IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Sustaining Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multipolar World Economy

  • Bernard Hoekman

The deadlock in the WTO Doha Round has been accompanied by an increased focus on the negotiation of preferential trade agreements, including so-called ‘mega-regionals’. This paper discusses possible implications for—and possible responses by—excluded countries that have little prospects of participating in most of the mega-regionals. A number of complementary avenues are identified through which such countries might attenuate the potential downsides of preferential trade liberalization among large countries, as well some proposals that would expand the scope to pursue cooperation on regulatory policies in the WTO as opposed to PTAs.

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.

File URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/28962/RSCAS_2013_86.pdf?sequence=1
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/28962
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European University Institute in its series RSCAS Working Papers with number 2013/86.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2013/86
Contact details of provider: Postal: Convento, Via delle Fontanelle, 19, 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy
Web page: http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/
More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Hoekman, Bernard & Martin, Will & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2010. "Conclude Doha: It Matters!," CEPR Discussion Papers 7788, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Hoekman, Bernard M. & Kostecki, Michel M., 2009. "The Political Economy of the World Trading System," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780199553778, March.
  3. Paola Conconi & Carlo Perroni, 2002. "Issue Linkage and Issue Tie-in in International Negotiations," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/5839, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  4. Mavroidis, Petros C., 2011. "Always look at the bright side of non-delivery: WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements, yesterday and today," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 375-387, July.
  5. Caroline Freund & Emanuel Ornelas, 2010. "Regional Trade Agreements," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 139-166, 09.
  6. Kee, Hiau Looi & Nicita, Alessandro & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2006. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," CEPR Discussion Papers 5576, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. André Sapir & Henrik H. Horn & Petros Mavroidis, 2009. "Beyond the WTO ?An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/174283, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  8. Bernard M. Hoekman & Aaditya Mattoo, 2013. "Liberalizing Trade in Services: Lessons from Regional and WTO Negotiations," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/34, European University Institute.
  9. Jean-François Arvis & Yann Duval & Ben Shepherd & Chorthip Utoktham, 2012. "Trade Costs in the Developing World:1995 – 2010," Working Papers 12112, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
  10. Miroudot, Sebastien & Shepherd, Ben, 2012. "The paradox of “preferences”: regional trade agreements and trade costs in services," MPRA Paper 41090, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  11. Maggie Xiaoyang Chen & Aaditya Mattoo, 2008. "Regionalism in standards: good or bad for trade?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 838-863, August.
  12. Tijmes-Lhl, Jaime, 2009. "Consensus and majority voting in the WTO," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(03), pages 417-437, July.
  13. Laborde, David & Martin, Will & Van Der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2012. "Implications of the Doha market access proposals for developing countries," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(01), pages 1-25, January.
  14. Robert Z. Lawrence, 2006. "Rulemaking Amidst Growing Diversity: A Club-of-Clubs Approach to WTO Reform and New Issue Selection," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 823-835, December.
  15. Sebenius, James K., 1983. "Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(02), pages 281-316, March.
  16. Erik der Marel & Sébastien Miroudot, 2014. "The economics and political economy of going beyond the GATS," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 205-239, June.
  17. Razeen Sally & Rahul Sen, 2011. "Trade Policies in Southeast Asia in the Wider Asian Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 568-601, 04.
  18. Conconi, P. & Perroni, C., 2000. "Issue Linkage and Issue Tie-in in Multilateral Negotiations," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 558, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  19. Staiger, Robert W. & Antras, Pol, 2008. "Offshoring and the Role of Trade Agreements," Scholarly Articles 3374525, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  20. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott, 2012. "Will the World Trade Organization Enjoy a Bright Future?," Policy Briefs PB12-11, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  21. Caroline Freund & Emanuel Ornelas, 2010. "Regional trade agreements: blessing or burden?," CentrePiece - The Magazine for Economic Performance 313, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  22. Caroline Freund, 2010. "Third‐country Effects of Regional Trade Agreements," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1589-1605, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2013/86. 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: (RSCAS web unit)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.