and E. Kolesnikova, 2008. Russia’s accession of WTO membership and its implications on the Russian economy. Journal of Global 
Business Management, 6(1): 137-147. 

Porter, R., 2015. The world trade organization at twenty. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 12(2): 103-116. 

Rose, A., 2004. Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? American Economic Review, 94(1): 98-114. 

Subramanian, A. and S. Wei, 2007. The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 72(1): 151-175. 
The World Bank Group, 2016. Data. Available from http://data.worldbank.org/. 

World Trade Organization, 2016. Members and observers. Available from https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm. 

 

 
Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the 

content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/dark-side-of-the-wto.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/dark-side-of-the-wto.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/040203.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp
http://data.worldbank.org/
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

