Conclusion and way forward. We demonstrate that the gross value of free digital services, such as videoconferencing, personal email, and online news can be estimated using observable data. Our estimation strategy overcomes some of the drawbacks encountered by previous research. First, unlike contingent valuation studies, our approach does not introduce inconsistencies with the core accounting principles of the National Accounts. As such, it would be possible to compare the imputed value of free services to other aggregates such as household consumption (and subcategories of consumption). Second, our estimation strategy does not suffer the limitations of the total cost approach, since gross value, in our case, is linked to volume. If the marginal cost of producing digital services is close to zero, an additional subscriber would not generate incremental value for the economy when estimates are derived using the total cost approach, unlike our chosen method. Our estimates show that prior to the pandemic, the inclusion of the gross value of video- conferencing, personal email, and online news, did not make any substantial change to the growth of household consumption aggregates. During the pandemic year, however, the in- clusion of these services in consumption would slow its decline by 0.07 to 0.2 percentage points. This suggests that welfare, as measured by aggregate consumption, would have been worse had it not been for the presence of these free services. While these impacts are rela- tively small, it is important to note that we are measuring the value of only three categories of internet services for this exercise. The inclusion of other internet services could have a substantial impact on household consumption statistics and GDP. The goal of this effort is to develop an initial template that other researchers can use to estimate the contribution of free services to aggregate welfare. The natural extension of our research is to apply the same methodology to other internet activities with paid counterparts. Since our approach employs the price of premium services to derive the value of their free counterpart, the method effectively limits our application to digital services with paid versions. It is possible that in the subject of measuring the value of free services, multiple approaches are needed to generate a complete picture. At this stage, we interpret our estimates as the value of consumption from free digital services. With this interpretation, we think of households gaining...
Conclusion and way forward. The use of the Handle System reduces complexity in terms of the overall smartenvironment IoT architecture. It ensures that common information used by variouscomponents are stored centrally. Thus, when changes are required, only one componentneeds to be updated. The scheme discussed here stores a Thing’s command-set in the Thing’s own Handle. Thisscheme allows for actions (e.g. the capability and status) to be communicated. Eventhough the scheme is unsophisticated, it proved to be valuable. This scheme can still berevisited and refined further. It is clear that using Handles for Things add value. It is recommended that this concept befurther explored and researched. The experimental smart environment embodies a limitednumber of Things. Research relating to a massively scaled environment needs to beconducted. The experimental smart environment does not implement any form of trust and security.This is an important aspect to research and implement. The use of the Handle to also hostPrivate Key Infrastructure (PKI)-elements in order to provide authentication andauthorisation is a worthwhile future research topic. Through the creation of an experimental smart IoT environment the use of Handles hostedin the Handle System was researched. From the results obtained, there are clearmotivation and support for formally expanding the research of applying Handles in IoT.
Conclusion and way forward. These imbalances affect all three pillars under the AoA – market access, do- mestic support and export competition. The common thread running through all these issues is the following: countries that were distorting markets through high tariffs, a plethora of non-tariff barriers, and high subsidies, secured the right to continue to distort markets through such tariffs and subsidies. On the other hand, countries that were more disciplined in terms of few or no non-tariff barriers and low subsidies lost the right to protect their farm sector. Therefore, if the WTO members have to fulfill the objective of establishing a “fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system”, then the first step in future multilateral negotiations in agriculture must set right the asymmetries and imbalances in the Agreement on Agriculture.
1. Xxxxxxxxxx, X. (2005). Ten years of the WTO Agreement on Agricul- ture: Problems and prospects. International Gender and Trade Network. WTO Annual Public Symposium, April 21, Geneva, Switzerland.
2. Xxx, X. and Xxxxxx, X.X. (2011). Evolution of WTO Agriculture Mo- dalities: Survival of the Financially Fattest. CWS Occasional Paper No. 1.
3. Xxx, X., Xxxxxx, X. X., Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, T. (2021). Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agriculture: Implications for Developing Members at the World Trade Organization. Journal of World Investment and Trade Vol. 22(6), pp 835-859.
4. Xxx, X.X. (1998). The WTO Agreements: Deficiencies, imbalances and required changes. Zed Books, London and Third World Network, Pen- ang. Pp 58-68.
5. GATT. (1993). Modalities for the establishment of specific binding commitments under the reform programme – Note by the chairman of the Market Access Group. Doc. No. MTN.GNG/MA/W/24.
