Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T13:54:42.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trading Away Tariffs: The Operations of the GATT System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2021

Judith Goldstein  and
Robert Gulotty
Judith Goldstein*
Affiliation:
Stanford University and University of Chicago, USA
Robert Gulotty
Affiliation:
Stanford University and University of Chicago, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since its formation, the GATT/WTO system has facilitated a worldwide reduction of trade barriers. We return to a founding moment of the regime, the GATT 1947 (GATT47), and look closely at the liberalization process, analyzing exactly what concessions were granted to whom and in return for what. With these data, we evaluate three prominent explanations for the operation of the early GATT. First, we ask whether or not US negotiators granted asymmetric access to the US market to spur post-war recovery. Second, we look at how the rules adopted in GATT47 balanced the interests of import sensitive producers with those of the more nascent exporter interests. Third, we examine specific US concessions and ask whether or not the US used the domestic market to either increase the productive capacity of nations damaged during the war and/or to bolster unstable regimes. Our most general finding is that the US, at least in this first Round of the trade regime, was less a liberal warrior and more a seeker of stability, and that tariff setting was significantly constrained by the institutions governing global tariff negotiations.

Keywords

GATTtariff bargainingUS foreign policy
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 135 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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

Baccini, L. and Urpelainen, J. (2014) ‘International Institutions and Domestic Politics: Can Preferential Trading Agreements Help Leaders Promote Economic Reform?’, The Journal of Politics 76(1), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (2002) The Economics of the World Trading System. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (2011) ‘What Do Trade Negotiators Negotiate About? Empirical Evidence from the World Trade Organization’, American Economic Review 101(4), 1238–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K., Mavroidis, P.C., and Staiger, R.W. (2002) ‘It's a Question of Market Access’, American Journal of International Law 96(1), 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K., Staiger, R.W., and Yurukoglu, A. (2020) ‘Multilateral Trade Bargaining: A First Look at the GATT Bargaining Records’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12(3), 72–105.Google Scholar
Bailey, M., Goldstein, J., and Weingast, B.R. (1997) ‘The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade’, World Politics 49(3), 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, J., Goldstein, J., Josling, T., and Steinberg, R. (2006) The Evolution of the Trade Regime. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beshkar, M., Bond, E.W., and Rho, Y. (2015) ‘Tariff Binding and Overhang: Theory and Evidence’, Journal of International Economics 97(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. (2015) What's Left for the WTO?. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Crowley, M.A. (2016) ‘The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy’, in Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R. (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy, Vol. 1, Part A. North-Holland, pp. 3–108.Google Scholar
Cribari-Neto, F. and Zeileis, A. (2010) ‘Beta Regression in R’, Journal of Statistical Software 34(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. (2010) Protection for Exporters: Power and Discrimination in Transatlantic Trade Relations, 1930–2010. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Eckes, A.E. (1995) Opening America's Market: US Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776. University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
France. I.N.S.E.E. (1949), Recensement général de la population effectué le 10 mars 1946. Etat-civil et activité professionnelle de la population présente: Premiers résultats détaillés. Presses universitaires de France (Impr. nationale).Google Scholar
Gilligan, M.J. (1997) Empowering Exporters: Michigan Studies in International Political Economy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, R. (1988) ‘The Theory of Hegemonic War’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18(4), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J.L. and Gowa, J. (2002) ‘US National Power and the Post-War Trading Regime’, World Trade Review 1(2), 153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Gulotty, R. (2014) ‘America and Trade Liberalization: The Limits of Institutional Reform’, International Organization 68(2), 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Gulotty, R. (2021) ‘America and the Trade Regime: What Went Wrong?’, International Organization 75(2), 524–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1994) ‘Protection for Sale’, The American Economic Review 84, 833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1995) ‘Trade Wars and Trade Talks’, Journal of Political Economy 103(4), 675–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, H.C. (1951) Commercial Treaties and Agreements, Principles and Practice. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, J. (2011) Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, D.A. (1998) ‘Changes in US Tariffs: The Role of Import Prices and Commercial Policies’, American Economic Review 88, 1015–26.Google Scholar
Irwin, D.A. (2002) Free Trade under Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, D., Mavroidis, P., and Sykes, A. (2008) The Genesis of the GATT. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H.G. (1953) ‘Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation’, The Review of Economic Studies 21(2), 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, I.S., Liao, S., and Imai, K. (2020) ‘Measuring Trade Profile with Granular Product-Level Data’, American Journal of Political Science 64(1), 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindleberger, C. (1973) The World in Depression 1929-1939. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. (1976) ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’, World Politics 28(3), 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, S. (1982) ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, International organization 36(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
League of Nations (1921–38) Direction of International Trade. League of Nations.Google Scholar
Ludema, R.D. and Mayda, A.M. (2013) ‘Do Terms-of-Trade Effects Matter for Trade Agreements? Theory and Evidence from WTO Countries’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(4), 1837–1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, E.D. and Milner, H.V. (2012) Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nicita, A., Olarreaga, M., and Silva, P. (2018) ‘Cooperation in WTO's Tariff Waters?’, Journal of Political Economy 126(3), 1302–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. (1935) Politics, Pressure and the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Robertson, L.C.J.A., Burr, R., and Barth, B. (2013) USAF THOR Database; www.afri.au.af.mil/thor retrieved on (1,10,17).Google Scholar
Staiger, R.W. and Tabellini, G. (1987) ‘Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Protection’, The American Economic Review 77(5), 823–837.Google Scholar
US Government (1932–1933) ‘Economic Analysis of Foreign Trade of the United States in Relation to the Tariff’, S. Res. 325, 72nd Congress, 2nd session.Google Scholar