IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12203.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equilibrium Trade Regimes: Power- vs. Rules-Based

Author

Listed:
  • Cecilia Carvalho
  • Daniel Monte
  • Emanuel Ornelas

Abstract

Members of the World Trade Organization are increasingly disregarding its rules, raising concerns about the future of the multilateral trading system. To analyze the sustainability of the rules-based trade regime, we develop a dynamic framework of stochastic asynchronous games where the leading country determines the trade regime and leadership changes over time. We show that transitioning from a power-based to a rules-based regime requires the presence of a hegemonic power - i.e., a country significantly larger than all others. Non-hegemonic leading countries benefit from a power-based regime, but may nevertheless uphold rules anticipating that they can lose their dominance in the future. We find that the long-term viability of a rules-based equilibrium hinges on the cost of establishing it, which must be neither too small nor too large, on countries' discount factors and on the degree of turnover in world leadership, both of which must be sufficiently large. In a bipolar state, free-riding and market-power forces further undermine the feasibility of rules-based equilibria. We also highlight the trade-offs that a redesign of the WTO rules must face to remain viable. If the leading country becomes shortsighted, the system needs to become more efficient, offer more latitude to the leading country, or even exclude it from the system.

Suggested Citation

  • Cecilia Carvalho & Daniel Monte & Emanuel Ornelas, 2025. "Equilibrium Trade Regimes: Power- vs. Rules-Based," CESifo Working Paper Series 12203, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12203.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuel Farhi & Matteo Maggiori, 2018. "A Model of the International Monetary System," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 295-355.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2000. "Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(4), pages 1167-1199.
    3. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger & Ali Yurukoglu, 2020. "Multilateral Trade Bargaining: A First Look at the GATT Bargaining Records," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 72-105, July.
    4. Aghion, Philippe & Antras, Pol & Helpman, Elhanan, 2007. "Negotiating free trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 1-30, September.
    5. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2018. "Multilateral Trade Bargaining And Dominant Strategies," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1785-1824, November.
    6. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2005. "Erratum to "Multilateral trade negotiations, bilateral opportunism and the rules of GATT/WTO" [J. Int. Econ. 63 (1) (2004) 1-29]," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 267-267, December.
    7. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    8. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger & Ali Yurukoglu, 2021. "Quantitative Analysis of Multiparty Tariff Negotiations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1595-1631, July.
    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. Aaditya Mattoo & Michele Ruta & Robert W. Staiger, 2024. "Geopolitics and the World Trading System," NBER Working Papers 33293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W. & Yurukoglu, Ali, 2020. "“Nash-in-Nash” tariff bargaining," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    3. Ralph Ossa, 2016. "Quantitative Models of Commercial Policy," NBER Working Papers 22062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Moise Nken & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2017. "Implications of multilateral tariff bindings on the formation of preferential trade agreements and quest for global free trade," Working Papers 068, Toronto Metropolitan University, Department of Economics.
    5. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger & Ali Yurukoglu, 2017. ""Nash-in-Nash" Tariff Bargaining with and without MFN," NBER Working Papers 23894, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Lake, James & Roy, Santanu, 2017. "Are global trade negotiations behind a fragmented world of “gated globalization”?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 117-136.
    7. 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.
    8. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    9. Raimondos-Moller, Pascalis & Woodland, Alan D., 2006. "Non-preferential trading clubs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 79-91, January.
    10. Zissimos, Ben, 2017. "A theory of trade policy under dictatorship and democratization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 85-101.
    11. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Profit Shifting And Trade Agreements In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1067-1104, November.
    12. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. 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.
    14. Baier, Scott L. & Yotov, Yoto V. & Zylkin, Thomas, 2019. "On the widely differing effects of free trade agreements: Lessons from twenty years of trade integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 206-226.
    15. Rafat Beigpoor Shahrivar & Duesterhoeft, Ilka & Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla, 2023. "A mechanism of proportional contributions for public good games," Ruhr Economic Papers 990, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2010. "Backward stealing and forward manipulation in the WTO," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 49-62, September.
    17. Naoto Jinji & Xingyuan Zhang & Shoji Haruna, 2022. "Deep Integration, Global Firms, and Technology Spillovers," Advances in Japanese Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-981-16-5210-3, April.
    18. Chad Bown, 2013. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 449-481, June.
    19. Raimondos, Pascalis & Woodland, Alan, 2018. "Reciprocity in trade negotiations and welfare," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 134-142.
    20. Toke S. Aidt & Facundo Albornoz & Esther Hauk, 2021. "Foreign Influence and Domestic Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 426-487, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order and Integration
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ces:ceswps:_12203. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.