Q.Suggest any one measure that should be taken to make the WTO more acceptable to the developing countries.

The idea of sustainable development emerged from a growing recognition that unchecked economic growth was depleting natural resources and degrading ecosystems at an alarming rate. By the late twentieth century, it became clear that development could not be measured solely by rising incomes or industrial output. A new framework was needed, one that acknowledged the interdependence of human prosperity and environmental health.

At its heart, sustainable development rejects the false choice between growth and conservation. It does not ask us to abandon economic progress, nor does it permit us to sacrifice the environment for short-term gain. Instead, it insists that the two must advance together. Economic activities should be designed so that they do not exhaust resources or poison the systems—air, water, soil, biodiversity—on which all life depends. This is ecological responsibility woven into the fabric of growth itself.

The other options miss this balance. Utilizing maximum resources for human development (option A) is precisely the extractive mindset that sustainable development seeks to replace; it treats nature as an infinite storehouse, ignoring limits and regeneration rates. Increasing GDP (option B) is a narrow economic metric that says nothing about how that wealth is generated or distributed, and whether it leaves behind polluted rivers and barren land. Maximizing efforts for environmental conservation (option D) sounds appealing but, taken alone, can neglect the legitimate development needs of communities—particularly in countries where millions still lack basic services. …

The World Trade Organization operates on the principle that all member states, regardless of economic strength, must follow the same trade liberalization rules. This "one-size-fits-all" approach creates profound difficulties for developing nations. When a country with fragile industries and limited technological capacity is forced to open its markets at the same pace as wealthy industrialized economies, the results are predictable: domestic producers cannot compete with cheaper or higher-quality imports, unemployment rises, and entire sectors collapse before they have had a chance to mature.

The most effective reform would be to institutionalize special and differential treatment in a meaningful way—not as vague language in agreements, but as concrete, enforceable provisions. Developing countries need substantially longer timeframes to reduce tariffs, phase out subsidies, and comply with intellectual property standards. A textile manufacturer in Bangladesh or a pharmaceutical company in India requires breathing room to build capacity, invest in technology, and achieve economies of scale before facing the full force of global competition. Without that space, trade liberalization becomes a mechanism for entrenching inequality rather than spreading prosperity.

This measure addresses the core grievance that the WTO serves the interests of developed nations. Rich countries built their own industries behind high tariff walls during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; they achieved industrialization precisely because they protected their markets. Demanding that today's developing countries abandon those same tools while their economies are still vulnerable strikes many as hypocritical. Flexible timelines would acknowledge historical context and economic reality. …