Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 46
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Crump, Larry and Druckman, Daniel 2016. Turning Points and International Environments: Multilateral Negotiations in the GATT and the WTO. International Negotiation, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Houghton, Luke and Crump, Larry 2016. Temporal Events and Problem Structuring. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 324.


    Poast, Paul 2016. Dyads Are Dead, Long Live Dyads! The Limits of Dyadic Designs in International Relations Research. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 369.


    Post, Alison E. and Murillo, María Victoria 2016. How Investor Portfolios Shape Regulatory Outcomes: Privatized Infrastructure After Crises. World Development, Vol. 77, p. 328.


    Tomiura, Eiichi Ito, Banri Mukunoki, Hiroshi and Wakasugi, Ryuhei 2016. Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan. Review of International Economics,


    Warner, Jeroen Frank 2016. Of River Linkage and Issue Linkage: Transboundary Conflict and Cooperation on the River Meuse. Globalizations, p. 1.


    Galantucci, Robert A. 2015. The Repercussions of Realignment: United States-China Interdependence and Exchange Rate Politics. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 423.


    Newman, Abraham L. and Posner, Elliot 2015. Putting the EU in its place: policy strategies and the global regulatory context. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 22, Issue. 9, p. 1316.


    Rosas, Guillermo and Manzetti, Luigi 2015. Reassessing the trade-off hypothesis: How misery drives the corruption effect on presidential approval. Electoral Studies, Vol. 39, p. 26.


    Ross, Michael L. and Voeten, Erik 2015. Oil and International Cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, p. sqv003.


    Singh, J. P. 2015. Diffusion of Power and Diplomacy: New Meanings, Problem Solving, and Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations. International Negotiation, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 73.


    Singh, J. P. 2015. Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies.


    Thies, Cameron G. 2015. The declining exceptionalism of agriculture: identifying the domestic politics and foreign policy of agricultural trade protectionism. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 22, Issue. 2, p. 339.


    Wallbott, Linda and Schapper, Andrea 2015. Negotiating by own standards? The use and validity of human rights norms in UN climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,


    Wood, Jacob and Khan, Gohar Feroz 2015. International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure. Scientometrics, Vol. 105, Issue. 1, p. 537.


    Poletti, Arlo and De Biévre, Dirk 2014. The political science of European trade policy: A literature review with a research outlook. Comparative European Politics, Vol. 12, Issue. 1, p. 101.


    Wallbott, Linda 2014. Keeping discourses separate: explaining the non-alignment of climate politics and human rights norms by small island states in United Nations climate negotiations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 736.


    da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia 2013. Two-level games and trade cooperation: What do we now know?. International Politics, Vol. 50, Issue. 4, p. 579.


    da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia 2013. Emerging Powers in WTO Negotiations: The Domestic Sources of Trade Policy Preferences. The International Trade Journal, Vol. 27, Issue. 5, p. 431.


    Knaack, Peter and Katada, Saori N. 2013. Fault Lines and Issue Linkages at the G20: New Challenges for Global Economic Governance. Global Policy, p. n/a.


    ×

International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization

  • CHRISTINA L. DAVIS (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001066
  • Published online: 01 February 2004
Abstract

This article explains how the institutional context of international negotiations influences their outcomes. I argue that issue linkage counteracts domestic obstacles to liberalization by broadening the negotiation stakes. Institutions bolster the credibility of the linkage to make it more effective. I test the argument in the agricultural sector, which has been among the most difficult sectors for governments to liberalize. Statistical analysis of U.S. negotiations with Japan and the EU from 1970 to 1999 indicates that an institutionalized linkage between agricultural and industrial issues encourages agricultural liberalization in both Japan and Europe. Through case studies of key negotiations, I first examine why countries choose to link issues, then show how the linkage changes interest group mobilization and shifts the policy process to promote liberalization.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Assistant professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. Address: Bendheim Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (cldavis@princeton.edu).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×