[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.When and why did U.S.policy shift away from multilateralismtowards regional and bilateral trade agreements? The EC and b723_Chapter-04.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 107Global Market Integration and National Sovereignty 107Japan? Emerging market economies and developing economies?Why haven t the major industrial countries United States, EU,and Japan formed competing preferential trading blocs? Arefree trade agreements (FTAs) a stumbling block or a positivemovement towards global trade liberalization? How may FTAsconstrain developing countries?5.Are the existing and proposed extensions of the WTO intodomestic rule making misguided? What are the boundaries ordisciplines that comprise the WTO regime? What is the signifi-cance of economic nationalism and institutions embedded insocial mores and the structure of business organization? How dothe following issues fit within the WTO boundaries: domesticsubsidies and industrial policies; TRIMS and TRIPS; govern-ment procurement; competition policy; labor standards;environmental standards; and health and safety standards andconsumer protection?6.How should the WTO playing field be defined? Should agri-cultural protection, antidumping, and other protectionist actionsbe dealt with in the WTO negotiations and rule making? What isthe role of WTO dispute settlement? How should the prolifera-tion of FTAs be addressed?7.How successful has trade liberalization been in the past 50 yearsin the GATT system? What are the future prospects for reciproc-ity and non-discrimination as the keys to further tradeliberalization?ReferencesBrown, A.G.2003.Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation,1850 2000 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press).Brown, A.G.and R.M.Stern.2005. Concepts of Fairness in the Global TradingSystem, in process.Carroll, L.1946.Alice s Adventures in Wonderland (London: Penguin Group).Chang, H.J.2002.Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in HistoricalPerspective (London: Anthem Press).Hinde, W.1987.Richard Cobden: A Victorian Outsider (New Haven and London:Yale University Press). b723_Chapter-04.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 108108 A.G.Brown & R.M.SternHoekman, Bernard.2002. Strengthening the Global Trade Architecture forDevelopment: The Post-Doha Agenda, World Trade Review 1:23 45.Hoekman, Bernard.2004. Overcoming Discrimination Against DevelopingCountries: Access, Rules and Differential Treatment, Centre for Economic PolicyResearch, Discussion Paper No.2694 (October).Hoekman, Bernard.2005. Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in theWTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment, Journal of InternationalEconomic Law 8:405 424.Keohane, R.O.1984.After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World PoliticalEconomy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press).Pigman, G.A.2002. Hegemony Theory, Unilateral Trade Liberalization and the1996 US Farm Bill, in P.K.O Brien and A.Clesse (eds.), Two Hegemonies:Britain 1846 1914 and the United States 1941 2001 (Aldershot, England andBurlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited).Srinivasan, T.N.2005. Nondiscrimination in GATT/WTO: Was There Anything toBegin With and Is There Anything Left? World Trade Review 2:69 95.Sutherland, Peter (Chairman) et al.2004.The Future of the WTO: AddressingInstitutional Challenges in the New Millennium (Geneva: WTO).Whalley, John.2005. Globalization and Values, CESifo Working Paper SeriesNo.1441 (April).Whitman, Marina v.N.2004. From Trade Liberalization to Economic Integration:The Clash between Private and Public Goods, in Jacob Ryten (ed.), The SterlingPublic Servant: A Global Tribute to Sylvia Ostry (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen s University Press).Suggested Further ReadingPreeg, Ernest H.1995.Traders in a Brave New World: The Uruguay Round and theFuture of the International Trading System.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rodrik, Dani.2007.One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, andEconomic Growth.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. b723_Chapter-05.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 109Chapter 5Concepts of Fairness in the GlobalTrading System*Andrew G.Brown and Robert M.SternI.IntroductionHow are we to assess the fairness of the global trading system asembodied in the GATT/WTO? Views about what constitutes fairnessdiffer widely, and there is surely no incontrovertible yardstick.But canwe be clearer about the criteria that are appropriate and what theymean in more operational terms?Some would say that fairness is hardly a relevant idea in trade rela-tions.There are the anti-globalization advocates who view the tradingsystem as being dominated by powerful governments and corpora-tions whose main concern is to enhance national interests and* Published in Pacific Economic Review, 12(3), August 2007, pp.293 318.Reprinted with permission from Blackwell Publishing.We wish to thank Dan Ciuriak, John Curtis, Alan Deardorff, Kimberly Elliott,Patrick Low, the conference participants, K.C.Fung, and members of the Universityof Michigan Research Seminar in International Economics for helpful comments onan earlier version of the paper.We wish also to thank Judith Jackson for typing andeditorial assistance.109 b723_Chapter-05.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 110110 A.G.Brown & R.M.Sterncorporate profits to the possible detriment of the less fortunate withintheir own societies or the societies of poorer nations; they find capi-talism to be inherently unfair.There are others who, thoughaccepting the capitalist system, take a realpolitik view of trade rela-tions.They share a view long ago expressed by Thucydides (1934) indescribing how the much weaker Melians were called upon by thepowerful Athenians to surrender their city.The councilors of Melosappealed for fair treatment, but the Athenian ambassadors replied that & right, as the world goes, is only a question between equals inpower, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer whatthey must. We do not accept either of these views.We take capitalism as theinstitutional basis of the trading system, and we do not find therealpolitik view to be an accurate portrayal of modern trade relations.The developed countries that until recently dominatedGATT/WTO negotiations have observed right by claiming toadhere, in principle, to reciprocity, Most-Favored-Nation (MFN)treatment, and national treatment in their trade relations.Thoughthere have been some large differences in political and economicpower, the stronger nations have not behaved in the manner portrayedby Thucydides; for, trade relations among modern nation-states havenot been based on military conquest but rely on cooperation securedthrough diplomatic persuasion.The system of cooperation works within a skeletal framework ofnorms.The framework, however, leaves ample room for differences ofviews about fairness relating to such matters as the market accessarrangements of trading partners, or their commercial practices, oreven their different social standards as these affect trade.It is fairnessin this context of inter-governmental trade relations, now greatlyexpanded to include numerous developing countries, that we addresshere [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.When and why did U.S.policy shift away from multilateralismtowards regional and bilateral trade agreements? The EC and b723_Chapter-04.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 107Global Market Integration and National Sovereignty 107Japan? Emerging market economies and developing economies?Why haven t the major industrial countries United States, EU,and Japan formed competing preferential trading blocs? Arefree trade agreements (FTAs) a stumbling block or a positivemovement towards global trade liberalization? How may FTAsconstrain developing countries?5.Are the existing and proposed extensions of the WTO intodomestic rule making misguided? What are the boundaries ordisciplines that comprise the WTO regime? What is the signifi-cance of economic nationalism and institutions embedded insocial mores and the structure of business organization? How dothe following issues fit within the WTO boundaries: domesticsubsidies and industrial policies; TRIMS and TRIPS; govern-ment procurement; competition policy; labor standards;environmental standards; and health and safety standards andconsumer protection?6.How should the WTO playing field be defined? Should agri-cultural protection, antidumping, and other protectionist actionsbe dealt with in the WTO negotiations and rule making? What isthe role of WTO dispute settlement? How should the prolifera-tion of FTAs be addressed?7.How successful has trade liberalization been in the past 50 yearsin the GATT system? What are the future prospects for reciproc-ity and non-discrimination as the keys to further tradeliberalization?ReferencesBrown, A.G.2003.Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation,1850 2000 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press).Brown, A.G.and R.M.Stern.2005. Concepts of Fairness in the Global TradingSystem, in process.Carroll, L.1946.Alice s Adventures in Wonderland (London: Penguin Group).Chang, H.J.2002.Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in HistoricalPerspective (London: Anthem Press).Hinde, W.1987.Richard Cobden: A Victorian Outsider (New Haven and London:Yale University Press). b723_Chapter-04.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 108108 A.G.Brown & R.M.SternHoekman, Bernard.2002. Strengthening the Global Trade Architecture forDevelopment: The Post-Doha Agenda, World Trade Review 1:23 45.Hoekman, Bernard.2004. Overcoming Discrimination Against DevelopingCountries: Access, Rules and Differential Treatment, Centre for Economic PolicyResearch, Discussion Paper No.2694 (October).Hoekman, Bernard.2005. Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in theWTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment, Journal of InternationalEconomic Law 8:405 424.Keohane, R.O.1984.After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World PoliticalEconomy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press).Pigman, G.A.2002. Hegemony Theory, Unilateral Trade Liberalization and the1996 US Farm Bill, in P.K.O Brien and A.Clesse (eds.), Two Hegemonies:Britain 1846 1914 and the United States 1941 2001 (Aldershot, England andBurlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited).Srinivasan, T.N.2005. Nondiscrimination in GATT/WTO: Was There Anything toBegin With and Is There Anything Left? World Trade Review 2:69 95.Sutherland, Peter (Chairman) et al.2004.The Future of the WTO: AddressingInstitutional Challenges in the New Millennium (Geneva: WTO).Whalley, John.2005. Globalization and Values, CESifo Working Paper SeriesNo.1441 (April).Whitman, Marina v.N.2004. From Trade Liberalization to Economic Integration:The Clash between Private and Public Goods, in Jacob Ryten (ed.), The SterlingPublic Servant: A Global Tribute to Sylvia Ostry (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen s University Press).Suggested Further ReadingPreeg, Ernest H.1995.Traders in a Brave New World: The Uruguay Round and theFuture of the International Trading System.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rodrik, Dani.2007.One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, andEconomic Growth.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. b723_Chapter-05.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 109Chapter 5Concepts of Fairness in the GlobalTrading System*Andrew G.Brown and Robert M.SternI.IntroductionHow are we to assess the fairness of the global trading system asembodied in the GATT/WTO? Views about what constitutes fairnessdiffer widely, and there is surely no incontrovertible yardstick.But canwe be clearer about the criteria that are appropriate and what theymean in more operational terms?Some would say that fairness is hardly a relevant idea in trade rela-tions.There are the anti-globalization advocates who view the tradingsystem as being dominated by powerful governments and corpora-tions whose main concern is to enhance national interests and* Published in Pacific Economic Review, 12(3), August 2007, pp.293 318.Reprinted with permission from Blackwell Publishing.We wish to thank Dan Ciuriak, John Curtis, Alan Deardorff, Kimberly Elliott,Patrick Low, the conference participants, K.C.Fung, and members of the Universityof Michigan Research Seminar in International Economics for helpful comments onan earlier version of the paper.We wish also to thank Judith Jackson for typing andeditorial assistance.109 b723_Chapter-05.qxd 7/15/2009 9:59 AM Page 110110 A.G.Brown & R.M.Sterncorporate profits to the possible detriment of the less fortunate withintheir own societies or the societies of poorer nations; they find capi-talism to be inherently unfair.There are others who, thoughaccepting the capitalist system, take a realpolitik view of trade rela-tions.They share a view long ago expressed by Thucydides (1934) indescribing how the much weaker Melians were called upon by thepowerful Athenians to surrender their city.The councilors of Melosappealed for fair treatment, but the Athenian ambassadors replied that & right, as the world goes, is only a question between equals inpower, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer whatthey must. We do not accept either of these views.We take capitalism as theinstitutional basis of the trading system, and we do not find therealpolitik view to be an accurate portrayal of modern trade relations.The developed countries that until recently dominatedGATT/WTO negotiations have observed right by claiming toadhere, in principle, to reciprocity, Most-Favored-Nation (MFN)treatment, and national treatment in their trade relations.Thoughthere have been some large differences in political and economicpower, the stronger nations have not behaved in the manner portrayedby Thucydides; for, trade relations among modern nation-states havenot been based on military conquest but rely on cooperation securedthrough diplomatic persuasion.The system of cooperation works within a skeletal framework ofnorms.The framework, however, leaves ample room for differences ofviews about fairness relating to such matters as the market accessarrangements of trading partners, or their commercial practices, oreven their different social standards as these affect trade.It is fairnessin this context of inter-governmental trade relations, now greatlyexpanded to include numerous developing countries, that we addresshere [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]