IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v10y2019i3p376-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Process Performance of the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism: Peer‐Reviewing Reconsidered

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Karlas
  • Michal Parízek

Abstract

This survey article provides the first comprehensive assessment of the functioning of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM), the central monitoring platform of the World Trade Organization (WTO), over the first 20 years of the WTO's existence (1995–2014). Building on two large new datasets, we assess the performance of the Mechanism along three dimensions: (1) members’ participation rates in trade policy reviews (TPRs); (2) the coverage of trade flows through participation of states in relevant TPRs; and (3) the content of their input into the reviews. Descriptively, we identify a very prominent increase in members’ participation rates, but also a very high share of dyadic trade flows covered by the TPRs. In the most recent period, members accounting for up to 95 per cent of the imports into the reviewed state take part in the TPRs, on average. We also argue that the Mechanism provides space for substantial critical reviewing of members’ policies, especially in some areas such as agriculture. However, we also identify specific pitfalls of the Mechanism, especially in its excessive formalism and lack of interactive discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Karlas & Michal Parízek, 2019. "The Process Performance of the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism: Peer‐Reviewing Reconsidered," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(3), pages 376-384, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:376-384
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12672?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Faude, Benjamin, 2020. "Breaking gridlock: how path dependent layering enhances resilience in global trade governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103927, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Jackson, Lee Ann & Maggi, Federica & Piermartini, Roberta & Rubínová, Stela, 2020. "The value of the Committee on Agriculture: Mapping Q&As to trade flows," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2020-15, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    3. Benjamin Faude, 2020. "Breaking Gridlock: How Path Dependent Layering Enhances Resilience in Global Trade Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(4), pages 448-457, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Bernhard Reinsberg & Christian Siauwijaya, 2024. "Does earmarked funding affect the performance of international organisations?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 23-39, February.
    6. Bernard Hoekman & Douglas Nelson, 2020. "Subsidies, Spillovers and Multilateral Cooperation," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/12, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    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:bla:glopol:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:376-384. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.