IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/2085.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forbearance in Optimal Multilateral Trade Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Bowen, Renee

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

I present a theory of optimal multilateral trade agreements with public political shocks. I first show that "forbearance"-- where one country withholds retaliation when its trading partner receives a shock-- is a feature of an optimal agreement. This provides a rationale for countries not acting on retaliatory rights granted under GATT. Second I show that there is a limit to forbearance allowable in a self-enforcing agreement. This limit is increasing in the number of countries in the agreement, increasing in the common discount factor, and increasing in the size of the export sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Bowen, Renee, 2011. "Forbearance in Optimal Multilateral Trade Agreements," Research Papers 2085, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:2085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/2085-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Chisik & Harun Onder, 2017. "Does Limited Punishment Limit The Scope For Cross Retaliation?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1213-1230, July.
    2. Beshkar, Mostafa, 2010. "Optimal remedies in international trade agreements," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 455-466, April.
    3. John Kennan & Raymond Riezman, 2013. "Do Big Countries Win Tariff Wars?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Raymond Riezman (ed.), International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 4, pages 45-51, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Rosendorff, B. Peter & Milner, Helen V., 2001. "The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 829-857, October.
    5. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, March.
    6. Chad P. Bown, 2011. "The Great Recession and Import Protection : The Role of Temporary Trade Barriers," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 16359.
    7. Giovanni Maggi, 1999. "The Role of Multilateral Institutions in International Trade Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 190-214, March.
    8. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1990. "Multimarket Contact and Collusive Behavior," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
    9. Constantinos Syropoulos, 2002. "Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation Revisited: How Country Size Matters," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 707-727.
    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. T. Renee Bowen & George Georgiadis & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2019. "Collective Choice in Dynamic Public Good Provision," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 243-298, February.
    2. Bowen, T. Renee & Georgiadis, George & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2015. "Collective Choice in Dynamic Public Good Provision: Real versus Formal Authority," Research Papers 3346, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Mostafa Beshkar, 2016. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 586-619.
    4. Mostafa Beshkar, 2014. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," Caepr Working Papers 2014-004, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Economics Department, Indiana University Bloomington.

    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. Ralph Ossa, 2011. "A "New Trade" Theory of GATT/WTO Negotiations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 122-152.
    2. Hartigan, James C., 2018. "Punching out of one's weight class? Cross agreement retaliation in the WTO," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 274-288.
    3. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    4. Hefeker, Carsten, 2003. "Handels- und Finanzarchitektur im Umbruch: Globale Integration und die institutionelle Arbeitsteilung von IWF, Weltbank und WTO," HWWA Discussion Papers 225, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    5. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Jung, Benjamin & Larch, Mario, 2013. "Optimal tariffs, retaliation, and the welfare loss from tariff wars in the Melitz model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 13-25.
    6. Richard Chisik & Chuyi Fang, 2024. "Cross‐retaliation and international dispute settlement," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(4), pages 1137-1181, November.
    7. Richard Chisik & Harun Onder, 2017. "Does Limited Punishment Limit The Scope For Cross Retaliation?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1213-1230, July.
    8. Mostafa Beshkar, 2014. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," Caepr Working Papers 2014-004, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Economics Department, Indiana University Bloomington.
    9. Mostafa Beshkar, 2016. "Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 586-619.
    10. Gawande, Kishore & Hoekman, Bernard & Cui, Yue, 2011. "Determinants of trade policy responses to the 2008 financial crisis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5862, The World Bank.
    11. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    12. Conconi, Paola & Perroni, Carlo, 2009. "Do credible domestic institutions promote credible international agreements?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 160-170, September.
    13. Staiger, Robert W., 1995. "International rules and institutions for trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1495-1551, Elsevier.
    14. Roger Clarke & David R. Collie, 2008. "Welfare In The Nash Equilibrium In Export Taxes Under Bertrand Duopoly," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 183-189, April.
    15. repec:got:cegedp:62 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Feinberg, Yossi & Kets, Willemien, 2014. "Ranking friends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 1-9.
    17. Glebe, Thilo W., 2009. "Enlargement of the European Union: A movement towards the optimal trade bloc size?," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-10.
    18. Takumi Naito, 2019. "A larger country sets a lower optimal tariff," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 643-665, May.
    19. He, Chuantian & Li, Chunding & Wang, Jing & Whalley, John, 2017. "The Armington assumption and the size of optimal tariffs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 214-222.
    20. Opp, Marcus M., 2010. "Tariff wars in the Ricardian Model with a continuum of goods," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 212-225, March.
    21. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:stabus:2085. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.