IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revint/v7y2012i3p247-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The most-favored nation rule in principle and practice: Discrimination in the GATT

Author

Listed:
  • Joanne Gowa
  • Raymond Hicks

Abstract

The conflicts of interest that prevailed between the great powers in the wake of the First World War eviscerated their ability to respond collectively to the advent of the Great Depression. Instead, each turned to discriminatory trade barriers and trade blocs to try to revive domestic output. Persuaded that trade discrimination exacerbated the political tensions that erupted in World War II, policy makers constructed a postwar economic order that institutionalized nondiscrimination. Thus, Article 1 of the charter of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) mandates most-favored nation (MFN) treatment. We argue here that the MFN clause itself encouraged the adoption of practices and policies that actually recreated discrimination. In particular, we argue, developing countries, long regarded as victims of discrimination, institutionalized it in their negotiations with each other. We examine two developing country PTAs that included about 80 percent of all developing-country GATT members by output (the Global System of Trade Preferences and the Protocol Relating to Trade Negotiations). We show that as in the GATT writ large, their patterns of tariff cuts and trade expansion were highly skewed toward a small number of their largest members. In trying to avoid discrimination, policy makers actually encouraged its de facto adoption. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Joanne Gowa & Raymond Hicks, 2012. "The most-favored nation rule in principle and practice: Discrimination in the GATT," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 247-266, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:revint:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:247-266
    DOI: 10.1007/s11558-011-9141-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11558-011-9141-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11558-011-9141-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilkinson, Rorden & Scott, James, 2008. "Developing country participation in the GATT: a reassessment," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 473-510, July.
    2. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2010. "Modelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO Membership," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1430-1469, November.
    3. Ludema, Rodney D. & Mayda, Anna Maria, 2009. "Do countries free ride on MFN?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 137-150, April.
    4. Eicher, Theo S. & Henn, Christian, 2011. "In search of WTO trade effects: Preferential trade agreements promote trade strongly, but unevenly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 137-153, March.
    5. Subramanian, Arvind & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2007. "The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 151-175, May.
    6. Ismail Faizel, 2008. "Rediscovering the Role of Developing Countries in GATT before the Doha Round," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 51-73, December.
    7. Irwin,Douglas A. & Mavroidis,Petros C. & Sykes,Alan O., 2008. "The Genesis of the GATT," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521515610.
    8. Masahiro Endoh, 2005. "The effects of the GSTP on trade flow: mission accomplished?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(5), pages 487-496.
    9. Rose, Andrew K., 2004. "Do WTO members have more liberal trade policy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 209-235, July.
    10. Chase, Kerry, 2006. "Multilateralism compromised: the mysterious origins of GATT Article XXIV," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Ludema, Rodney D & Mayda, Anna Maria, 2010. "Do terms-of-trade effects matter for trade agreements? Evidence from WTO countries," CEPR Discussion Papers 7695, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Christian Broda & Nuno Limão & David E. Weinstein, 2018. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 2, pages 13-46, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Michael Tomz & Judith L. Goldstein & Douglas Rivers, 2007. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 2005-2018, December.
    14. Faizel Ismail, 2008. "Rediscovering the Role of Developing Countries in GATT before the Doha Round," Trade Working Papers 22101, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    15. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2011. "What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1238-1273, June.
    16. J. Michael Finger, 2008. "Developing Countries in the WTO System: Applying Robert Hudec's Analysis to the Doha Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 887-904, July.
    17. Peter Egger & Michael Pfaffermayr, 2003. "The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: A three-way model with bilateral interaction effects," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 571-580, July.
    18. Estevadeordal, Antoni & Suominen, Kati, 2009. "The Sovereign Remedy?: Trade Agreements in a Globalizing World," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199550159.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stephanie Rickard & Daniel Kono, 2014. "Think globally, buy locally: International agreements and government procurement," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 333-352, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    2. Javorcik, Beata S. & Narciso, Gaia, 2017. "WTO accession and tariff evasion," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 59-71.
    3. Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Salvador Gil-Pareja & Rafael Llorca-Vivero, 2020. "Does the GATT/WTO promote trade? After all, Rose was right," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(2), pages 377-405, May.
    4. Eicher, Theo S. & Henn, Christian, 2011. "In search of WTO trade effects: Preferential trade agreements promote trade strongly, but unevenly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 137-153, March.
    5. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    6. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2013. "Can the Doha Round Be a Development Round? Setting a Place at the Table," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 91-124, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Monika Mrazova, 2009. "Trade negotiations when market access matters," Economics Series Working Papers 447, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Nuno Limão, 2016. "Preferential Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 22138, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Magnus dos Reis & Sabino da Silva Pôrto & André Filipe Zago de Azevedo, 2021. "The impacts of the World Trade Organization on new members," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1944-1972, July.
    10. Dutt, Pushan & Mihov, Ilian & Van Zandt, Timothy, 2013. "The effect of WTO on the extensive and the intensive margins of trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 204-219.
    11. Inkyo Cheong & Valijon Turakulov, 2022. "How Central Asia to Escape from trade isolation?: Policy targeted scenarios by CGE modelling," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 2622-2648, August.
    12. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos, 2013. "(When) Does Tit-for-tat Diplomacy in Trade Policy Pay Off?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 155-179, February.
    13. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2014. "WTO Membership and the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: European Economic Integration, WTO Membership, Immigration and Offshoring, chapter 5, pages 149-192, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Chad P. Bown & Kara M. Reynolds, 2017. "Trade Agreements and Enforcement: Evidence from WTO Dispute Settlement," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 64-100, November.
    15. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2010. "Modelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO Membership," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1430-1469, November.
    16. Ralph Ossa, 2011. "A "New Trade" Theory of GATT/WTO Negotiations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 122-152.
    17. Dutt, Pushan, 2020. "The WTO is not passé," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    18. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Karmakar Suparna, 2009. "Developing Countries in the 21st Century WTO: New Contours of India's Global Engagement," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-27, January.
    20. SATO Hitoshi, 2014. "Does MFN Free Riding Plague the Information Technology Agreement?," Discussion papers 14003, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    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:spr:revint:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:247-266. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.