IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v13y2022i4p469-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Powers, Leadership, and South–South Solidarity: The Battle Over Special and Differential Treatment at the WTO

Author

Listed:
  • Kristen Hopewell

Abstract

Emerging powers, such as China and India, have used claims of developing world leadership and South–South solidarity to strengthen their bargaining position in WTO negotiations. Yet analysis of the growing battle over special and differential treatment (SDT) suggests that such claims are increasingly tenuous. The question of how emerging economic powers should be classified and treated under global trade rules has become an acute source of conflict in the trade regime. The emerging powers insist on access to SDT as an unconditional right of developing countries. But in a debate dominated by the emerging and established powers, the interests of most developing countries have been largely overlooked. Drawing on the cases of agriculture and fisheries – two areas of international trade of particular importance to the developing world – I show that extending SDT to the emerging powers is increasingly problematic for global development. In these areas, many emerging economies are now among the world's largest subsidizers, and the harmful effects of their policies are felt most keenly by other developing countries. Granting SDT to exempt emerging subsidizers from WTO disciplines would therefore undermine efforts to use global trade rules to promote global development, as well as to protect the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:13:y:2022:i:4:p:469-482
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13092?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. U. Sumalia & Daniel Skerritt & Anna Schuhbauer & Sebastian Villasante & Andres Cisneros-Montemayor & Hussain Sinan & Duncan Burnside & Patrízia Abdallah & Keita Abe & Juliano Abrantes & Kwasi Addo & , 2021. "WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00743, The Field Experiments Website.
      • Ussif Rashid Sumaila & Daniel Skerritt & Anna Schuhbauer & Sebastian Villasante & Andres Cisneros-Montemayor & Hussain Sinan & Duncan Burnside & Patri­zia Abdallah & Keita Abe & Juliano Abrantes & Kw, 2021. "WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies," Working Paper Series 1221, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Shaffer,Gregory, 2021. "Emerging Powers and the World Trading System," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108817127, September.
    3. Greenville, Jared, 2017. "Domestic Support to Agriculture and Trade: Implications for Multilateral Reform," Post-Nairobi WTO Agenda 320182, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    4. World Bank, 2017. "The Sunken Billions Revisited," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 24056.
    5. Narlikar,Amrita, 2020. "Poverty Narratives and Power Paradoxes in International Trade Negotiations and Beyond," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108401609, September.
    6. Nelson Benjamin Villoria & Elliot Wamboka Mghenyi, 2017. "The Impacts of India's Food Security Policies on South Asian Wheat and Rice Markets," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 730-746.
    7. Shaffer,Gregory, 2021. "Emerging Powers and the World Trading System," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108495196, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Bernard Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2021. "WTO Reform: Back to the Past to Build for the Future," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S3), pages 5-12, April.
    10. Narlikar,Amrita, 2020. "Poverty Narratives and Power Paradoxes in International Trade Negotiations and Beyond," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108415569, September.
    11. Bernard Hoekman & Constantine Michalopoulos & L. Alan Winter, 2004. "Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO: Moving Forward After Cancún," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 481-506, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Deborah Barros Leal Farias, 2023. "Country differentiation in the global environmental context: Who is ‘developing’ and according to what?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 253-269, September.

    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. Bernard Hoekman & Xinquan Tu & Robert Wolfe, 2022. "China and WTO Reform," RSCAS Working Papers 2022/59, European University Institute.
    2. 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.
    3. L. Johan Eliasson & Patricia Garcia‐Duran, 2023. "New is old? The EU's Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(S3), pages 9-18, July.
    4. Thow, Anne Marie & Garde, Amandine & Winters, L. Alan & Johnson, Ellen & Mabhala, Andi & Kingston, Paul & Barlow, Pepita, 2022. "Protecting noncommunicable disease prevention policy in trade and investment agreements," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114937, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Nils-Arne Ekerhovd & Daniel V. Gordon, 2020. "Profitability, Capacity and Productivity Trends in an Evolving Rights Based Fishery: The Norwegian Purse Seine Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 565-591, November.
    6. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Giuseppe Zaccaria, 2022. "You’re Fired! International Courts, Re‐contracting, and the WTO Appellate Body during the Trump Presidency," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(3), pages 322-333, June.
    11. Delzeit, Ruth & Heimann, Tobias & Schünemann, Franziska & Söder, Mareike, 2021. "Scenarios for an impact assessment of global bioeconomy strategies: Results from a co-design process," Kiel Working Papers 2188, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Nelson B Villoria & Paul V Preckel, 2017. "Gaussian Quadratures vs. Monte Carlo Experiments for Systematic Sensitivity Analysis of Computable General Equilibrium Model Results," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 480-487.
    13. Eric Nævdal, 2022. "Productivity and Management of Renewable Resources: Why More Efficient Fishing Fleets Should Fish Less," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 409-424, March.
    14. Sjöholm, Fredrik, 2023. "The Return of Borders in the World Economy: An EU-Perspective," Working Paper Series 1469, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    15. Feuerbacher, Arndt & McDonald, Scott & Dukpa, Chencho & Grethe, Harald, 2020. "Seasonal rural labor markets and their relevance to policy analyses in developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. de Melo, Jaime & Cadot, Olivier & Carrère, Céline & Portugal-Perez, Alberto, 2005. "How Much Market Access in FTAs? Textiles Under NAFTA," CEPR Discussion Papers 5264, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Tim Cashion & Santiago de la Puente & Dyhia Belhabib & Daniel Pauly & Dirk Zeller & U Rashid Sumaila, 2018. "Establishing company level fishing revenue and profit losses from fisheries: A bottom-up approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Hammarlund, Cecilia & Andersson, Anna, 2019. "What’s in it for Africa? European Union fishing access agreements and fishery exports from developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 172-185.
    19. -, 2020. "The outlook for oceans, seas and marine resources in Latin America and the Caribbean: Conservation, sustainable development and climate change mitigation," Documentos de Proyectos 46509, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    20. Moon, Wanki, 2011. "Is agriculture compatible with free trade?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 13-24.

    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:13:y:2022:i:4:p:469-482. 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: 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.