IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v65y2011i04p639-672_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do Some Countries Get Better WTO Accession Terms Than Others?

Author

Listed:
  • Pelc, Krzysztof J.

Abstract

The process by which countries accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become the subject of considerable debate. This article takes a closer look at what determines the concessions the institution requires of an entrant. In other words, who gets a good deal, and who does not? I argue that given the institutional design of accession proceedings and the resulting suspension of reciprocity, accession terms are driven by the domestic export interests of existing members. As a result, relatively greater liberalization will be imposed on those entrants that have more valuable market access to offer upon accession, something that appears to be in opposition to expectations during multilateral trade rounds, where market access functions as a bargaining chit. The empirical evidence supports these assertions. Looking at eighteen recent entrants at the six-digit product level, I find that controlling for a host of country-specific variables, as well as the applied protection rates on a given product prior to accession, the more a country has to offer, the more it is required to give. Moreover, I show how more democratic countries, in spite of their greater overall depth of integration, exhibit greater resistance to adjustment in key industries than do nondemocracies. Finally, I demonstrate that wealth exhibits a curvilinear effect. On the one hand, institutionalized norms lead members to exercise observable restraint vis-à-vis the poorest countries. On the other hand, the richest countries have the greatest bargaining expertise, and thus obtain better terms. The outcome, as I show using a semi-parametric analysis, is that middle-income countries end up with the most stringent terms, and have to make the greatest relative adjustments to their trade regimes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelc, Krzysztof J., 2011. "Why Do Some Countries Get Better WTO Accession Terms Than Others?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 639-672, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:65:y:2011:i:04:p:639-672_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818311000257/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Baccini, Leonardo & Impullitti, Giammario & Malesky, Edmund J., 2019. "Globalization and state capitalism: Assessing Vietnam's accession to the WTO," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 75-92.
    2. Nahmadova, Firuza, 2021. "Azerbaijan's integration in the BRI Middle Corridor: Is WTO accession needed," MPRA Paper 110331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Leonardo Baccini & Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "Before ratification: understanding the timing of international treaty effects on domestic policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Brandon J Kinne, 2013. "IGO membership, network convergence, and credible signaling in militarized disputes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 50(6), pages 659-676, November.

    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:cup:intorg:v:65:y:2011:i:04:p:639-672_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.