Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:35:48.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scope and Trade Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2007

Scott Morgenstern ,
Arturo Borja Tamayo ,
Philippe Faucher  and
Daniel Nielson
Scott Morgenstern
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Arturo Borja Tamayo
Affiliation:
US–Mexico Commission for Educational & Cultural Exchange
Philippe Faucher
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Daniel Nielson
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. With a focus on NAFTA, we offer an alternative model of trade negotiations that explains why the dominant partner is able to force concessions only on some issues. Key to our model is the concept of scope. The environment side agreement excited wide swaths of society; thus, scope was high and international power asymmetries appear to explain the result. Power asymmetries seemed unimportant, however, when bargaining over issues that affected small portions of society, such as individual tariff levels. Finally, in issues of medium scope, such as the rules of origin for the textile industry, power asymmetries and elements of traditional bargaining models likely account for the negotiated outcomes.

Résumé. Ce texte explique pourquoi, au cours de la négociation d'une entente commerciale, le pays dominant n'a pas en général intérêt à imposer ses préférences aux pays partenaires. Le concept de “ scope ” (ou de portée) sert à distinguer entre les différents enjeux d'une négociation. La négociation du traité de l'ALENA sert ici de cadre pour l'application de notre proposition. Parce que d'importants secteurs de la société jugeaient prioritaires les enjeux soulevés par l'accord parallèle sur la coopération dans le domaine de l'environnement, l'issue des discussions a été imposée au plus haut niveau par les dirigeants américains. En revanche, les taux tarifaires appliqués aux différents produits ne concernent chacun que des groupes restreints. Sur ces enjeux, les rapports de puissance ne jouent pas. Enfin, ce n'est que sur les enjeux intermédiaires, tels que les règles d'origine pour l'industrie textile, que les processus familiers de négociations internationales rendent compte de la réalité de façon satisfaisante.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 157 - 183
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

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

Audley, John J. 1997. Green Politics and Global Trade: NAFTA and the Future of Environmental Politics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Bailey, Michael. 2001. “Quiet Influence: The Representation of Diffuse Interests on Trade Policy, 1983–1994.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (February): 45–80.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Robert E. and Christopher S. Magee. 2000. “Is Trade Policy for Sale? Congressional Voting on Recent Trade Bills.” Public Choice 105: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhagwati, Jagdish. 1991. “Regionalism and Multilateralism: An Overview.” In New Dimensions in Regional Integration, ed. Jaime de Melo and Arvind Panagariya. New York: Cambridge University Press: 22–51.
Bhagwati, Jagdish and A. Panagariya. 1996. “The Theory of Preferential Trade Agreements.” American Economic Review 86: 82–87.Google Scholar
Cameron, Maxwell and Brian Tomlin. 2000. The Making of NAFTA. How the Deal was Done. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Denzau, Arthur T. and Michael Munger. 1986. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented.” American Political Science Review 80: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 2001. “Turning Points in International Negotiation: A Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 519–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 2002. “Case-Based Research on International Negotiation: Approaches and Data Sets.” International Negotiation 7: 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, Enrique. 2000. “Quinto Aniversario del TLCAN: Sus Efectos sobre la Cadena Textil Mexicana.” En Socios Naturales? Cinco Años del Tratado de Libre Comercio, ed. Beatriz y Rafael Fernández de Castro Leycegui, ITAM, México.
Espinosa, Enrique. 2001. Interviewed on April 3rd, 2001 in Mexico City. Mr. Enrique Espinosa was the Mexican Chief Negotiator in textiles and apparel for the NAFTA.
Evans, P., H. Jacobson and R. Putnam, eds. 1993. Doubled-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fernandez, Raquel and Jonathan Portes. 2000. “Returns to Regionalism: An Analysis of Nontraditional Gains from Regional Trade Agreements.” World Bank Economic Review 12 (2): 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieden, Jeffrey. 1990. Debt, Development and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gourevitch, Peter A. 1978. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics.” International Organization 32: 881–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Grieco, Joseph. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Co-operation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42 (summer): 485–508.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph. 1990. Co-operation among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Habeeb, William Mark. 1988. Power and Tactics in International Negotiation: How Weak Nations Bargain with Strong Nations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hogenboom, Barbara. 1998. Mexico and the NAFTA Environment Debate: The Transnational Politics of Economic Integration. Utrecht: International Books.
Hufbauer, Gary and Jeffrey Schott. 1993. NAFTA, an Assessment. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Johnson, Cass. 2000. Assistant Director, International Trade Division, American Textile Manufacturers Institute. Personal Interview. 12/6/2000.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony. Co-operation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. and J.S. Nye. 1977, 1989. Power and Interdependence. 2nd ed. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Krasner, Steven D. 1976. “State Power and the Structure of International Trade.” World Politics 28: 317–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Steven D. 1978. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and US Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krasner, Steven D. 1985. Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lake, David A. 1988. Power, Protection, and Free Trade: International Sources of US Commercial Strategy, 1887–1939. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lake, David A. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2006. “The Logic of Delegation to International Organizations.” In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, ed. D. Hawkins, D. Lake, D. Nielson, M. Tierney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamar, Stephen. 2000. Director of Government Relations, American Apparel & Footwear Association. Personal Interview. 12/7/2000.
Lax, David A. and James K. Sebenius. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Co-operation and Competitive Gain. New York: Free Press.
Lax, David A., & James K. Sebenius. 2004. “How No-deal Options Can Drive Great Deals: When Actions Away From the Table Eclipse Face-to-Face Negotiation.” Ivey Business Journal 78 (7) (July/August): 1–9.Google Scholar
Magee, Stephen P., William A. Brock and Leslie Young. 1989. Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory: Political Economy in General Equilibrium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Lisa L. 1992. Coercive Co-operation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mayer, Frederick. 1998. Interpreting NAFTA. New York: Columbia University Press.
McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 243–277.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll and Barry R. Weingast. 1989. “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies.” Virginia Law Review 75: 431–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNollgast. Forthcoming. “The Political Economy of Law: Decision-Making by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies.” In Handbook of Law and Economics, ed. A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Milner, Helen V. 1990. “The Political Economy of American Economic Policy: A Review Essay.” American Political Science Review 84 (3): 956–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1990a. “The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy.” In Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, ed. Oliver E. Williamson. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moe, Terry M. 1990b. “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 6 (December): 213–253.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2006. “Political Control and Power of the Agent.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1993. “Integrating International and Domestic Politics: A Theoretical Introduction.” In Double-Edged Diplomacy: Interactive Games in International Affairs, ed. Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mumme, Stephen P. 1993. “Environmentalists, NAFTA, and North American Environmental Management.” Journal of Environment & Development 2(1): 205–219.Google Scholar
Nielson, Daniel. 2003. “Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Trade Policy in Middle Income Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 470–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, John S. 1990. “Understanding International Trade Policies: An Emerging Synthesis.” World Politics 43 (1): 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, John S. 1999. “The Negotiation Process and International Economic Organizations.” Paper prepared for delivery at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta: Marriott Marquis and Atlanta Hilton and Towers, September 2–5.
O'Halloran, S. 1994. Politics, Process, and American Trade Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ortiz, Roberto. 2000. Interview with Roberto Ortiz, Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales, SECOFI. Ciudad de México, April 3, 2000.
Pollack, Mark A. and Gregory C. Shaffer, eds. 2001. Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Putnam, Robert. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Policies. The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (summer): 427–460.Google Scholar
Robert, Maryse. 2000. Negotiating NAFTA. Explaining the Outcome in Culture, Textiles, Autos, and Pharmaceuticals. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rodrik, Dani. 1994. “The Rush to Free Trade in the Developing World. Why So Late? Why Now? Will It Last?” In Voting for Reform: Democracy, Political Liberalization, and Economic Adjustment, ed. S. Haggard and S. Webb. New York: Oxford University Press: 61–88.
Rogowski, R. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schavey, Aaron. 2000. “Choosing to Lead: Liberalizing Trade in Textiles and Apparel.” Backgrounder #1366. 〈www.heritage.org〉.
Singh, J.P. 2000. “Weak Powers and Globalism: The Impact of Plurality on Weak-Strong Negotiations in the International Economy.” International Organizations 5: 449–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trefler, Daniel. 1993. “Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy.” The Journal of Political Economy 101 (1) (February): 138–160.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 2003. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” In American Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power, ed. J. Ikenberry. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Zartman, I. William. 1971. The Politics of Trade Negotiations Between Africa and the European Economic Community: The Weak Confront the Strong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zartman, I. William, ed. 1987. Positive Sum: Improving North-South Negotiations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Zartman, I. William. 1997. “The Structuralist Dilemma in Negotiation.” Research on Negotiations in Organizations 6: 227–245.Google Scholar