IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/reviec/v13y2005i2p185-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issue Linking in Trade Negotiations: Ricardo Revisited or No Pain No Gain

Author

Listed:
  • Ignatius J. Horstmann
  • James R. Markusen
  • Jack Robles

Abstract

There has been much discussion about what issues should be included in international “trade” negotiations. Different countries, firms, and activist groups have quite different views regarding which items should (or should not) be negotiated together. Proposals run the gamut from no linking to linking trade with investment, the environment, labor, and human rights codes. This paper provides a formal framework for analyzing this question. It employs a two‐country, two‐issue bargaining model and contrasts outcomes when issues are negotiated separately and when they are linked in some form. A key concept is “comparative interest,” analogous to Ricardian comparative advantage. We provide general results and note, in particular, where a country can benefit by agreeing to include an agenda item for which, when viewed by itself, the country does not receive a positive payoff. We also provide an application of our analysis to negotiations on trade liberalization and environmental protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignatius J. Horstmann & James R. Markusen & Jack Robles, 2005. "Issue Linking in Trade Negotiations: Ricardo Revisited or No Pain No Gain," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 185-204, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:reviec:v:13:y:2005:i:2:p:185-204
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00498.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00498.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00498.x?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. Currarini, S. & Marchiori, C., 2022. "Issue linkage," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 16-40.
    2. Harstad, Bård, 2023. "Pledge-and-review bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. Harstad, Bård, 2021. "A Theory of Pledge-and-Review Bargaining," Memorandum 5/2022, Oslo University, Department of Economics, revised 21 Jun 2021.
    4. Henrik Horn & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2014. "Multilateral environmental agreements in the WTO: Silence speaks volumes," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 10(1), pages 147-166, March.
    5. Adib Bagh & Josh Ederington, 2024. "Equity‐efficiency tradeoffs in international bargaining," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 782-804, April.
    6. Bård Harstad, 2022. "Trade, Trees, and Contingent Trade Agreements," CESifo Working Paper Series 9596, CESifo.
    7. Bård Harstad, 2020. "Trade and Trees: How Trade Agreements Can Motivate Conservation Instead of Depletion," CESifo Working Paper Series 8569, CESifo.
    8. Barbara Dluhosch & Nikolai Ziegler, 2011. "The paradox of weakness in the politics of trade integration," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 325-354, December.
    9. Johanna Goertz, 2011. "Omnibus or not: package bills and single-issue bills in a legislative bargaining game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(3), pages 547-563, April.
    10. Dapeng Cai & Jie Li, 2012. "Quid pro quo and the enforcement of intellectual property rights protection: A bargaining approach," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 755-772, December.

    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:reviec:v:13:y:2005:i:2:p:185-204. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0965-7576 .

    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.