Domestic-Level Factors and Negotiation (In)Flexibility in the WTO
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Jannie Lilja in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Some suggest that the fault lines of the WTO’s perceived failures actually lie in failures at the domestic level. This study examines the factors that can explain flexibility (and inflexibility) in multilateral trade negotiations within WTO member states. To shed light on the role of domestic factors in influencing WTO positions, we examine one member state in connection with a high-level meeting. India at the July 2008 Ministerial is selected primarily for methodological reasons. The empirical analysis provides preliminary support for the proposition that domestic policy-making structures marked by continuous information exchange and coordination are more likely to yield negotiation flexibility in multilateral talks. More specifically, the intense interaction that marks the relationships between actors involved in policy making on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) and services, where the Indian negotiation position was flexible overall, stands in contrast to what took place in the area of agriculture, where India took a manifestly inflexible stand. Competing explanations fail to fully account for the variation in these negotiating postures. A key insight from the analysis is that organized and regularized consultations, involving the same actors over time, are important. There is also a need for public outreach strategies in connection with high-level WTO meetings.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Ahnlid Anders Stewart Terence “The European Union, Leadership and Next Steps in the Multilateral Trading System” Opportunities and Obligations 2009 Alphen aan den Rijn Kluwer Law International 3 26
-
Albin Cecilia Justice and Fairness in International Negotiations 2001 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
-
Allport G.W. The Nature of Prejudice 1954 Cambridge, MA Perseus Books
-
Amir Yehuda “Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations” Psychological Bulletin 1969 71 5 319 342
-
Bellemann Christophe & Gerster Richard “Accountability in the World Trade Organization” Journal of World Trade 1996 30 6 31 74
-
Blustein Paul Misadventures of the Most Favored Nations: Clashing Egos, Inflated Ambitions, and the Great Shambles of the World Trade System 2009 New York PublicAffairs
-
Bridges Daily Update “WTO Mini-Ministerial Evades Collapse” 2008a July 26 Issue 6 http://ictsd.org/downloads/2008/07/daily-update-issue-6-template.pdf
-
Bridges Daily Update “WTO Mini-Ministerial Ends in Collapse” WTO Mini-Ministerial Geneva 2008b July 30 Issue 10 http://ictsd.org/downloads/2008/07/daily-update-issue-102.pdf
-
Capling Ann & Low Patrick Capling Ann & Low Patrick “The domestic politics of trade-policy making,” Governments, Non-State Actors and Trade Policy-Making 2010 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 4 28
-
Checkel Jeffrey T. “Why comply?” International Organization 2001 55 3 553 588
-
Checkel Jeffrey T. “Bridging the Rational-Choice/Constructivist Gap?” ARENA Working Papers 00/11 2000
-
Dhar Biswajit & Kallummal Murali Halle Mark & Wolfe Robert “Trade policy off the hook,” Process Matters 2007 Manitoba International Institute for Sustainable Development 183 238
-
Druckman Daniel “Situational Levers of Position Change” American Academy of Political and Social Science Annals 1995 November 542 61 80
-
Druckman Daniel Doing Research 2005 London Sage Publications
-
Druckman Daniel & Mitchell Christopher “Preface” American Academy of Political and Social Science Annals 1995a November 542 8 9
-
Druckman Daniel “Flexibility: Nature, Sources, and Effects” American Academy of Political and Social Science Annals 1995b November 542 213 218
-
George Alexander L & Bennett Andrew Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences 2005 Cambridge MIT Press
-
Government of India “Statement of Shri Kamal Nath” Trade Negotiation Committee Meeting 2008 July 25 2008
-
Granovetter Mark “Economic Action and Social Structure” American Journal of Sociology 1985 91 3 481 510
-
Hopmann Terrence “Two Paradigms of Negotiation” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1995 542 24 47
-
Huckfeldt Robert R. & Sprague John “Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization” The American Political Science Review 1992 86 1 70 86
-
Hurrell Andrew & Narlikar Amrita “A New Politics of Confrontation?” 2005 London Development Studies Institute
-
Joerges Christian & Neyer Juergen “Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving” Journal of European Public Policy 1997 4 4 609 625
-
Jones Kent “Green Room Politics and the WTO’s Crisis of Representation” Progress in Development Studies 2009 9 4 349 357
-
Kanth Ravi D. “India tells WTO: Resolve issues before ministerial” Business Standard 2008 July 07 http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-tells-wto-resolve-issues-before-ministerial/328025/
-
Kumar Rajiv & Nair Swapna “India: Strategies and the Doha Development Agenda” Working paper, WTO Forum 2009 Geneva 28 September 2009
-
Milner Helen Interests, Institutions and Information 1997 Princeton Princeton University Press
-
Montemayor Raul “How Will the May 2008 “Modalities” Text Affect Access to the Special Safeguard Mechanism, and the Effectiveness of Additional Safeguard Duties” 2008 Issue paper 15 ICTSD Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development Series Available at: http://ictsd.org/i/publications/12616/
-
Narlikar Amrita International Trade and Developing Countries 2003 London Routledge
-
Narlikar Amrita & Tussie Diana 2004 The G20 at the Cancun Ministerial
-
Narlikar Amrita & Wickers Brendan Leadership and change in the multilateral trading system 2010 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
-
Nordström Håkan “Participation of Developing Countries in the WTO” 2005 (ISBN-13: 9780521862769)
-
Odell John “Introduction” Negotiating Trade 2006 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
-
Odell John & Ortiz Mena Antonio L.N “How to Negotiate over Trade” 2004 February www.usc.edu/enn/
-
Ostry Sylvia “External Transparency” 2002a WTO Advisory Group. April 2002
-
Ostry Sylvia “The Trade Policy Making Process Level One of the Two Level Game” 2002b IDB Intal Occasional Paper 13, Buenos Aires
-
Patton Bruce Building Relationships and the Bottom Line 2004 Harvard Harvard University Press
-
Priyadarshi Shishir Gallagher Peter, Low Patrick & Stoler Andrew “Decision Making Processes in India” Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation 2005 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
-
Putnam Robert D. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics” International Organization 1988 42 3 427 460
-
Rao Aditya “Has India Hit Industrial Recession?” The India Street 2008 October 14 http://www.theindiastreet.com/2008/10/has-india-hit-industrial-recession.html
-
Ray Amit Shovon & Saha Sabyasachi Narlikar Amrita & Vickers Brendan “Shifting Coordinates of India’s Stance at the WTO” Leadership and Change in the Multilateral Trading System 2008 Leiden Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
-
Rediff “India rejects proposals to limit farm subsidy” 2008 July 21, 2008 http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/jul/21wto2.htm
-
Sapra Seema “The WTO System of Trade Governance” Oregon Review of International Law 2009 11 2 71 108
-
Scholz John, Berardo Ramiro & Kile Brad “Do Networks Solve Collective Action Problems?” The Journal of Politics 2008 70 2 393 406
-
Sen Julius “Lessons Not Learned” Working Paper, Globalization and Poverty 2003 August
-
Shaffer Gregory “The World Trade Organization under Challenge” The Harvard Environmental Law Review 2001 25 1 1 93
-
Shiraz Mehnaz & Saleem Muhammad Anum “Trade Policy Consultative Mechanism in Pakistan” 2006 International Trade Centre. UNCTAD/WTO. EC Trade Related Technical Assistance Programme for Pakistan. Project PAK 75/17C
-
Siegel David A. “Social Networks and Collective Action” American Journal of Political Science 2009 53 1 122 138
-
Uzzi Brian “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks” Administrative Science Quarterly 1997 42 35 67
-
Wolfe Robert “Sprinting during a Marathon: Why the WTO Ministerial failed in July 2008” Working Paper Sciences Po 2009 http://www.gem.sciences-po.fr/content/publications/pdf/Wolfe_Sprinting042009.pdf
-
Wolfe Robert & Helmer Jesse Halle Mark & Wolfe Robert “Trade policy begins at home” Process Matters: Sustainable Development and Domestic Trade Transparency 2007
-
WTO “Day 9: Talks collapse despite progress on a list of issue” WTO News DDA July 2008 Package: Summary 29 July 2008 http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news08_e/meet08_summary_29july_e.htm
-
Zahrnt Valentin “Domestic constituents and the formulation of the WTO negotiating positions” World Trade Review 2008 7 2 393 421
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 401 | 82 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 261 | 7 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 82 | 20 | 2 |
Domestic-Level Factors and Negotiation (In)Flexibility in the WTO
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Jannie Lilja in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Some suggest that the fault lines of the WTO’s perceived failures actually lie in failures at the domestic level. This study examines the factors that can explain flexibility (and inflexibility) in multilateral trade negotiations within WTO member states. To shed light on the role of domestic factors in influencing WTO positions, we examine one member state in connection with a high-level meeting. India at the July 2008 Ministerial is selected primarily for methodological reasons. The empirical analysis provides preliminary support for the proposition that domestic policy-making structures marked by continuous information exchange and coordination are more likely to yield negotiation flexibility in multilateral talks. More specifically, the intense interaction that marks the relationships between actors involved in policy making on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) and services, where the Indian negotiation position was flexible overall, stands in contrast to what took place in the area of agriculture, where India took a manifestly inflexible stand. Competing explanations fail to fully account for the variation in these negotiating postures. A key insight from the analysis is that organized and regularized consultations, involving the same actors over time, are important. There is also a need for public outreach strategies in connection with high-level WTO meetings.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 401 | 82 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 261 | 7 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 82 | 20 | 2 |