The most-favored nation rule in principle and practice: Discrimination in the GATT
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
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 7 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com/business/sociology/journal/11558|
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm|
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.:
- Arvind Subramanian & Shang-Jin Wei, 2003.
"The WTO Promotes Trade, Strongly But Unevenly,"
NBER Working Papers
10024, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Theo S. Eicher & Christian Henn, 2009. "In Search of WTO Trade Effects; Preferential Trade Agreements Promote Trade Strongly, But Unevenly," IMF Working Papers 09/31, International Monetary Fund.
- Theo S. Eicher & Christian Henn, 2008. "In Search of WTO Trade Effects: Preferential Trade Agreements Promote Trade Strongly, But Unevenly," Working Papers UWEC-2008-22-FC, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
- Rose, Andrew K., 2004.
"Do WTO members have more liberal trade policy?,"
Journal of International Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 209-235, July.
- Rodney D. Ludema & Anna Maria Mayda, 2008.
"Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?,"
Development Working Papers
254, Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano.
- Ludema, Rodney D & Mayda, Anna Maria, 2005. "Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5160, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Rodney Ludema (Georgetown University) and Anna Maria Mayda (Georgetown University and CEPR), 2005. "Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?," Working Papers gueconwpa~05-05-13, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Rodney Ludema and Ann Maria Mayda, 2008. "Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?," Working Papers gueconwpa~08-08-04, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2006.
"What do trade negotiators negotiate about? Empirical evidence from the World Trade Organization,"
0607-04, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
- 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 1238-73, June.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2006. "What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization," NBER Working Papers 12727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Christian Broda & Nuno Limao & David E. Weinstein, 2008. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2032-65, December.
- Chase, Kerry, 2006. "Multilateralism compromised: the mysterious origins of GATT Article XXIV," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(01), pages 1-30, March.
- Estevadeordal, Antoni & Suominen, Kati, 2009. "The Sovereign Remedy?: Trade Agreements in a Globalizing World," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199550159, March.
- 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.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.