IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2020-43.html

Stakeholder Preferences and Priorities for the Next WTO Director General

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Fiorini
  • Petros C. Mavroidis, Douglas Nelson and Robert Wolfe

Abstract

The WTO is looking for a new Director-General (DG). What does the trade community think is needed? This paper reports on the results of an expert survey undertaken as part of a research project on global trade governance at the European University Institute to solicit views on what WTO members and the international trade community consider the most important attributes of candidates for the position, as well as views on the substantive policy and institutional reform priorities confronting the WTO – and thus the new DG. The results suggest strong support for someone with managerial and political experience, and a professional network that spans international organizations, major capitals, and international business. African respondents assign the highest priority to regional diversity. Resolving the dispute settlement crisis is the highest priority for most respondents; launching discussions on new issues obtains the least support. There is broad agreement on the importance of addressing a range of negotiating topics and institutional reforms, but substantial variation in the rankings assigned by different groups of respondents to specific issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Fiorini & Petros C. Mavroidis, Douglas Nelson and Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Stakeholder Preferences and Priorities for the Next WTO Director General," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/43, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2020/43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/67635/RSCAS%202020_43.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/67635
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ramphul Ohlan & Anshu Ohlan & Sudesh Chhikara & Tejaswini Singh, 2025. "Bibliometric Analysis and Review of World Trade Organization Research: Suggesting Future Avenues using WOS Database," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(1), pages 3741-3771, March.
    2. Brewster, Rachel & Fischer, Carolyn, 2021. "Fishy SPS Measures? The WTO's Korea – Radionuclides Dispute," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 524-532, October.
    3. Bernard Hoekman & Xinquan Tu & Robert Wolfe, 2022. "China and WTO Reform," RSCAS Working Papers 2022/59, European University Institute.
    4. Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis & Douglas Nelson & Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Stakeholder Preferences and Priorities for the Next WTO Director General," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 13-22, April.
    5. Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Informal Learning and WTO Renewal: Using Thematic Sessions to Create More Opportunities for Dialogue," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 30-40, April.
    6. Bernard Hoekman & Robert Wolfe, 2021. "Reforming the World Trade Organization: Practitioner Perspectives from China, the EU, and the US," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(4), pages 1-34, July.
    7. Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Reforming WTO Conflict Management. Why and How to Improve the Use of “Specific Trade Concerns”," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/53, European University Institute.
    8. Kristen Hopewell, 2022. "Emerging Powers, Leadership, and South–South Solidarity: The Battle Over Special and Differential Treatment at the WTO," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(4), pages 469-482, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:rsc:rsceui:2020/43. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.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.