Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T09:41:31.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reciprocity in trade: the utility of a bargaining strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Carolyn Rhodes
Carolyn Rhodes
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Political Science at Utah State University, Logan.
Get access

Abstract

Recent works in international relations theory have focused on the value of reciprocity as a means of achieving cooperation in international politics. They argue that even in an anarchic setting in which self-help typifies the behavior of sovereign nation states, the strategy of matching comparable responses to the actions of other nations may educate them over time to cooperate. This article empirically confirms that this assumption is correct. It examines the use of flexible reciprocal bargaining strategies between the United States and its major trading partners in key sectors in which surplus capacity and domestic adjustment difficulties have made commercial conflicts apparent. The outcomes of most of the disputes demonstrate that reciprocity is an effective means of eliciting cooperation from trading partners. Results also illustrate that this cooperation is usually consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) norms of liberal trade and dispute settlement, even when it is inconsistent with the GATT principle of nondiscrimination.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Spring 1989 , pp. 273 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1989

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

1. See Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., “Reciprocity in International Relations,” International Organization 40 (Winter 1986), pp. 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Keohane, Robert O. and Axelrod, Robert, “Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy,” in Oye, Kenneth A., ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton, N.J.; Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 226–54Google Scholar.

2. Article 1 of GATT commits all signatories to the principle of equal treatment via the unconditional most-favored-nation clause. Yet the Preamble to GATT pledges signatories to pursue balanced, mutually acceptable arrangements. Other provisions allow specific retaliatory and compensatory actions. For a thorough analysis of this inherent set of contradictions, see Rhodes-Jones, Carolyn, “The Reciprocity Dilemma: U.S. Trade Policy, Retaliation and the GATT Regime,” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1987, chap. 5Google Scholar.

3. Keohane, and Axelrod, , “Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy,” pp. 232–33Google Scholar.

4. Beth, V. and Yarbrough, Robert M., “Reciprocity, Bilateralism and Economic ‘Hostages’: Self-Enforcing Agreements in International Trade,” International Studies Quarterly 30 (03 1986), pp. 7–21Google Scholar.

5. Richardson, J. David, “The New Political Economy of Trade Policy,” in Krugman, Paul R., ed., Strategic Trade Policy and the New International Economics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986), p. 274Google Scholar.

6. Axelrod, , Evolution of Cooperation, p. 13Google Scholar.

7. Jackson, John, “Dispute Settlement Techniques Between Nations Concerning Economic Relations—With Special Emphasis on GATT,” in Carbonneau, T., ed., Resolving Transnational Disputes Through International Arbitration (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1984), pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

8. See footnote 2 above.

9. John Ruggie developed the concept of “embedded liberalism” to explain American trade policy and GATT. This term aptly describes the persisting American normative view. See Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

10. Keohane, , “Reciprocity in International Relations,” p. 8Google Scholar.

11. In an interview in Geneva in January 1985 with Jan Tumlir, former head of the economics division at the GATT Secretariat, Tumlir argued that national delegation requests for economic measurements of equivalent trade concessions were impossible to fulfill, given the nonequivalence of market conditions, gross national products, export dependence, and a multitude of other variables. Politically, however, a perception of equivalence was crucial to successful negotiations.

12. Cohen, Stephen D., Uneasy Partnership: Competition and Conflict in U.S.–Japanese Trade Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Press, 1985), especially pp. 36–45Google Scholar.

13. Axelrod, , Evolution of Cooperation, p. 13Google Scholar.

14. International Herald Tribune, 8–9 June 1985, p. 7.

15. For example, Article 19 of GATT, which allows emergency import protection under certain circumstances, provides that affected trading partners may obtain compensation through negotiated arrangements or through unilateral action if negotiations fail. This principle is upheld as well by the “nullification or impairment” provision of Article 23. In instances of dumped or subsidized exports, duties that remove the unfair pricing advantage may be legally applied in retaliation under Articles 6 and 16. See GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (BISD) I (Geneva: 1952), Articles 6, 16, 19, and 23Google Scholar.

16. The term “Contracting Parties,” when capitalized, refers to the collective GATT membership that takes formal action. References to the contracting parties in general or to one contracting party in particular are not capitalized.

17. Strange, Susan and Tooze, Roger, eds., The International Politics of Surplus Capacity: Competition for Market Shares in the World Recession (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1981)Google Scholar.

18. GATT, B1SD 1 (Geneva: 1952), Article IIGoogle Scholar.

19. Jones, Kent, “The Political Economy of VER Agreements,” Kyklos 37, no. 1, 1984, p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. After voluntary export restraints were placed on Japanese automobiles in 1981, Japanese imports increased from 1,911,525 units in 1981 to 2,603,015 units in 1984. There was an increase for steel as well. After the voluntary export restraint for steel was arranged with the EC in 1982, import levels from EC sources increased from 7.3 percent of total U.S. consumption in 1982 to 7.5 percent in 1985. Overall, steel imports grew in the same period from 21.85 percent of consumption to 27.6 percent. For statistics regarding automobiles, see U.S. Department of Commerce, Official Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1985Google Scholar. For statistics regarding steel, see U.S. Department of Commerce, Official Statistics, compiled in U.S. International Trade Commission, Monthly Report on Selected Steel Industry Data, Washington, D.C., 01 1986Google Scholar.

21. Although the individual members of the EC are the GATT contracting parties, the EC represents their interests collectively with other contracting parties in most cases.

22. Keohane and Nye's useful concept of “vulnerability interdependence” is well illustrated in these cases. See Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S.. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977), particularly pp. 13–19Google Scholar.

23. There is one exception to this generalization: the U.S.–Canada automobile trade dispute of the early 1960s took place under very different market conditions. The automobile sector has since been a classic example of surplus capacity.

24. Rhodes-Jones, “Reciprocity Dilemma,” chaps. 6–8.

25. Mueller, Hans and van der Ven, Hans, “Perils in the Brussels–Washington Steel Pact of 1982,” The World Economy 5 (09 1982), p. 262CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Benyon, Frank and Bourgeois, Jacques, “The European Community–United States Steel Arrangement,” Common Market Law Review 21 (06 1984), p. 340Google Scholar.

27. Ibid., p. 333.

28. Woolcock, Steven, “U.S.–European Trade Relations,” International Affairs 58 (Autumn 1982), pp. 616–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Horlick, Gary, “American Trade Law and the Steel Pact Between Washington and Brussels,” The World Economy 6 (09 1983), p. 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. The Economist, 9 October 1982, p. 78; and 22 October 1982, p. 52.

30. See Official Journal of the European Community, entry no. L307/12, for a letter from Commerce Secretary Baldridge to Minister Davignon on 21 October 1982 which includes verbatim the same assurance. See also entry no. L307/26. The Official Journal is deposited with the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities, Washington, D.C.

31. Matsushita, Mitsuo and Repeta, Lawrence, “Restricting the Supply of Japanese Automobiles: Sovereign Collusion?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 14 (Winter 1982), p. 49Google Scholar.

32. Ballance, Robert H. and Sinclair, Stuart W., “Reindustrializing America: Policy Makers and Interest Groups,” The World Economy 7 (06 1984), p. 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Hormats, Robert, “Auto Parts Industry,” Department of State Bulletin 82, no. 2059, 02 1982, p. 40Google Scholar.

34. Matsushita, and Repeta, , “Restricting the Supply of Japanese Automobiles,” p. 50Google Scholar.

35. Leo, Robert J., “An Update of the Japanese Export Restraint,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 8 (Winter 1982), pp. 159–60Google Scholar.

36. Jones, , “Political Economy of VER Agreements,” p. 86Google Scholar.

37. See Hay, Keith A. J. and Sulzenko, Andrei, “U.S. Trade Policy and ‘Reciprocity,’” Journal of World Trade Law 16 (11–12 1982), pp. 472–73Google Scholar; Cline, William R., ”Reciprocity: A New Approach to World Trade Policy?” in Cline, William R., ed., Trade Policy in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1983), pp. 121–58Google Scholar; and Far Eastern Economic Review, 18 December 1981, p. 43.

38. Keohane, , “Reciprocity in International Relations,” p. 4Google Scholar.

39. See footnote 20 above.

40. Stedman, Charles, “Canada–U.S. Automotive Agreement: The Sectoral Approach,” Journal of World Trade Law 8 (03–04 1974), p. 176Google Scholar.

41. Winham, Gilbert R.. The Automobile Trade Crisis of 1980 (Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University Center for Foreign Policy Studies, 1981), p. 88Google Scholar.

42. Stedman, , “Canada–U.S. Automotive Agreement,” p. 177Google Scholar.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Winham, , Automobile Trade Crisis of 1980, p. 89Google Scholar.

46. Beigie, Carl E., The Canada–U.S. Automotive Agreement: An Evaluation (Montreal: Canadian American Committee, 1970), p. 1Google Scholar.

47. Stedman, , “Canada–U.S. Automotive Agreement,” p. 181Google Scholar. A GATT waiver was obtained by the United States to enter into this preferential arrangement with Canada. Canada required no waiver, since it agreed to offer the same opportunity to any other exporters willing to undertake the required investment in Canadian production.

48. GATT, Panel Report SCMI42: European Economic Community Subsidies on Export of Wheat Flour (Geneva: 21 03 1983)Google Scholar.

49. GATT, Panel Report SCMI43: European Economic Community Subsidies on the Export of Pasta Products (Geneva: 19 05 1983)Google Scholar.

50. Article 11, Section 2(c) of GATT excepts “import restrictions on any agricultural or fisheries product, imported in any form, necessary to the enforcement of governmental measures which operate(i) to restrict the quantities of the like domestic product permitted to be marketed or produced [or]…(ii) to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product.” Moreover, Article 16 of GATT allows an exception for export subsidies of primary products to the extent that they assist the exporting nation in maintaining an “equitable share” of the market. See GATTBISD I (Geneva: 1952)Google Scholar; and GATT BISD 26 (Geneva: 1980)Google Scholar. See also Hillman, Jimmye S., ”Evolution of American Agricultural Trade Policy and European Interaction,” in de Haen, Hartwig, Johnson, Glenn, and Tangerman, Stefan, eds., Agriculture and International Relations: Analysis and Policy (London: Macmillan, 1985), pp. 159–60Google Scholar; and Winham, Gilbert R., International Trade and the Tokyo Round Negotiation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986), chap. 4Google Scholar.

51. Hill, Brian E., The Common Agricultural Policy: Past, Present, and Future (New York: Methuen, 1984), pp. 19 and 23–25Google Scholar.

52. The Economist, 5 April 1986, p. 54.

53. While the administration pledged the United States to a policy of matching subsidy for subsidy, it also has promised a policy based upon full reliance on market competition to allow prices to find their “natural” level. The development of this latter policy is largely in response to the unexpected costs of agricultural support programs under this administration at a time when the size of the federal budget deficit is an increasing political liability.

54. Recent reports from the EC indicate that more than defensiveness is behind statements about agricultural reform. The reduction of price supports in both dairy and beef production is cited as evidence of a commitment to broaden the effort to wheat and wheat products. See Europe, June 1987, p. 15.