Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-mbg9n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T06:05:26.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treatment of Chinese SOEs in China's WTO Protocol of Accession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2017

PHILIP I. LEVY
PHILIP I. LEVY*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management and Chicago Council on Global Affairs
*
*Email: plevy@thechicagocouncil.org.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two central issues in China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) were its economic size and the large role the state had played in economic decisions – the treatment of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as central to addressing the latter point. While the Protocol of Accession imposed obligations on China that went beyond what was required of other WTO members, it has not been effective at resolving concerns about Chinese SOEs. This demonstrates, in part, the limitations in using the WTO as a vehicle to promote economic reform.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4: Symposium on State-Owned Enterprises in China , October 2017 , pp. 635 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © Philip I. Levy 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

I benefited from comments at Columbia Law School's Trade Seminar; all remaining errors are my own.

References

Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., and Hanson, G. H. (2013), ‘The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States’, The American Economic Review, 103(6): 2121–2168.Google Scholar
Bailey, T. (2016), ‘Could Market Economy Status for China Spell Disaster for Europe?’, EuropeanCEO, http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/could-market-economy-status-for-china-spell-disaster-for-europe/, 15 July.Google Scholar
Bajona, C. and Chu, Tianshu (2004), ‘China's WTO Accession and Its Effect on State-Owned Enterprises’, East–West Center Working Papers, No. 70, April.Google Scholar
Blumental, D. (1997), ‘“Reform” or “Opening”? Reform of China's State-Owned Enterprises and WTO Accession – The Dilemma of Applying GATT to Marketing Economies’, Pacific Basin Law Journal, 16(2).Google Scholar
Drache, D. (2000), ‘The Short but Significant Life of the International Trade Organization: Lessons for Our Time’, Working paper no 62, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Grimmett, J. J. (2011), ‘Chinese Tire Imports: Section 421 Safeguards and the World Trade Organization (WTO)’, Congressional Research Service, R40844, 12 July.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, G. (1998), ‘China as an Economic Actor on the World Stage: An Overview’, in Abbott, F. (ed.), China in the World Trading System: Defining the Principles of Engagement, Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Lardy, N. R. (2001), ‘Issues in China's WTO Accession’, Testimony, https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/issues-in-chinas-wto-accession/, 9 May.Google Scholar
Levy, P. I. (2016), ‘The Next FDI Firestorm’, World of Cents Blog, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/world-cents/next-fdi-firestorm, 1 March.Google Scholar
MacGregor, J. (2010), ‘China's Drive for Indigenous Innovation – A Web of Industrial Policies’, US Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. and Cottier, T. (1999), ‘State Trading in the Twenty-First Century: An Overview’, in Cottier, T., Mavroidis, P. C., and Schefer, K. (eds.), Studies in International Economics : State Trading in the Twenty-First Century, The World Trade Forum, Volume 1, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. R. and Schott, P. K. (2016), ‘The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment’, American Economic Review, 106(7): 1632–1662.Google Scholar
Qin, J. Y. (2004), ‘WTO Regulation of Subsidies to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) – A Critical Appraisal of the China Accession Protocol’, Journal of International Economic Law, 7(4): 863–919.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, T. N. (1998), Developing Countries and the Multilateral Trading System, Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Van Aaken, A. (2013), ‘Blurring Boundaries between Sovereign Acts and Commercial Activities: A Functional View on Regulatory Immunity and Immunity from Execution’, Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 2013-17, March, University of St. Gallen Law School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, L. and Page, J. (2016), ‘Discord Between China's Top Two Leaders Spills Into the Open’, Wall Street Journal, 22 July.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2001a), ‘Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China’, WT/ACC/CHN/49, 1 October 2001.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2001b), ‘Accession of the People's Republic of China’, WT/L/432, 23 November 2001.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2014), ‘Counter-Notification of the State Trading Enterprises of China Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII’, G/C/W/701, G/STR/Q1/CHN/2.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2016a), ‘Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement)’, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/subs_e.htm (accessed 13 October 2016).Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2016b), ‘State Trading Enterprises’, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/statra_e/statra_e.htm (accessed 13 October 2016).Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2016c), ‘Legal effect of panel and appellate body reports and DSB recommendations and rulings’, Dispute Settlement Training System, Chapter 7, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c7s2p1_e.htm (accessed 15 October 2016).Google Scholar