Several developing countries now have big enough markets to give them leverage over rules of access to their markets, and their governments could take the lead in revising current rules on terms more favourable than those they agreed to in the Uruguay round of trade talks.
These governments should sculpt new multilateral agreements aimed at reshaping domestic economic space, including softening the handicaps imposed on them by rules on intellectual property and the protection of nascent industries.
In the past, I have often been unsure about the scope of the policy space argument, which I hear quite a bit these days. Sometimes I have the impression its advocates just want more flexibility on issues like IP; other times I get the sense it is simply about using protectionism for development. This letter by Wade clarifies things a bit for me (at least in terms of his views), by explaining that he wants both.
It seems to me that arguments for and against the two (IP rights and protecting domestic industries) are very different, and I think it is useful to separate them. (Or at least make clear, as Wade does, that he supports more policy space in both areas.) If you want to argue for infant industry protection, that's fine. We have been arguing about this issue for hundreds of years, and will likely continue to do so. (My views have changed on this one -- borrowing from John Kerry, I was for it before I was against it). But I do think clarity on the issue of policy space is important if it is to go anywhere.