GATT-Think with Asymmetric Countries
AbstractWe argue that, in the presence of asymmetric countries, a trade agreement that conforms to GATT’s reciprocity rule allows the (stronger) less trade dependent country to improve its welfare relative to both the free trade and the trade war. Conversely, the (weaker) more trade dependent country cannot reach the free trade welfare level under reciprocity, although its welfare improves relative to the trade war. Reciprocity is so unfavorable to the weaker country that it may be worse off under reciprocity than under the Nash bargaining solution, a ‘power-based’ approach to trade negotiations that reflects power asymmetries among trading partners. Our results question Bagwell and Staiger (1999, 2000)’s view of reciprocity as a rule that “serves to mitigate the influence of power asymmetries on negotiated outcomes”.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano in its series Development Working Papers with number 175.
Date of creation: 01 Sep 2003
Date of revision:
Reciprocity; Trade negotiations; Trade dependence; Nash bargaining solution;
Other versions of this item:
- F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order; Noneconomic International Organizations;; Economic Integration and Globalization: General
- F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
- F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Giovanni Maggi & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 1998.
"The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(3), pages 574-601, June.
- Maggi, G & Rodriguez-Clare, A, 1996. "The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures," Papers 180, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1996.
"Reciprocal Trade Liberalization,"
1150, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1997.
"An Economic Theory of GATT,"
NBER Working Papers
6049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2001.
"Reciprocity, non-discrimination and preferential agreements in the multilateral trading system,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 281-325, June.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1997. "Reciprocity, Non-discrimination and Preferential Agreements in the Multilateral Trading System," NBER Working Papers 5932, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kennan, John & Riezman, Raymond, 1988. "Do Big Countries Win Tariff Wars?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 29(1), pages 81-85, February.
- McLaren, John, 1997. "Size, Sunk Costs, and Judge Bowker's Objection to Free Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 400-420, June.
- Carlo Perroni & John Whalley, 1994.
"The New Regionalism: Trade Liberalization or Insurance?,"
NBER Working Papers
4626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Carlo Perroni & John Whalley, 2000. "The new regionalism: trade liberalization or insurance?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24, February.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2000.
NBER Working Papers
8005, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Baldwin, Richard, 1997.
"The Causes of Regionalism,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
1599, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Staiger, Robert W & Tabellini, Guido, 1987. "Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 823-37, December.
- Paul Krugman, 1991.
"The move toward free trade zones,"
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Nov, pages 5-25.
- Bond, Eric W & Park, Jee-Hyeong, 2002.
"Gradualism in Trade Agreements with Asymmetric Countries,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 379-406, April.
- Eric W. Bond & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2002. "Gradualism in Trade Agreements with Asymmetric Countries," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 379-406.
- Park, Jee-Hyeong, 2000. "International trade agreements between countries of asymmetric size," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 473-495, April.
- Mayer, Wolfgang, 1981. "Theoretical Considerations on Negotiated Tariff Adjustments," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 135-53, March.
- Giovanni Maggi, 1999. "The Role of Multilateral Institutions in International Trade Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 190-214, March.
- Pascalis Raimondos-Møller & Alan D. Woodland, 2011. "Reciprocity, World Prices and Welfare," CESifo Working Paper Series 3607, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chiara Elli).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.