IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2012-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Distrust and Barriers to International Trade in Food Products: An Analysis of the US — Poultry Dispute

Author

Listed:
  • Christophe Charlier

Abstract

The US - Poultry dispute arbitrated by the WTO, opposing China to the US, was raised by the US decision to stop equivalence regime procedures for Chinese poultry. The Panel found that this decision was not compatible with the SPS Agreement's exigencies requiring a risk assessment centered on the Chinese poultry products, and contradicted MFN obligation of the GATT 1994 Agreement. The possibility that the reasoning of the Panel in this dispute was based on the reasoning developed in earlier SPS cases suggests that this dispute doesn't provide new perspectives for SPS cases. However, considering the dispute in the context of a trust game, this paper argues that the US - Poultry case is original. It provides an interpretation showing that a risk assessment focusing on the social and institutional conditions of the implementation of a country's safety regulation should be considered a proper way to defend impeding a national equivalence regime. This conclusion is reinforced by the economic analysis of MFN treatment in the dispute.

Suggested Citation

  • Christophe Charlier, 2012. "Distrust and Barriers to International Trade in Food Products: An Analysis of the US — Poultry Dispute," GREDEG Working Papers 2012-02, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Nov 2013.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2012-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://195.220.190.85/GREDEG-WP-2012-02.pdf
    File Function: Revised version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenz, Edward, 1999. "Trust, Contract and Economic Cooperation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 23(3), pages 301-315, May.
    2. Christophe Charlier & Michel Rainelli, 2002. "Hormones, Risk Management, Precaution and Protectionism: An Analysis of the Dispute on Hormone-Treated Beef between the European Union and the United States," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 83-97, September.
    3. Cox, James C., 2004. "How to identify trust and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 260-281, February.
    4. La Porta, Rafael, et al, 1997. "Trust in Large Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 333-338, May.
    5. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2001. "Economic and legal aspects of the Most-Favored-Nation clause," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 233-279, June.
    6. James Jr., Harvey S., 2002. "The trust paradox: a survey of economic inquiries into the nature of trust and trustworthiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 291-307, March.
    7. Bohnet, Iris & Frey, Bruno S. & Huck, Steffen, 2001. "More Order with Less Law: On Contract Enforcement, Trust, and Crowding," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 131-144, March.
    8. Frank H. Fuller & John C. Beghin & Stephane De Cara & Jacinto F. Fabiosa & Cheng Fang & Holger Matthey, 2001. "China's Accession to the WTO: What Is at Stake for Agricultural Markets?," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 01-wp276, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    9. Joel Sobel, 2002. "Can We Trust Social Capital?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 139-154, March.
    10. Williamson, Oliver E, 1993. "Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 453-486, April.
    11. Harvey James, 2002. "The Trust Paradox: A Survey of Economic Inquiries Into the Nature of Trust and Trustworthiness," Microeconomics 0202001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Duy Vu, 2018. "Reasons not to Exit? A Survey of the Effectiveness and Spillover Effects of International Investment Arbitration," GREDEG Working Papers 2018-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Duy Vu, 2019. "Reasons not to exit? A survey of the effectiveness and spillover effects of international investment arbitration," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 291-319, April.
    3. Annalisa Zezza & Federica Demaria & Maria Rosaria Pupo d'Andrea & Jo Swinnen & Giulia Meloni & Senne Vandevelde & Alessandro Olper & Daniele Curzi & Valentina Raimondi & Sophie Drogue, 2018. "Research for AGRI Committee - Agricultural trade: assessing reciprocity of standards," Working Papers hal-02787948, HAL.

    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. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "The Impact of Payoff Interdependence on Trust and Trustworthiness," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(1), pages 87-95, February.
    2. Güth, Werner & Mugera, Harriet & Musau, Andrew & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Deterministic versus probabilistic consequences of trust and trustworthiness: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 28-40.
    3. Güth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria & Ploner, Matteo, 2008. "Social identity and trust--An experimental investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1293-1308, August.
    4. Fali Huang, 2003. "Social Trust, Cooperation, and Human Capital," Working Papers 01-2004, Singapore Management University, School of Economics, revised Jan 2004.
    5. Bönte, Werner, 2008. "Inter-firm trust in buyer-supplier relations: Are knowledge spillovers and geographical proximity relevant?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 855-870, September.
    6. Harvey James, 2002. "The Trust Paradox: A Survey of Economic Inquiries Into the Nature of Trust and Trustworthiness," Microeconomics 0202001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. James Jr., Harvey S., 2002. "The trust paradox: a survey of economic inquiries into the nature of trust and trustworthiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 291-307, March.
    8. Qin, Zhong, 2011. "Models of trust-sharing in Chinese private enterprises," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1017-1029, May.
    9. Michel Zouboulakis, 2010. "Trustworthiness as a Moral Determinant of Economic Activity: Lessons from the Classics," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 209-221, January.
    10. Bohdan Kukharskyy & Michael Pflüger, 2011. "Relational Contracts and the Economic Well-Being of Nations," Working Papers 095, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    11. Paul N. Wilson, 2007. "The economic nature of network capital in B2B transactions," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 435-448.
    12. Ernst Fehr, 2009. "On The Economics and Biology of Trust," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 235-266, 04-05.
    13. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2009. "The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 368-380, June.
    14. Möllering, Guido, 2005. "Understanding Trust from the Perspective of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism: The Interplay of Institutions and Agency," MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/13, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Christian Lukas & Jens Robert Schöndube, 2008. "Trust and Adaptive Learning in Implicit Contracts," FEMM Working Papers 08017, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    16. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "Social Effects in a Multi-Agent Investment Game. An Experimental Analysis," CEEL Working Papers 0805, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    18. Lippert, Steffen & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2011. "Networks of relations and Word-of-Mouth Communication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 202-217, May.
    19. Philip Keefer & Stephen Knack, 2008. "Social Capital, Social Norms and the New Institutional Economics," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, chapter 27, pages 701-725, Springer.
    20. Fali Huang, 2007. "Building Social Trust: A Human-Capital Approach," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 552-573, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WTO; SPS Agreement; MFN; Non-tariff Barrier to trade; Product safety; China.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F59 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - Other
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law

    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:gre:wpaper:2012-02. 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: Patrice Bougette (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.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.