The Trade Agreement Embarrassment, Second Version
AbstractThe dominant academic literature about trade agreements maintains that they are only about national terms-of-trade manipulation and not at all about purely political concerns. Non-academic economists, commentators, and diplomats by contrast think that trade agreements are all about political concerns. There are two substantive and important distinctions between the two views. i Practitioners maintain that policymakers care virtually not at all about the terms of trade or about trade-tax revenue ii Practitioners, unlike academics, maintain that trade-agreement negotiations themselves change the underlying political economy. Observation of actual trade policy measures, though not conclusive, suggests that the practitioners are right and that the academics are wrong.
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 Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania in its series PIER Working Paper Archive with number 13-049.
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 27 May 2013
Date of revision: 02 Sep 2013
Multilateralism; Standard Academic Model; Practitioners’ Conventional Wisdom; terms of trade; political economy;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
- F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-09-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-INT-2013-09-13 (International Trade)
- NEP-PKE-2013-09-13 (Post Keynesian Economics)
- NEP-POL-2013-09-13 (Positive Political Economics)
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.:
- Facchini, Giovanni & Van Biesebroeck, Jo & Willmann, Gerald, 2005.
"Protection for sale with imperfect rent capturing,"
Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
urn:hdl:123456789/253802, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
- Facchini, Giovanni & Van Biesebroeck, Jo & Willmann, Gerald, 2006. "Protection for sale with imperfect rent capturing," Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven urn:hdl:123456789/165797, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
- Giovanni Facchini & Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Gerald Willmann, 2005. "Protection for Sale with Imperfect Rent Capturing," NBER Working Papers 11269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Facchini, Giovanni & van Biesebroeck, Johannes & Willmann, Gerald, 2003. "Protection for Sale with Imperfect Rent Capturing," Economics Working Papers 2004,01, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
- Giovanni Facchini & Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Gerald Willmann, 2005. "Protection for Sale with Imperfect Rent Capturing," Development Working Papers 207, Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano.
- Donald H. Regan, 2006. "What Are Trade Agreements For? -- Two Conflicting Stories Told by Economists, With a Lesson for Lawyers," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 951-988, December.
- Wilfred J. Ethier, 2006. "Selling Protection for Sale," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-014, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Jun 2006.
- Ethier, Wilfred J., 2007.
"The theory of trade policy and trade agreements: A critique,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 605-623, September.
- Wilfred J. Ethier, 2002. "The Theory of Trade Policy and Trade Agreements: A Critique," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 05 Jun 2006.
- Theo Eicher & Thomas Osang, 2002. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1702-1710, December.
- Wilfred J. Ethier, 2012. "The Political-Support Approach To Protection," Global Journal of Economics (GJE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(01), pages 1250001-1-1.
- Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
- Devashish Mitra & Dimitrios Thomakos & Mehmet Ulubasoglu, 2006. "Can we obtain realistic parameter estimates for the `protection for sale' model?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 187-210, February.
- Pinelopi Koujianou Goldbe & Giovanni Maggi, 1997.
"Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation,"
NBER Working Papers
5942, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Wilfred J. Ethier, 2004. "Political Externalities, Nondiscrimination, and a Multilateral World," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 303-320, 08.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dolly Guarini).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.