IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v32y2009i5p754-771.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Historical Learning in the Design of WTO Rules: The EC Sugar Case

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Ackrill
  • Adrian Kay

Abstract

The Uruguay Round Agreement made significant changes to the governance of international trade. Trade rules and dispute settlement mechanisms were altered and a series of specific agreements provided for liberalisation across economic sectors. The Agreement on Agriculture, arguably the most difficult and contentious to negotiate, permitted the continued use of trade‐distorting instruments, both domestically and at the border. Rule‐enforcement in agriculture therefore relies crucially on the clarity of the rules. This paper provides an in‐depth study of a unique and critical case for understanding the new rules: the EC sugar regime. This policy was challenged unsuccessfully under the pre‐Uruguay Round rules, but successfully under the new rules. This case is particularly valuable in allowing us to isolate the effect of the Uruguay Round on agricultural trade disputes: the policy under challenge was essentially unchanged and the legal actions addressed the same concern – excessive export subsidisation. Drawing on primary and secondary materials and interviews with key policy actors, sugar is used to illustrate how those involved in the multilateral process learned from particular rule weaknesses revealed in earlier cases, revising those rules in the Uruguay Round in such a way that dispute panels can more readily and objectively determine rule breaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Ackrill & Adrian Kay, 2009. "Historical Learning in the Design of WTO Rules: The EC Sugar Case," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 754-771, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:32:y:2009:i:5:p:754-771
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01148.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01148.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01148.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bennett, Andrew & Elman, Colin, 2006. "Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 250-267, July.
    2. Jeffrey J. Schott, 1994. "Uruguay Round: An Assessment," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 64, January.
    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. Irena Benešová & Helena Řezbová & Luboš Smutka & Karel Tomšík & Adriana Laputková, 2015. "European Sugar Market - Impact of Quota System," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(6), pages 1825-1838.

    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. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    2. Aradhna Aggarwal, 2003. "Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping: A worldwide perspective," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 113, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    3. Thiago Maia Sayão de Moraes & Marcos de Moraes Sousa, 2024. "History Matters: The Institutionalization and Innovation Paradox in the Judiciary," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Paqué, Karl-Heinz & Stehn, Jürgen & Horn, Ernst-Jürgen & Scharrer, Hans-Eckart & Koopmann, Georg, 1996. "National technology policies and international friction: Theory, evidence, and policy options," Kiel Discussion Papers 279, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Siegfried Bender & Kui-Wai Li, 2002. "The Changing Trade and Revealed Comparative Advantages of Asian and Latin American Manufacture Exports," Working Papers 843, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    6. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Michael D. Bordo & Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 1999. "Is Globalization Today Really Different than Globalization a Hunderd Years Ago?," NBER Working Papers 7195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Peter G. WARR, 1997. "The Uruguay Round And The Developing Countries: Thailand And The Philippines," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 35(2), pages 142-165, June.
    9. Skarbek, David, 2016. "Covenants without the Sword? Comparing Prison Self-Governance Globally," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 845-862, November.
    10. Kyriakos Moumoutzis & Sotirios Zartaloudis, 2016. "Europeanization Mechanisms and Process Tracing: A Template for Empirical Research," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 337-352, March.
    11. Kala Krishna & Marie Thursby, 1997. "Whither Flat Panel Displays?," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 247-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. J. David Richardson, 2000. "The WTO and market-supportive regulation: a way forward on new competition, technological and labor issues," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 115-130.
    13. Vanzetti, David, 1996. "The next round: Game theory and public choice perspectives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4-5), pages 461-477.
    14. William R. Cline, 1995. "Evaluating the Uruguay Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Ian Wooton & Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-trust," Working Papers 2002_6, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Oct 2002.
    16. Kei-Mu Yi, 2003. "Can Vertical Specialization Explain the Growth of World Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 52-102, February.
    17. Jones, James R., 1995. "Maritime Shipping Issues And Us Agricultural Exports," A.E. Research Series 305142, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    18. Kira Gartzou-Katsouyanni, 2024. "Obstacles to local cooperation in fragmented, left-behind economies: an integrated framework," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 17(2), pages 359-374.
    19. Thomas Rixen & Lora Anne Viola, 2015. "Putting path dependence in its place: toward a Taxonomy of institutional change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 301-323, April.
    20. Meilke, Karl D. & Sarker, Rakhal, 1997. "Four case studies of agri-food CVDs and a proposal for reforming national administered protection agencies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 17(2-3), pages 147-164, 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:worlde:v:32:y:2009:i:5:p:754-771. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0378-5920 .

    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.