Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:14:38.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Enforcement Matter? Judicialization in PTAs and Trade Flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2015

RAYMOND HICKS  and
SOO YEON KIM
RAYMOND HICKS*
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
SOO YEON KIM*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore
*
*Email: [email protected]
**Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focuses on the variability of judicialization across preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their impact on trade flows. We develop a categorization of PTAs that contrasts enforcement mechanisms with the level of trade policy discretion allowed by a trade agreement and the degree of flexibility allowed for members. Utilizing an original dataset of PTAs signed by countries in Asia, which has emerged as one of the most active regions of PTA formation and which exhibits wide variability in levels of judicialization, we compare the effects of trade policy discretion, flexibility provisions, and enforcement mechanisms in PTAs on trade flows. We examine the empirical strength of our theoretical framework distinguishing between discretion, flexibility, and enforcement using confirmatory factor analysis. The empirical analysis then goes on to examine their respective effects on trade flows. The results show that agreements with strong commitments, that is, those that remove more trade policy discretion from a government, lead to a greater expansion of trade between signatories. Enforcement and flexibility mechanisms, however, have mixed effects.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Special Issue S1: Judicial Politics in International Trade Relations , July 2015 , pp. S83 - S106
Copyright
Copyright © Raymond Hicks and Soo Yeon Kim 2015 

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

Aghion, P., Antras, P., and Helpman, E. (2004), Negotiating Free Trade, NBER Working Paper No.10721.Google Scholar
Allee, T. and Elsig, M. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement Provisions in Ptas: New Data and New Concepts’, in Dür, A. and Elsig, M. (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. W. (1999), ‘Regionalism and Multilateral Tariff Cooperation’, in Piggott, J. and Woodland, A. (eds.), International Trade Policy and the Pacific Rim, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baier, S. L. and Bergstrand, J. H. (2004), ‘Economic Determinants of Free Trade Agreements’, Journal of International Economics, 64: 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, S. L. and Bergstrand, J. H. (2007), ‘Do Free Trade Agreements Actually Increase Members' International Trade?’, Journal of International Economics, 71(1): 72–95.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. (1995), ‘A Domino Theory of Regionalism’, in Baldwin, R., Haaparnata, P., and Kiander, J. (eds.), Expanding Membership of the European Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–53.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. (1991), The World Trading System at Risk, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. (1993), ‘Regionalism and Multilateralism: An Overview’, in de Melo, J. and Panagariya, A. (eds.), New Dimensions in Regional Integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 22–51.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. (1994), ‘Threats to the World Trading System: Income Distribution and the Selfish Hegemon’, Journal of International Affairs, 48: 279–285.Google Scholar
Bohara, A. K., Gawande, K., and Sanguinetti, P. (2004), ‘Trade Diversion and Declining Tariffs: Evidence from Mercosur’, Journal of International Economics, 64(1): 65–88.Google Scholar
Bora, B. and Pangestu, M. (eds.) (1996), Priority Issues in Trade and Investment Liberalisation: Implications for the Asia Pacific Region, Singapore: Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC).Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. J. (2014), ‘Law, Politics, and the True Cost of Protectionism: The Choice of Trade Remedies or Binding Overhang’, World Trade Review, 13(1): 39–64.Google Scholar
Büthe, T. and Milner, H. V. (2008), ‘The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment into Developing Countries: Increasing FDI through International Trade Agreements?’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(4): 741–762.Google Scholar
Büthe, T. and Milner, H. V. (2011), ‘Institutional Diversity in Trade Agreements and Foreign Direct Investment: Credibility, Commitment, and Economic Flows in the Developing World, 1970–2007’, Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, 19 March 2011, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. J. (2006), The Future of Money, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Conconi, P. and Perroni, C. (2009), ‘Do Credible Domestic Institutions Promote Credible International Agreements?’, Journal of International Economics, 79(1): 160–170.Google Scholar
Cukierman, A., Webb, S. B., and Neyapti, B. (1994), Measuring Central Bank Independence and Its Effect on Policy Outcomes, San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Dent, C. M (2006), New Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dür, A., Baccini, L., and Elsig, M. (2013), ‘The Design of International Trade Agreements: A New Dataset’, Review of International Organizations, 9(3): 353–375.Google Scholar
Foroutan, F. (1998), ‘Does Membership in a Regional Preferential Trade Arrangement Make a Country More or Less Protectionist?’, The World Economy, 21(3): 305–336.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, K. S. (2002), ‘Expanded Trade and GDP Data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5): 712–724.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. L., Rivers, D., and Tomz, M. (2007), ‘Institutions in International Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade’, International Organization, 61(1): 37–67.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (2015), Life, Death or Zombies? The Vitality of International Economic Agreements, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gray, J. and Slapin, J. B. (2012), ‘How Effective Are Preferential Trade Agreements? Ask the Experts’, The Review of International Organizations, 7(3): 309–333.Google Scholar
Grilli, V., Masciandaro, D., and Tabellini, G. (1991), ‘Political and Monetary Institutions and Public Finance Policies in the Industrial Countries’, Economic Policy, 13: 341–392.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1995), ‘The Politics of Free Trade Agreements’, American Economic Review, 85(4): 667–690.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005), ‘Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression’, International Organization, 59(3): 593–629.Google Scholar
Haftel, Y. (2013), ‘Commerce and Institutions: Trade, Scope, and the Design of Regional Economic Organizations’, Review of International Organizations, 8(3): 389–414.Google Scholar
Krishna, P. (1998), ‘Regionalism and Multilateralism: A Political Economy Approach’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1): 227–251.Google Scholar
Kydland, F. and Prescott, E. (1977), ‘Rules rather than Discretion’, Journal of Political Economy, 85(3): 473–491.Google Scholar
Levy, P. I. (1997), ‘A Political-Economic Analysis of Free-Trade Agreements’, American Economic Review, 87(4): 506–519.Google Scholar
Limão, N. (2006a), ‘Preferential Trade Agreements as Stumbling Blocks for Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence for the United State’, American Economic Review, 96(3): 896–914.Google Scholar
Limão, N. (2006b), ‘Preferential vs. Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Evidence and Open Questions’, World Trade Review, 5: 155–176.Google Scholar
Maggi, G. and Rodriguez-Clare, A. (1998), ‘The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures’, Journal of Political Economy, 106(3): 574–601.Google Scholar
Maggi, G. and Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2007), ‘A Political-Economy Theory of Trade Agreements’, American Economic Review, 97(4): 1374–1406.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D. and Milner, H. V. (2012), International Trade and Cooperation: The Domestic and International Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. M. and Hensel, P. R. (2007), ‘International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements’, American Journal of Political Science, 51(4): 721–737.Google Scholar
North, D. and Weingast, B. (1989), ‘Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England’, The Journal of Economic History, 44(4): 803–832.Google Scholar
Panagariya, A. (1999), ‘The Regionalism Debate: An Overview’, The World Economy, 22(4): 477–511.Google Scholar
Panagariya, A. (2000), ‘Preferential Trade Liberalization: The Traditional Theory and New Developments’, Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2): 287–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pangestu, M. and Gooptu, S. (2004), ‘New Regionalism: Options for East Asia’, in Krumm, Kathie and Kharas, Homi (eds.), East Asia Integrates: A Trade Policy Agenda for Shared Growth, Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, J. and Buhr, R. (2005), ‘Rules of Trade: Democracy and Legalism in Preferential Trade Agreements’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pomfret, R. (2001[1997]), The Economics of Regional Trading Arrangements, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ravenhill, J. (2003), ‘The New Bilateralism in the Asia Pacific’, Third World Quarterly, 24(2): 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenhill, J. (2006), ‘The Political Economy of the New Asia-Pacific Bilateralism: Benign, Banal, or Simply Bad?’, in Aggarwal, V. K. and Urata, S. (eds.), Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific: Origins, Evolution, and Implications, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ravenhill, J. (2008a), ‘The Move to Preferential Trade on the Western Pacific Rim: Some Initial Conclusions’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 62(2): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenhill, J. (2008b), ‘Trading out of Crisis’, in MacIntyre, A., Pempel, T. J., and Ravenhill, J. (eds.), Crisis as Catalyst: Asia's Dynamic Political Economy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 140–163.Google Scholar
Rickard, S. and Kono, D. Y. (2014), ‘Think Globally, Buy Locally: International Agreements and Government Procurement’, Review of International Organizations, 9(3): 333–352.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (2004), ‘Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade?’, American Economic Review, 94(1): 98–114.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. P. (2005), ‘Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure’, American Political Science Review, 99(3): 389–400.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. P. and Milner, H. V. (2001), ‘The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape’, International Organization, 55(4): 829–857.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A. (2000), ‘International Law and State Behavior: Commitment and Compliance in International Monetary Affairs’, American Political Science Review, 94(4): 819–835.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A. and Hopkins, D. J. (2005), ‘The Constraining Power of International Treaties: Theory and Methods’, American Political Science Review, 99(4): 623–631.Google Scholar
Smith, J. M. (2000), ‘The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts’, International Organization, 54(1): 137–180.Google Scholar
Staiger, R. W. and Tabellini, G. (1999), ‘Do GATT Rules Help Governments Make Domestic Commitments?’, Economics and Politics, 11(2): 109–144.Google Scholar
Viner, J. (1950), The Customs Union Issue, New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Von Stein, J. (2005), ‘Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance’, American Political Science Review, 99(4): 611–622.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hicks and Kim supplementary material

Appendix 1-4

Download Hicks and Kim supplementary material(File)
File 19.5 KB