IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v3y2004i03p495-506_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common values for the development round

Author

Listed:
  • STIGLITZ, JOSEPH E.
  • CHARLTON, ANDREW H.

Abstract

In the traditional theory of international trade, multilateral trade agreements should be easy because self-interested governments unilaterally commit to reduce their own protection and, as a bonus, they reap positive externalities from liberalization by other nations. In practice national governments do not behave as though they are maximizing the welfare of a representative citizen, but instead they respond to pressure from a diverse mix of constituencies and competing special interests. Governments attempt to manage domestic trade-offs within international negotiations, so progress is slow and protection persists. The practical operation of trade negotiations, emblemized by the infamous ‘green rooms’, is characterized by factionalism, horse-trading, and brinkmanship.

Suggested Citation

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. & Charlton, Andrew H., 2004. "Common values for the development round," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 495-506, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:3:y:2004:i:03:p:495-506_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745604001971/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Clare Bull & Jagjit Plahe & Lachlan Gregory, 2021. "International Investment Agreements and the Escalation of Private Power in the Global Agri-Food System," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 519-533, May.
    2. Malgorzata Sulimierska, 2014. "Effectiveness of capital control, economic growth and animal spirit: A cross-country analysis," Working Paper Series 7014, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:3:y:2004:i:03:p:495-506_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.