No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The democratizing effects of multilateral organizations: a cautionary note on the WTO
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2013
Abstract
The field of international relations has been obsessed with democracy and democratization and its effects on international cooperation for a long time. More recently, research has turned its focus on how international organizations enhance democracy. This article contributes to this debate and applies a prominent liberal framework to study the ‘outside-in’ effects of the World Trade Organization. The article offers a critical reading of democratization through IO membership. It provides for an assessment of the dominant framework put forward by Keohane et al. (2009). In doing so, it develops a set of empirical strategies to test conjectured causal mechanisms with respect to the WTO, and illustrates the potential application by drawing on selected empirical evidence from trade politics. Finally, it proposes a number of analytical revisions to the liberal framework and outlines avenues for future research.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Manfred Elsig 2013
References
Aaronson, S. and Zimmerman, J. (2008), Trade Imbalance: The Struggle to Weigh Human Rights Concerns in Trade Policymaking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aaronson, S. and Abouharb, R. (2011), ‘Unexpected Bedfellows: The GATT, the WTO and Some Democratic Rights’, International Studies Quarterly, 55(2): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ala'I, P. (2009), ‘From the Periphery to the Centre? The Evolving WTO Jurisprudence on Transparency and Good Governance’, in Steger, D. (ed.), Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfred Laurier University Press, CIGI and IDRC, pp. 165–192.Google Scholar
Allee, T. (2005), ‘The “Hidden” Impact of the World Trade Organization on the Reduction of Trade Conflict’, Paper presented at the 2005 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Alston, P. (2002), ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’, European Journal of International Law, 13(4): 815–844.Google Scholar
Bown, C. (2010), Global Antidumping Database, Washington, DC: World Bank, available at http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/.Google Scholar
Bown, C. (2011), ‘Introduction’, in Bown, C. (ed.), The Great Recession and Import Protection, Washington, DC: IBRD/The World Bank, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
Capling, A. and Low, P. (2010), ‘The Domestic Politics of Trade Policy-Making: State and Non-State Actor Interactions and Forum Choice’, in Capling, A. and Low, P. (eds.), Governments, Non-State Actors and Trade Policy-Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, J. (2005), ‘International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework’, International Organization, 59(4): 801–826.Google Scholar
Comerford Cooper, M. (2003), ‘International Organizations and Democratization: Testing the Effect of GATT/WTO Membership’, Working Paper, Asia/Pacific Research Center, Stanford.Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Oesch, M. (2001), ‘WTO Law, Precedents and Legal Change’, Turku Law Journal, 27: 31–33.Google Scholar
Danilovic, V. and Clare, J. (2007), ‘The Kantian Liberal Peace (Revisited)’, American Journal of Political Science, 51(2): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. (2012), Why Adjudicate? Enforcing Trade Rules in the WTO, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Drezner, D. (2006), ‘The Viscosity of Global Governance: When is Forum-Shopping Expensive?’, Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Dür, A. and DeBièvre, D. (2007), ‘Inclusion without Influence: NGOs in European Trade Policy’, Journal of Public Policy, 27(1): 79–101.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. (2010a), ‘European Union Trade Policy after Enlargement: Larger Crowds, Shifting Priorities and Informal Decision-Making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6): 781–798.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. (2010b), ‘The World Trade Organization at Work: Performance in a Member-Driven Milieu’, The Review of International Organizations, 5(3): 345–363.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. (2011), ‘Principal-Agent Theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex Agency and “Missing Delegation”’, European Journal of International Relations, 17(3): 495–517.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Dupont, C. (2012), ‘European Union Meets South Korea: Bureaucratic Interests, Exporter Discrimination and the Negotiations of Trade Agreements’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3): 492–507.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Stucki, P. (2012), ‘Low-Income Developing Countries and WTO Litigation: Why Wake Up the Sleeping Dog?’, Review of International Political Economy, 19(2): 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Martin, L. (2000), ‘Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note’, International Organization, 54(3): 603–632.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Rivers, D., and Tomz, M. (2007), ‘Institutions in International Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and WTO on World Trade’, International Organization, 61(1): 37–67.Google Scholar
Grant, R. and Keohane, R. (2005), ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 99(1): 29–43.Google Scholar
Gutner, T. and Thompson, A. (2010), ‘The Politics of IO Performance: A Framework’, Review of International Organizations, 5(3): 227–248.Google Scholar
Guzmann, A. (2008), How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. (2009), Forced to Be Good: Why Trade Agreements Boost Human Rights, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Wolfe, R. (eds.) (2007), Process Matters: Sustainable Development and Domestic Trade Transparency, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Howse, R. (2002), ‘Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity? Comment on Petersmann’, European Journal of International Law, 13(3): 651–659.Google Scholar
ICTSD (2009), ‘WTO Rules Against Chinese Restrictions on Foreign Books, Movies, Music’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 13(30), 9 September.Google Scholar
Keohane, R., Macedo, S., and Moravcsik, A. (2009), ‘Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism’, International Organization, 63(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, E. and Pevehouse, J. (2008), ‘Democratization and the Varieties of International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(2): 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milewicz, K. and Elsig, M. (2012), ‘The Hidden World of Multilateralism? Treaty Commitments of Newly Democratized States in Europe’, Manuscript.Google Scholar
Milner, H. and Kubota, K. (2005), ‘Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries’, International Organization, 59(1): 157–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2000), ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe’, International Organization, 54(2): 217–252.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2010), ‘Squaring Free Trade in Culture With Chinese Censorship: The WTO Appellate Body Report on China – Audiovisuals’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 11(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Petersmann, E.-U. (2002), ‘Constitutionalism and WTO Law: From a State-Centered Approach towards a Human Rights Approach in International Economic Law’, in Kennedy, D. and Southwick, J. (eds.), The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32–67.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, J. (2002), ‘Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization’, International Organization, 56(3): 515–549.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, J. and Russett, B. (2006), ‘Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace’, International Organization, 60(4): 969–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletti, A. (2011), ‘WTO Judicialisation and Preference Convergence in EU Trade Policy: Making the Agent's Life Easier’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3): 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletti, A. and DeBièvre, D. (2012), ‘Rule Enforcement and Cooperation in the WTO: Legal Vulnerability, Issue Characteristics, and Negotiation Strategies in the Doha Round’, Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions Antwerp.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (2004), ‘Do We Really Know That the WTO Increased Trade?’, The American Economic Review, 94(1): 98–114.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. (2004), ‘Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4): 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, B. (2009), Mobilizing for Human Rights for International Law in Domestic Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, M., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., and Steiner, J. (2003), ‘Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index’, Comparative European Politics, 1(1): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. (2008), ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 497–520.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Robert (2007), ‘Transparency and Public Participation in the Canadian Trade Policy Process’, in Halle, M. and Wolfe, R. (eds.), Process Matters: Sustainable Development and Domestic Trade Transparency, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, pp. 21–72.Google Scholar
Organization, World Trade (2010), China: Trade Policy Review, Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/230), Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar