Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:42:23.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domestic constituents and the formulation of WTO negotiating positions: what the delegates say

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2008

VALENTIN ZAHRNT
VALENTIN ZAHRNT*
Affiliation:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
*
*Email: valentin.zahrnt@alumni.unisg.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article examines what influence various domestic constituents exert on the negotiating positions member states adopt in WTO trade rounds based on a survey of national delegations to the WTO. The findings show that in both developed and developing countries, a broad array of governmental and non-governmental actors substantially shape trade policy-making. At the cost of those ministries traditionally in charge of trade policy-making, many domestic constituents have increased their influence since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. This leads to a discussion of the problematic implications of these developments towards more participatory trade policy-making for WTO negotiations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 393 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Valentin Zahrnt 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M. Jr. (2002), ‘Why Is There so Little Money in US Politics?’, NBER Working Paper 9409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David and Wright, John R. (1994), ‘Counteractive Lobbying’, American Journal of Political Science, 38(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael and Brady, David W. (1998), ‘Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade’, American Journal of Political Science, 42(2): 524–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, Robert E. (1985), The Political Economy of US Import Policy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Robert E. and Magee, Christopher (2000), ‘Is Trade for Sale? Congressional Voting on Recent Trade Bills’, Public Choice, 105: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwen, Pieter (2002), ‘Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3): 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, Scott (2006), ‘Protection and Unemployment’, Journal of International Economics, 69: 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caves, Richard E. (1976), ‘Economic Models of Political Choice: Canada's Tariff Structure’, International Economic Review, 9: 278–300.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, Steve (2000), ‘Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests’, Fordham International Law Review, 24(1/2): 173–216.Google Scholar
Clark, Don P. and Bruce, Donald (2006), ‘On the Incidence of US Tariffs’, World Economy, 29(2): 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortell, Andrew P. and Davis, W. James (2000), ‘Understanding the Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda’, International Studies Review, 2(1): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bièvre, Dirk (2002), ‘The WTO and Domestic Coalitions: Negotiated and Judicial Trade Policy in the EU’, European University Institute SPS Working Paper 2003/17.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Jacqueline and Kotschwar, Barbara (2003), ‘After Seattle: How NGOs are Transforming the Global Trade and Finance Agenda’, in Doh, J. and Teegen, H. (eds.) Globalization and NGOs: Transforming Business, Government, and Society, Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Esty, Daniel C. (2002), ‘The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis’, World Trade Review, 1(1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenett, Simon J. (2006), ‘The World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong: What Next?’, Journal of World Trade, 40(2): 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facchini, Giovanni, Biesebrock, Johannes, and Willmann, Gerald (2005), ‘Protection for Sale with Imperfect Rent Capturing’, NBER Working Paper 11269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (1998), ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52(4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florini, Ann (2003), ‘From Protest to Participation: The Role of Civil Society in Global Governance’, in Siebert, H. (ed.) Global Governance: An Architecture for the World Economy, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. (1990), The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, Kishore and Bandyopadhyay, Usree (2000), ‘Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1): 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, Kishore and Hoekman, Bernard (2006), ‘Lobbying and Agricultural Trade Policy in the United States’, International Organization, 60(3): 527–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, Kishore and Krishna, Pravin (2005), ‘Lobbying Competition over US Trade Policy’, NBER Working Paper 11371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J. (1997), ‘Lobbying as a Private Good with Intra-Industry Trade’, International Studies Quarterly, 41(3): 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Judith (1993), Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, O. Robert (1993), ‘Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework’, in Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. O. (eds.) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, New York: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, Leonard (2003), The Economics and Ideology of Free Trade: A Historical Review, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter (2002), ‘Domestic Politics and International Relations’, in Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T., and Simmons, B. A. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene and Helpman, Elahan (1994), ‘Protection for Sale’, American Economic Review 84: 833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene and Helpman, Elahan (2004), ‘A Protectionist Bias in Majoritarian Politics’, NBER Working Paper 11014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Peter M. (1992), ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46(1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens and Hiscox, Michael J. (2006), ‘Learning to Love Globalization: Educating Attitudes Toward International Trade’, International Organization, 60(2): 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Rodney B. (1997), ‘Moral Authority as a Power Resource’, International Organization, 51(4): 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin and Rosamond, Ben (2002), ‘Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9(2): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Richard K. and Shannon, Vaughn P. (2001), ‘Defending International Norms: The Role of Obligation, Material Interest, and Perception in Decision Making’, International Organization, 55(3): 621–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Richard K., Tetlock, Philip E., and Diascro, Matthew N. (2001), ‘How Americans Think about Trade: Reconciling Conflicts among Money, Power, and Principles’, International Studies Quarterly, 45: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian (1999), ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, 53(2): 379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Susumu, Katayama, Hajime, and Krishna, Kala (2006), ‘Protection for Sale or Surge Protection?’, NBER Working Paper 12258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, H. and Sykes, Alan (eds) (1997), Implementing the Uruguay Round, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jara, Alejandro and del Carmen Dominguez, M. (2006), ‘Liberalization of Trade in Services and Trade Negotiations’, Journal of World Trade, 40(1): 113–127.Google Scholar
Kemp, Simon (2007), ‘Psychology and Opposition to Freer Trade’, World Trade Review, 6(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr (2001), ‘Between Centralization and Fragmentation: The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy’, in Porter, R. B., Sauvé, P., Subramanian, A., and Zampetti, A. B. (ed.) Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the New Millennium, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Limao, Nuno and Panagariya, Arvind (2002), Why is there an Anti-trade Bias in Trade Policy? [cited 12 August 2006]. Available from http://129.3.20.41/eps/it/papers/0310/0310003.pdf.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne and O'Halloran, Sharyn (1994), ‘Divided Government and US Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence’, International Organization, 48(8): 595–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrory, Patrick F. J., Appleton, Arthur E., and Plummer, Michael G. (2005), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, Vol. III, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magee, Christopher (2002), ‘Endogenous Trade Policy and Lobby Formation: An Application to the Free-Rider Problem’, Journal of International Economics, 57(2): 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magee, Stephen P., Brock, William A., and Young, Leslie (1989), Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Formation, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P. (1998), ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Order’, International Organization, 52(4): 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria and Rodrik, Dani (2001), ‘Why Are Some People (and Countries) more Protectionist than Others?’, NBER Working Paper 8461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen V. (1997), Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin and Sinnott, Richard (2001), ‘The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence’, Brookings Trade Forum 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Sheila (2001), ‘Developing Countries in GATT/WTO Negotiations’, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper October 2001.Google Scholar
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2005), ‘Addressing Institutional Challenges to the WTO in the New Millennium: A Longer-Term Perspective’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(3): 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghavan, Chakravarthi (2000), ‘After Seattle, World Trade System Faces Uncertain Future’, Review of International Political Economy, 7(3): 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarooshi, Dan (2004), ‘Sovereignty, Economic Autonomy, the United States, and the International Trading System: Representations of a Relationship’, European Journal of International Law, 15(4): 651–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory (2001), ‘The World Trade Organization under Challenge: Democracy and the Law and Politics of the WTO's Treatment of Trade and Environment Matters’, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 25(1): 1–93.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory (2004), ‘Parliamentary Oversight of WTO Rule-Making: The Political, Normative, and Practical Contexts’, Journal of International Economic Law, 7(3): 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Vaughn P. (2000), ‘Norms Are What States Make of Them: The Political Psychology of Norm Violation’, International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaggs, David E. (2005), ‘How Can Parliamentary Participation in WTO Rule-Making and Democratic Control be Made More Effective in the WTO? A United States Congressional Perspective’, in Petersmann, E.-U. (ed.) Reforming the World Trading System: Legitimacy, Efficiency and Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Eric (2001), ‘International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight’, American Journal of International Law, 95(3): 489–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trefler, Daniel (1993), ‘Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection’, Journal of Political Economy, 101(1): 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WTO (2006), Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation: 45 Case Studies, WTO.Google Scholar