IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v7y2008i03p473-510_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing country participation in the GATT: a reassessment

Author

Listed:
  • WILKINSON, RORDEN
  • SCOTT, JAMES

Abstract

Two broad interpretations currently prevail in the literature on developing country participation in the GATT. The first suggests that developing countries spent most of their time in the GATT negotiating to be relieved of various commitments, focusing on the pursuit of industrialization through import substitution and/or free-riding on the commitments made by their industrial counterparts. The second interpretation suggests that developing countries spent the majority of their time in the GATT either as ‘quiet bystanders’ lacking the expertise or political representation to participate fully, or else attempting to redress biases in the institution's design. The problem with both of these interpretations is that while each has merit neither offers a sufficiently rounded account of developing country participation. Our purpose in this paper is to offer an alternative account of developing country participation that shows more accurately the extent and variation of that participation. We argue that throughout the development of the GATT developing countries were active participants that consistently sought to have an impact on the nature and direction of the multilateral trading system. We also argue that while the energy of developing countries was often directed towards negotiating more favourable treatment for themselves, this was a result more of the asymmetrical manner in which the GATT was deployed and a consequence of their relative underdevelopment than of a desire to free-ride on the favourable trading conditions created by the concession exchanging activities of others.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilkinson, Rorden & Scott, James, 2008. "Developing country participation in the GATT: a reassessment," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 473-510, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:7:y:2008:i:03:p:473-510_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745608003959/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. Joanne Gowa & Raymond Hicks, 2012. "The most-favored nation rule in principle and practice: Discrimination in the GATT," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 247-266, September.
    2. Christie, Andrew, 2009. "Special and Differential Treatment in the GATT: A Pyrrhic Victory for Developing Countries," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22.
    3. James Scott & Rorden Wilkinson, 2012. "Changing of the guard: expert knowledge and ‘common sense’ in the Doha Development Agenda," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 16612, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    4. Shamel Azmeh, 2024. "Developing Countries and Joint Statement Initiatives at the WTO: Damned if You Join, Damned if You Don't?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 55(3), pages 375-397, May.

    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:wotrrv:v:7:y:2008:i:03:p:473-510_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/wtr .

    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.