IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/catpwp/90885.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous Learning and Consensual Understanding in Multilateral Negotiations: Arguing and Bargaining in the WTO

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfe, Robert

Abstract

People at home and trade negotiators in Geneva cannot bargain what they do not understand, and what they bargain must be based on consensual understanding among the relevant actors, whether or not they agree on what to do about it. Consensual understanding is endogenous, arising in an argumentative process of learning structured by constitutive principles of a regime. In a departure from both rationalist and constructivist approaches to negotiation analysis in political science, my goal in this paper is to try to advance analysis of these questions by exploring the contribution that deliberation or arguing makes to learning. My proposition is that something happens at the multilateral negotiation table in addition to bargaining, something that alters either the understanding of themselves and their interests that participants brought to the table, or how they understand the nature of social reality in a domain. Such learning would be endogenous to the negotiations, because it happens through interaction. This approach requires distinguishing simple learning (acquisition of new information about the context, or the preferences of others) from complex learning (new understanding of cause/effect relations in a domain), which also requires distinguishing consensual understanding from a mutual adjustment of positions. I then specify how this model might be susceptible to empirical investigation. I show how individual issues within a negotiation can be treated as cases susceptible to comparative analysis at a moment in time. I explore this possibility in a comparison of the contribution of consensual understanding to the outcome of negotiation of selected issues in the current Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization. I then infer the results of arguing from the textual deposits left by negotiations in order to assess the presence or absence of consensual understanding. Finally, I attempt to correlate consensual understanding with the negotiation status of the issues as of the end of the failed Doha Round ministerial of July 2008.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfe, Robert, 2010. "Endogenous Learning and Consensual Understanding in Multilateral Negotiations: Arguing and Bargaining in the WTO," Working Papers 90885, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:catpwp:90885
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.90885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/90885/files/Working_Paper_2010-2_Wolfe.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.90885?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bouet, Antoine & Laborde, David, 2008. "The potential cost of a failed Doha Round," Issue briefs 56, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Hoekman, Bernard & Martin, Will & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2010. "Conclude Doha: it matters!," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 505-530, July.
    3. Deitelhoff, Nicole, 2009. "The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 33-65, January.
    4. Frankel, Jeffrey A & Rockett, Katharine E, 1988. "International Macroeconomic Policy Coordination When Policymakers Do Not Agree on the True Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 318-340, June.
    5. Adler, Emanuel, 1992. "The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 101-145, January.
    6. Rudolf Adlung, 2006. "Services Negotiations in the Doha Round: Lost in Flexibility?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 865-893, December.
    7. Adlung, Rudolf, 2009. "Trade in healthcare and health insurance services: The GATS as a supporting actor (?)," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2009-15, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    8. Checkel, Jeffrey T., 2001. "Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 553-588, July.
    9. Levy, Jack S., 1994. "Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 279-312, April.
    10. Klotz, Audie, 1995. "Norms reconstituting interests: global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 451-478, July.
    11. Antoine Bouët & David Laborde, 2010. "Assessing the Potential Cost of a Failed Doha," Post-Print hal-01881925, HAL.
    12. Antoine Bouet, 2010. "Assessing the potential cost of a failed Doha round," Larefi Working Papers 201001, Larefi, Université Bordeaux 4.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8241 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Steinberg, Richard H., 2002. "In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 339-374, April.
    15. Fearon, James D., 1998. "Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 269-305, April.
    16. Patrick Messerlin, 2008. "Walking a Tightrope: World Trade in Manufacturing and the Benefits of Binding," Working Papers hal-00973101, HAL.
    17. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1998. "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 855-885, October.
    18. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8241 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kratochwil, Friedrich & Ruggie, John Gerard, 1986. "International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 753-775, October.
    20. Andrew T. F. Lang, 2006. "Reconstructing Embedded Liberalism: John Gerard Ruggie and Constructivist Approaches to the Study of the International Trade Regime," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 81-116, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Popa, Diana, 2011. "Runda Doha: început fără sfârşit [Doha Round: the endless beginning]," MPRA Paper 28764, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 09 Feb 2011.
    2. Diana Popa, 2012. "The Collapse of the Doha Round and a Possible Completion of Negotiations," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 15(43), pages 165-188, March.
    3. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2015. "A Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement for Services?," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/25, European University Institute.
    5. Hoekman, Bernard & Martin, Will & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2010. "Conclude Doha: it matters!," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 505-530, July.
    6. Eric Tremolada Álvarez (editor), 2015. "La arquitectura del ordenamiento internacional y su desarrollo en materia económica," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, edition 1, number 785, htpr_v3_i.
    7. Brockhaus, Jan & Kalkuhl, Matthias, 2015. "Grain emergency reserve cooperation – A theoretical analysis of benefits from a common emergency reserve," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212767, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné, 2013. "What Did Happen in the DDA? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities," Working Papers 2013-38, CEPII research center.
    9. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2009. "International organizations and arrangements: Pivotal countries and manipulations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1398-1402, November.
    10. Bouët, Antoine & Laborde Debucquet, David, 2017. "Why is the Doha Development agenda failing? And what can be done? A computable general equilibrium-game theoretical approach :," IFPRI book chapters, in: Bouët, Antoine & Laborde Debucquet, David (ed.), Agriculture, development, and the global trading system: 2000– 2015, chapter 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné, 2014. "What next for the DDA? Quantifying the role of negotiation modalities," Working Papers hal-01299828, HAL.
    12. Decreux, Yvan & Fontagné, Lionel, 2015. "What Next for Multilateral Trade Talks? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 29-43, January.
    13. Hoyoon Jung, 2019. "The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    14. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:46:y:2008:i::p:195-218 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. James D. Morrow & Kevin L. Cope, 2021. "The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 399-429, October.
    16. Jeffrey T. Checkel & Andrew Moravcsik, 2001. "A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies?," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(2), pages 219-249, June.
    17. Tanja E. Aalberts, 2005. "Sovereignty Reloaded? A Constructivist Perspective on European Research," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0010, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    18. Shamim Shakur & Allan N Rae, 2012. "The impact of comprehensive tariff reductions in multilateral trade: further results from computable general equilibrium simulations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 182-189.
    19. Liam Clegg, 2012. "Global governance behind closed doors: The IMF boardroom, the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, and the intersection of material power and norm stabilisation in global politics," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 285-308, September.
    20. Euan MacMillan, 2014. "Explaining rising regionalism and failing multilateralism: consensus decision-making and expanding WTO membership," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 599-617, December.
    21. Miljkovic Dragan & Gomez Miguel, 2013. "A Mechanism Design of Dispute Resolution Systems in a Regional-Free Trade Agreement," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 113-128, October.

    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:ags:catpwp:90885. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/catprca.html .

    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.