We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter critically examines the People’s Republic of China’s engagement with international trade law from the perspectives of rule-taking and rule-making, including China’s pre-reform planned economy-based trade regime, its voluntary internalization of global trade rules in the decade before its World Trade Organization (WTO) accession, trade reform to comply with WTO rules, the China–US trade war (in violation of international trade law) and the Chinese position on WTO reform. It argues that, in its reform and opening-up period (1978–present), China has largely been a rule-taker and a responsible – albeit possibly reluctant at times – status quo power in the United States-led, West-dominated international economic system. On the other hand, it has also taken an instrumentalist approach to international trade law with a foreign trade policy pragmatically oriented towards achieving a balance between trade liberalization and protectionism based on calculated uses of industrial policy tools and non-tariff barriers to support selected domestic industries.
The 1980s and 1990s saw a policy revolution in developing countries in which many highly protected (if not closed) economies were opened to world trade. These reforms were largely undertaken unilaterally, but international economic institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization supported these efforts. This paper examines the ways in which these institutions promoted, or failed to promote, trade policy reform during this pivotal period.
This paper examines the elimination of all agricultural policy distortions in all trading countries and agricultural production decisions in the United States, as well as subsequent environmental quality in the presence and absence of nondegradation environmental standards. The results suggest that trade liberalization has the potential to increase domestic production and boost agricultural returns by as much as 8.5 percent. Consumer surplus would likely fall, and the discharge of nutrients, sediment, and pesticides would likely increase. However, environmental policies can limit these adverse environmental impacts and mute the potential decrease in consumer surplus, while leaving increased returns to agricultural production.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.