110 SOCIAL SCIENTIST whom distinctions between goods and services, trade and investment, or technology and information, are of no more than academic interest. The thrust of the Uruguay Round, as embodied in the Dunkel text, extends far beyond the border paradigm of the GATT. The traditional concerns of the GATT were limited to international trade in goods. Countries negotiated market access at the border on a reciprocal basis and this was multilateralised through the GATT system. The international trading system now proposed extends beyond goods to services, technology, investment, and information. The result would be that market access in the industrialised countries, for goods exported by developing countries, which was guaranteed on a non-discriminatory basis (for sectors other than textiles and agriculture) under the GATT system, would now be conditional on the concessions that developing countries would be required to make in their intra-border economic regimes relating to investment, technology and services. In so far as this would imply a transgression of sovereign economic space, it constitutes a fundamental departure from the GATT regime. EXPECTATIONS AND OUTCOME It is worth recalling that in the discussions which led upto Punta del Este, where the Uruguay Round was launched, the developing countries were by no means enthusiastic. Indeed, in the realm of the new issues, it would be no exaggeration to state that the developing countries were most reluctant. Yet, once the Uruguay Round became a reality, the developing countries in general, and India in particular, did have a perception about their objectives in the negotiations and expectations about the outcome. At this stage, when we evaluate Dunkel text, it is necessary to outline the objectives and make an assessment of the outcome in relation to expectations. In my judgment, India had four sets of interests in the Uruguay Round. First, there were the positive interests, such as the dismantling of the MFA and the provision for labour mobility in an agreement on trade in services, where we sought to capture some gains. Second, there were the protective interests, such as the preservation of Article XVIII B and the maintenance, if not strengthening, of Part IV of the GATT, where we sought to maintain the status quo. Third, there were the negative interests, such as those associated with trade related intellectual property rights and trade related investment measures, where we sought to limit the damage arising out of the proposal for new regimes. Last but not least, there was agriculture, not quite an old issue and not quitQ a new issue, where our interests were mixed and in parts unclear. It would be reasonable to ask: how docs the Dunkel text measure up to these expectations?