Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-jkt97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-16T10:57:56.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shifting Dynamics in WTO Ministerial Statements: A Textual Analysis of Member Engagement, 1996–2024

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2025

Jeongmeen Suh
Jeongmeen Suh*
Affiliation:
Department of Global Commerce, Soongsil University, Republic of Korea
*
Email: jsuh@ssu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how WTO members have engaged in Ministerial Conferences from 1996 to 2024 by analyzing over 1,500 formal ministerial statements. Despite being the most public and standardized form of participation in WTO deliberations, these statements have rarely been analyzed systematically. By treating them as indicators of institutional engagement, the study traces long-term patterns in the frequency, intensity, and content of member participation. The analysis confirms some established expectations – such as the tendency of economically larger members to participate more actively – but also uncovers less visible dynamics. Engagement levels shifted significantly around key institutional moments, notably the rise and suspension of the Doha Development Agenda, and evolved unevenly between developed and developing members. Methodologically, the study demonstrates how computational text analysis can extract meaningful patterns from formal international discourse. Using metadata and text-based measures, it shows how member statements can offer insight into negotiation alignments and institutional vitality. These findings complement existing accounts of WTO behavior and suggest new directions for understanding participation and representation in multilateral trade governance.

Keywords

WTO Ministerial Conferencesmember engagementtext mining analysis

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , First View , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alschner, W., Seiermann, J., and Skougarevskiy, D. (2018) ‘Text of Trade Agreements (ToTA) – A Structured Corpus for the Text‐as‐Data Analysis of Preferential Trade Agreements’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 15(3), 648–666.10.1111/jels.12189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R.E. (2006) ‘Failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference at Cancun: Reasons and Remedies’, World Economy 29(6), 677–696.10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00815.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K., Bown, C.P., and Staiger, R.W. (2016) ‘Is the WTO passé?’, Journal of Economic Literature 54(4), 1125–1231.10.1257/jel.20151192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, M.A., Strezhnev, A., and Voeten, E. (2017) ‘Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(2), 430–456.10.1177/0022002715595700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baturo, A., Dasandi, N., and Mikhaylov, S.J. (2017) ‘Understanding State Preferences with Text as Data: Introducing the UN General Debate Corpus’, Research and Politics 4(2), .10.1177/2053168017712821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chasek, P. and Rajamani, L. (2003) ‘Steps toward Enhanced Parity: Negotiating Capacity and Strategies of Developing Countries’, in Kaul, I., Conceicão, P., Le Goulven, K., and Mendoza, R. (eds), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalisatio. Oxford University Press, pp.245–263.10.1093/0195157400.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efstathopoulos, C. (2012) ‘Leadership in the WTO: Brazil, India and the Doha Development Agenda’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(2), 269–293.10.1080/09557571.2012.678294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C.L., and Bermeo, S.B. (2009) ‘Who Files? Developing Country Participation in GATT/WTO Aadjudication’, The Journal of Politics 71(3), 1033–1049.10.1017/S0022381609090860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debre, M.J., and Dijkstra, H. (2023) Are International Organisations in Decline? An Absolute and Relative Perspective on Institutional Change’, Global Policy 14(1), 16–30.10.1111/1758-5899.13170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenett, S.J. (2003) ‘The Failure of the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun: Implications for Further Research’, CESifo Forum 4(3), 11–17, München: ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (2018) ‘Life, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Organizations’, International Studies Quarterly 62(1), 1–13.10.1093/isq/sqx086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J., Roberts, M.E., and Stewart, B.M. (2022) Text as Data: A New Framework for Machine Learning and the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C., and Whally, J. (1987) ‘Dealing with the North: Developing Countries and Global Trade Negotiations’, Estudios Económicos, 305–308.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (2015) Reconstructing the World Trade Organization for the 21st Century: An Institutional Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199366040.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavelle, K.C. (2003) ‘Participating in the Governance of Trade: The GATT, UNCTAD, and WTO’, International Journal of Political Economy 33(4), 28–42.10.1080/08911916.2003.11042913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLaren, N.G., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., and Barton, J. (2020) ‘Testing the Babble Hypothesis: Speaking Time Predicts Leader Emergence in Small Groups’, The Leadership Quarterly 31(5), .10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesa, J.M. (2001) ‘Legal and Documentary Research at WTO: The New Documents On-Line Database’, Journal of International Economic Law 4(1), 245–259.10.1093/jiel/4.1.245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, R. (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, J.S. (2005) ‘Chairing a WTO negotiation’, Journal of International Economic Law 8(2), 425–448.10.1093/jielaw/jgi028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parizek, M. (2019) Negotiations in the World Trade Organization: Design and Performance. Routledge.10.4324/9780429422362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A.K. (2004) ‘Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade?’, American Economic Review 94(1), 98–114.10.1257/000282804322970724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramanian, A., and Wei, S.J. (2007) ‘The WTO Promotes Trade, Strongly but Unevenly’, Journal of International Economics 72(1), 151–175.10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J.C., Shrader, C.R., and Reed, M.J. (2010) ‘Quantifying Talk: Developing Reliable Measures of Verbal Productivity’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(3), 247–263.Google Scholar
VanGrasstek, C., and Lamy, P. (2013) The History and Future of the World Trade Organization. Geneva: World Trade Organization 10.30875/14b6987e-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R., and Scott, J. (2008) ‘Developing Country Participation in the GATT: A Reassessment’, World Trade Review 7(3), 473–510.10.1017/S1474745608003959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, R. (2004) ‘Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones: Where the WTO Is Going after Seattle, Doha and Cancun’, Review of International Political Economy 11(3), 574–596.10.1080/0969229042000252909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, R. (2015) ‘First Diagnose, Then Treat: What Ails the Doha Round?’, World Trade Review 14(1), 7–28.10.1017/S1474745614000342CrossRefGoogle Scholar