Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:14:48.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2004

CHRISTINA L. DAVIS
CHRISTINA L. DAVIS
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explains how the institutional context of international negotiations influences their outcomes. I argue that issue linkage counteracts domestic obstacles to liberalization by broadening the negotiation stakes. Institutions bolster the credibility of the linkage to make it more effective. I test the argument in the agricultural sector, which has been among the most difficult sectors for governments to liberalize. Statistical analysis of U.S. negotiations with Japan and the EU from 1970 to 1999 indicates that an institutionalized linkage between agricultural and industrial issues encourages agricultural liberalization in both Japan and Europe. Through case studies of key negotiations, I first examine why countries choose to link issues, then show how the linkage changes interest group mobilization and shifts the policy process to promote liberalization.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 153 - 169
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aggarwal Vinod K., ed. 1998 Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Aggarwal Vinod K., and Charles E. Morrison, eds. 1998 Asia-Pacific Crossroads: Regime Creation and the Future of APEC. New York: St. Martin's.
Baumgartner Frank, and Bryan Jones. 1993 Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bayard Thomas, and Kimberly Ann Elliott 1994 Reciprocity and Retaliation in U.S. Trade Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Busch Marc, and Eric Reinhardt. 2001 “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Early Settlement in GATT/WTO Disputes.” Fordham International Law Journal 24 (1): 158– 72.Google Scholar
Croome John. 1995 Reshaping the World Trading System: A History of the Uruguay Round. Boston: Kluwer Law International.
Davis Christina. 2003a Food Fights Over Free Trade: How International Institutions Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Davis Christina. 2003b “Setting the Negotiation Table: The Choice of Institutions for Trade Disputes.” Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
Downs George, and David M. Rocke. 1995 Optimal Imperfection? Domestic Uncertainty and Institutions in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
EC (Commission of the European Community). 1999 The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Eichengreen Barry, and Jeffry Frieden. 1993 “The Political Economy of European Monetary Unification: An Analytical Introduction.” Politics and Economics 5: 85– 104.Google Scholar
Evans Peter, Harold Jacobson, and Robert Putnam, eds. 1993 Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fukui Haruhiro. 1978 “The GATT Tokyo Round: The Bureaucratic Politics of Multilateral Diplomacy.” In The Politics of Trade: U.S. and Japanese Policymaking for the GATT Negotiations, ed. Michael Blaker. New York: Columbia University East Asian Institute, 75– 169.
Garrett Geoffrey, and George Tsebelis. 1996 “An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism.” International Organization 50 (2): 269–99.Google Scholar
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). 1979 The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Geneva: GATT.
Gawande Kishore, and Wendy Hansen. 1999 “Retaliation, Bargaining, and the Pursuit of “Free and Fai” Trade.” International Organization 53 (1): 117– 59.Google Scholar
George Aurelia. 1990 The Last Bastion: Prospects for Liberalizing Japan's Rice Market. Tokyo: Food and Agriculture Policy Research Center.
Gilligan Michael. 1997 Empowering Exporters: Reciprocity, Delegation, and Collective Action in American Trade Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Goldstein Judith. 1993 “Creating the GATT Rules: Politics, Institutions, and American Policy.” In Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, ed. John G. Ruggie. New York: Columbia University Press, 201– 32.
Grossman Gene M., and Elhanan Helpman. 1995 “Trade Wars and Trade Talks.” Journal of Political Economy 103 (4): 675–708.Google Scholar
Haas Ernst B. 1980 “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes.” World Politics 32 (3): 357– 405.Google Scholar
Hayami Yujiro, and Kym Anderson. 1986 The Political Economy of Agricultural Protection: East Asia in International Perspective. London: Allen and Unwin.
Heckman James, Hidehiko Ichimura, Jeffrey Smith, and Petra Todd. 1998 “Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica 66 (5): 1017– 98.Google Scholar
Hiscox Michael. 2002 International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hudec Robert. 1993 Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System. Salem, NH: Butterworth.
Iida Keisuke. 1993 “When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter? Two-Level Games with Uncertainty.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 403– 26.Google Scholar
Jackson John H. 1997 The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Josling Timothy, Stefan Tangermann, and T. K. Warley, eds. 1996 Agriculture in the GATT. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Kahler Miles. 1992 “Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers.” International Organization 46 (3): 681–708.Google Scholar
Kahler Miles. 2000 “Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case.” International Organization 54 (3): 549–71.Google Scholar
Karube Kensuke. 1997 Nichibei kome kōshō [U.S.–Japan Rice Negotiations]. Tokyo: Chukō shinshō.
Keeler John. 1996 “Agricultural Power in the European Community.” Comparative Politics 28 (2): 127–49.Google Scholar
Keohane Robert. 1984 After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000 “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 341– 55.Google Scholar
Lieber Robert. 1970 British Politics and European Unity: Parties, Elites, and Pressure Groups. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lindert Peter. 1991 “Historical Patterns of Agricultural Policy.” In Agriculture and the State, ed. Peter Timmer. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 29– 83.
Lohmann Susanne. 1997 “Linkage Politics.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1): 38–67.Google Scholar
Martin Lisa. 1992 “Interests, Power, and Multilateralism.” International Organization 46 (3): 765– 92.Google Scholar
Martin Lisa. 1993 “International and Domestic Institutions in the EMU Process.” Economics and Politics 5 (2): 125– 44.Google Scholar
Martin Lisa, and Beth Simmons. 2001 “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.” In International Institutions: An International Organization Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 437– 65.
Mayer Frederick. 1992 “Managing Domestic Differences in International Negotiations: The Strategic Use of Internal Side-Payments.” International Organization 46 (4): 793–818.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer John. 1994/95 “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19: 5– 49.Google Scholar
Meunier Sophie, and Kalypso Nicolaidis. 1999 “Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the EU.” Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (3): 477– 501.Google Scholar
Milner Helen. 1997 Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MOF (Ministry of Finance). 1999 “Financial Statistics of Japan 1999.” Technical Report, Ministry of Finance.
Moravcsik Andrew. 1998 The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morrow James. 1992 “Signaling Diffculties with Linkage in Crisis Bargaining.” International Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 153– 72.Google Scholar
Moyer H. Wayne, and Timothy Josling. 1990 Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the EC and the USA. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Mulgan Aurelia George. 1997 “The Role of Foreign Pressure (gaiatsu) in Japan's Agricultural Trade Liberalization.” Pacific Review 10 (2): 165– 209.Google Scholar
Mulgan Aurelia George. 2000 The Politics of Agriculture in Japan. London: Routledge.
North Douglass C. 1990 Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Odell John. 2000 Negotiating the World Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2002a “Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: A Positive Reform Agenda.” Technical Report 19, OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2002b Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2002. Paris: OECD.
Olson Mancur. 1965 The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Orden David, Robert Paarlberg, and Terry Roe. 1999 Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oye Kenneth. 1985 “Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies.” World Politics 38 (1): 1– 24.Google Scholar
Paarlberg Robert. 1997 “Agricultural Policy Reform and the Uruguay Round: Synergistic Linkage in a Two-Level Game.” International Organization 51 (3): 413– 44.Google Scholar
Paemen Hugo, and Alexandra Bensch. 1995 From the GATT to the WTO: The European Community in the Uruguay Round. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Patterson Lee Ann. 1997 “Agricultural Policy Reform in the European Community: A Three-Level Game Analysis.” International Organization 51 (1): 135– 65.Google Scholar
Putnam Robert. 1988 “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (3): 427– 60.Google Scholar
Raiffa Howard. 1982 The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schattschneider E. E. 1960 The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schelling Thomas. 1960 The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schoppa Leonard. 1997 Bargaining with Japan: What American Pressure Can and Cannot Do. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sebenius James. 1983 “Negotiation Arithmetic: Adding and Subtracting Issues and Parties.” International Organization 37 (2): 281– 316.Google Scholar
Sheingate Adam. 2001 The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shepsle Kenneth, and Barry Weingast, eds. 1995 Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sherrington Philippa. 2000 The Council of Ministers. London: Pinter.
Shiwaku Jirō. 1994 “Gatto uruguai raundo nōgyō kōshō no keika to ketsumatsu” [The progress and conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round agriculture negotiation]. Nōson to toshi o musubu 6 (515): 4– 31.Google Scholar
Steinberg Richard. 2002 “In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO.” International Organization 56 (2): 339– 74.Google Scholar
Tangermann Stefan. 1996 “An Ex-Post Review of the 1992 MacSharry Reform.” Paper prepared for the conference CAP Reform: What Next? Nottingham, UK.
Tollison Robert D., and Thomas D. Willett. 1979 “An Economic Theory of Mutually Advantageous Issue Linkages in International Negotiations.” International Organization 33 (4): 425– 49.Google Scholar
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2001 “Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century.” Technical Report. Washington, DC: USDA.
Vahl Remco. 1997 Leadership in Disguise: The Role of the European Commission in EC Decision-Making on Agriculture in the Uruguay Round. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Winham Gilbert. 1986 International Trade and the Tokyo Round Negotiation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Woolcock Stephen, and Michael Hodges. 1996 “EU Policy in the Uruguay Round.” In Policy-making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace and William Wallace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 301– 51.
Zeng Ka. 2002 “Trade Structure and the Effectiveness of America's “Aggressively Unilatera.” Trade Policy.” International Studies Quarterly 46: 93– 115.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.