Abstract
The U.S. is no longer providing leadership in trade policy. In recent years, we have seen a sharp turn toward a rapid proliferation of bilateral preferential trade agreements, accords that are likely to undermine the World Trade Organization (WTO). By pursuing a strategy of ‘competitive liberalization’ both on a sectoral basis under the Bill Clinton administration, and then a policy of seeking bilateral arrangements under the George W. Bush administration, this article argues that American administrations have undermined the coalition for free trade in the United States. Consequently, protectionist industries including textiles, steel, and agriculture have made further liberalization more difficult and thus the prospects for promoting continued trade liberalization have grown dimmer.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Industrial relations
Reference79 articles.
1. The Dynamics of Negotiated Protectionism
2. Ravenhill John . 2003. The Move to Preferential Trade Agreements in the Western Pacific Rim. Asia-Pacific Issues 69.
3. Bhagwati 2008.
4. Curzon 1966, 266–268.
5. This usage differs from that of Yarbrough and Yarbrough 1992, which conflates third party enforcement with these terms so that “bilateral” for them can also mean three countries, a highly counterintuitive use. Keohane 1990 refers to an agreement among three or more states as multilateralism. Richardson 1987 is consistent with my usage.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献