IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v8y2005i2p405-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in the WTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment*

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Hoekman

Abstract

There are large differences between WTO Members in terms of resource capacity constraints and national trade policy and investment priorities. These affect the ability and willingness to incur the costs associated with implementation of new rules, as well as the net benefits of doing so. The 'adjustment burden' of new rules mostly will fall on developing countries, as such rules will reflect the status quo in industrialized countries ('best practice'). This paper discusses options that have been proposed to address country differences and increase the 'development relevance' of the WTO. These include shifting back to a club approach, more explicit special and differential treatment provisions in specific WTO agreements, and a concerted effort to establish a mechanism in the WTO where development concerns can be considered. A case is made for the latter -- involving a serious effort to increase the transparency of applied policies, including assessments of their effectiveness and the magnitude of any negative spillovers imposed on other developing countries. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Hoekman, 2005. "Operationalizing the Concept of Policy Space in the WTO: Beyond Special and Differential Treatment*," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 405-424, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:8:y:2005:i:2:p:405-424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Katerina Gradeva & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, 2016. "Are Trade Preferences more Effective than Aid in Supporting Exports? Evidence from the ‘Everything But Arms’ Preference Scheme," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1146-1171, August.
    2. Mattoo, Aaditya, 2006. "Services, Economic Development and the Doha Round: Exploiting the Comparative Advantage of the WTO," CEPR Discussion Papers 5628, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Flentø, Daniel & Ponte, Stefano, 2017. "Least-Developed Countries in a World of Global Value Chains: Are WTO Trade Negotiations Helping?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 366-374.
    4. Wani, Nassir Ul Haq & Grover, Veena, 2024. "The Dwindling Trade Policy Scenario in India: Fresh Insights," MPRA Paper 120991, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 May 2024.
    5. Bernard Hoekman & David Vines, 2007. "Multilateral trade cooperation: what next?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 311-334, Autumn.
    6. Sabau, Gabriela & Boksh, F.I.M. Muktadir, 2017. "Fish Trade Liberalization Under 21st Century Trade Agreements: The CETA and Newfoundland and Labrador Fish and Seafood Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 222-233.
    7. Mattoo, Aaditya, 2011. "Services Trade Liberalization and Regulatory Reform: Re-invigorating International Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8181, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    9. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2013. "WTO 'à la carte' or WTO 'menu du jour'? Assessing the case for Plurilateral Agreements," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/58, European University Institute.
    10. Bernard Hoekman & Charles Sabel, 2017. "Trade Agreements, Regulatory Sovereignty and Democratic Legitimacy," RSCAS Working Papers 2017/36, European University Institute.
    11. Bown, Chad, 2007. "Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough," CEPR Discussion Papers 6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. United Nations ESCAP (ed.), 2011. "Trade beyond Doha: Prospects for Asia-Pacific Least Developed Countries, Studies in Trade and Investment 76," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number tipub2625, April.
    13. Thow, Anne Marie & Snowdon, Wendy & Labonté, Ronald & Gleeson, Deborah & Stuckler, David & Hattersley, Libby & Schram, Ashley & Kay, Adrian & Friel, Sharon, 2015. "Will the next generation of preferential trade and investment agreements undermine prevention of noncommunicable diseases? A prospective policy analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 88-96.
    14. Bernard Hoekman, 2011. "Aid for Trade: Why, what and where are we?," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: United Nations ESCAP (ed.), Trade beyond Doha: Prospects for Asia-Pacific Least Developed Countries, Studies in Trade and Investment 76, chapter 5, pages 95-114, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    15. Hoekman. Bernard & Prowse, Susan, 2005. "Economic policy responses to preference erosion : from trade as aid toaid for trade," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3721, The World Bank.
    16. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9437.
    17. Bernard M. Hoekman, 2013. "Multilateral Institutions and African Economic Integration," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/67, European University Institute.

    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:oup:jieclw:v:8:y:2005:i:2:p:405-424. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.