Imagined Commodities: Non-trade Policies in the Doha Round Conference Paper Prepared for APSA Annual Meeting 2009 First draft, please do not circulate without permission. Holly Jarman, SUNY Albany
[email protected]
“The United States and the European Union share a critical premise: our trade agenda must be consistent with our values.” – USTR Robert Zoellick, July 20011 In the last two decades, the global trade agenda has expanded to include agricultural products and trade in services during the Uruguay round (1986-1994), intellectual property (1994), the environment (1995), then investment, competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation (1996), and finally development goals during the Doha round (2001-present). Incorporation of these new issues into the international trade agenda has been driven in large part by the United States and the European Union, governments commanding two of the world’s largest markets. Since the end of the Uruguay round, it has become clear that developing countries accepted a large mandatory implementation burden in exchange for non-binding promises of assistance (Stiglitz 2005; Finger, & Schuler 2002). Developing country negotiators have thus been reluctant to participate in a round which does not address this problem, and remain wary of new issues proposed by industrialized countries. At the start of the Doha Round in 2001, US and EU negotiators, together with WTO officials, framed trade problems as development solutions, both as a response to developing country reluctance and as a means of furthering a liberalization agenda. This paper uses automated content analysis to examine the dimensions of EU and US trade discourse during the Doha round. The resulting analysis finds that framing of the round as a means of ‘development’ is weak - an indication of responses to demands from domestic interests rather than a credible international position. New issues proposed by EU and US negotiators do not disappear from the frame – instead, development becomes one concern among many non-trade issues. As progress begins to slow, development rhetoric is pushed aside by arguments over agriculture, and statements made in support of domestic producers undermine the credibility of claims that agricultural reform will level the playing field for developing countries. The analysis as a whole demonstrates a narrow conceptualization of ‘development’, which comes to mean ‘trade facilitation’.
1
“Statement of USTR Robert B. Zoellick on US-EU Efforts to Launch a Global Round of Trade Negotiations” USTR Press Release, 17th July 2001.
1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1675808
The following sections address the role of issue linkage in contemporary trade policy and attempts to link trade and development issues within the Doha round. After a brief explanation of the methods used, evidence is presented from the content analysis of EU-US discourse in the run up to key ministerial meetings. Finally, a discussion section highlights possible explanations for these patterns and directions for further study.
Linking Trade and Non-Trade Policies in the Doha Round Between 1998 and 2001, proposals for a new ‘millennium round’ of trade negotiations were repackaged as a ‘development round’. First expressed by officials from international organizations and developed countries, the concept of a ‘development round’ became a shorthand for a particular vision of the world trading system which emphasized the need to increase the ability of developing countries to participate in the existing WTO framework, while not necessarily adjusting it to fit their needs. At its core, the Doha Development Agenda was concerned with ‘making agriculture a development issue’, in order to bring ‘Africa, most of Asia and Latin America together on a common agenda’ (Moore 2003; Moore 2002b; Moore 2002a). Negotiators hoped that this strategy would cut across the round’s major divides: divisions between the EU and the US (backed by the Cairns group) over agricultural market access and export subsidies and between developed and developing countries over the introduction of new issues and the implementation of old ones. The aim was to bring developing countries together to push for agricultural liberalisation in the US and EU. WTO Director-General Michael Moore articulated this new focus: ‘In agriculture, all countries, but particularly developing countries, stand to gain substantial commercial benefits under the negotiating mandate. Currently, according to the OECD, rich countries pay out $1 billion a day to their farmers in agricultural subsidies; that is more than 4 times all development assistance going to poor nations. Negotiations will open markets and offer better conditions of competition’ (Moore 2002a). But as bargaining over agriculture grew more heated, the development round discourse came to be more closely associated with a refocusing of aid, particularly ‘capacity building’ and ‘aid for trade’ initiatives. Instead of dealing with imbalances from the previous round of negotiations, a ‘development round’ would enable developing countries to reap the benefits of trade liberalization by building up their ability to enter markets. This paper explores the idea that issue linkages in recent trade politics are not always tangible or explicit, allowing trade negotiators leeway to shape what delivering on their promises actually means. As such, it takes a slightly less formal view of linkages than that found in Davis (Davis 2004),
2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1675808
but maintains the key meaning of ‘combining multiple issues to change the balance of interests in favor of a negotiated agreement’ (153). Issue linkages as we often understand them are part of the negotiations themselves: i.e. offering increased market access in return for adopting a preferred set of standards. But they can also become part of a justification for current policy or new proposals: i.e. our current/proposed policy does not just benefit the European economy, it is valid on the grounds of some other value, such as it benefits the environment or protects rural culture. But in the second instance, the values or concepts can be poorly articulated or mean different things to different people. ‘Development’ means different things in different contexts. Perhaps the means to ensure ‘development’ are themselves poorly articulated in lists of goals and targets. Perhaps the benefactors of a policy may be unclear – for example, ‘the environment’, or ‘the poor’. This situation is arguably exacerbated when a ‘hard’ issue which benefits concentrated interest groups (such as agricultural subsidies) is linked with an issue which concerns groups with less visibility, resources or electoral power. The following analysis suggests two key problems at the heart of attempts to link development and trade. First, industrialized countries conceptualize development narrowly. Negotiators state that the initial formation of the Doha Development Agenda was about forming a coalition to force subsidy cuts in developed countries, but much of the rhetoric from the US and EU is about trade facilitation and capacity building – largely about facilitating access to the existing trade system without substantially changing the rules of the game. Where agricultural subsidy cuts are discussed explicitly by the EU, negotiators actually use development rhetoric in attempts to shape negotiations away from European weak points and towards American ones. Second, including ‘trade and development’ and ‘trade facilitation’ allowed developed countries to continue to emphasize other ‘trade and…’ issues. EU and US trade negotiators simply do not spend a great deal of their time discussing development after 2001. Development becomes just one of an existing basket of new trade issues (including environmental policy, labor standards, public health, procurement and investment among others) many of which have been better articulated than development issues in existing unilateral trade policies and were adopted in order to satisfy domestic interest groups. The data shows the EU and US often struggling to perform a balancing act between these domestic commitments and their international positions. The next section explains how the research was conducted before presenting evidence from the analysis of EU and US discourse during the Doha round.
3
Method This paper analyses qualitative data to establish a clearer evidence base for perceived differences between American and European approaches to trade politics during the Doha round. The result is a framework for further analysis – the data is essentially the answer to an open question - in a given time period, what are the most important messages that each trade agency is trying to present to the rest of the world? Essentially, what subjects do actors talk about the most, when do they talk about them, and how do they package them? I analyze 1800 press releases issued by the USTR and DG Trade between 2001 and 2007. The results for the years 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007 are displayed here, chosen in order to show the progression of EU and US positions during the round. This captures what the EU and US were saying about trade in the run up to important ministerial meetings: Doha in 2001, Cancun in 2003, and Hong Kong in 2005 and contrasts these with statements after the break down of the talks. Using the text analysis program Alceste, I draw out the key themes in each six month period, and analyze the proximity of officials’ policy positions to these themes over time. Using press releases as a way for the US and EU to ‘self-report’ is key: we can assume that both the USTR and the European Commission want to portray themselves in the best light. This builds up a picture of the arguments that trade officials think are important, and who these arguments are directed at. Press releases are fairly short and use common everyday language, minimizing the very technical jargon that occurs in other trade policy documents and increasing the comparability between US and EU texts. The texts of trade agreements are not suitable for this kind of analysis. They share a good deal of the same language simply by being international legal agreements, and their formality does not capture the informal aspects of policymaking that lead to non-trade linkages, much as a written constitution tells us little about everyday policymaking. It is important to stress that this is an exploratory method. It is not a measure of causal relationships but rather a way to simplify and portray a large amount of complex data and show the movements in EU and US positions over a period of time. It is still essential for the researcher to be thoroughly familiar with the data (I read every single press release and referred back to the original text throughout). US press releases were downloaded from the USTR’s online document library2, while EU press releases were downloaded from DG Trade’s ICentre in English3. These were then consolidated
2
Available at http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Section_Index.html, accessed between February 2006 and June 2008. 3 Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_search.cfm?action=search, accessed between February 2006 and June 2008.
4
into plain text files for analysis, edited lightly to remove extraneous text (such as tables), and ensure consistent spelling. Each file comprised EU and US press releases for a six month period. Alceste is an automated textual analysis program which takes large amounts of text and subjects it to hierarchical classification analysis- splitting it up to discover the key ‘classes’ at the heart of a body of text. Alceste is very different from standard content analysis in that the initial analysis is ‘automated’, meaning that the program determines classes in the text statistically, without input from the researcher. The benefits of content analysis are retained in that it is easy to relate individual words, sentences and classes back to the original text, and to ask multiple questions of a rich form of data, but some of the common problems associated with traditional content analysis can be minimized. Alceste allows us to start with the notion that EU and US approaches to non-trade policies are different, without the need to establish a set of concrete hypotheses and coding structures before exploring the data. Automated analysis therefore reduces the temptation to impose a structure on the data from the outside, avoiding bias introduced by the researcher. It allows a researcher to gain an overall picture of a large amount of data in a relatively short time. It also addresses problems of reliability in the coding by minimizing researcher input. Increasing the statistical component of the analysis has a price, however, and it is possible for automated analysis to miss nuances that might have been captured by traditional content analysis (Schonhardt-Bailey 2005). The final output is presented in a number of different ways. For each class, characteristic words are identified using their chi-squared values. A high χ2 value means that a word is closely associated with that class. For example, the words develop+ (χ2=95.0), medicine+ (χ2=85.1), disease+ (χ2=73.0) and drug+ (χ2=66.9) might be closely associated with class 6. A ‘+’ symbol indicates a lemmatized word, so ‘develop+’ will include the words develop, developed, developing, and so on. By examining the whole list of characteristic words and referring back to the sentences and paragraphs which give them context, the researcher can give each class a descriptive label, ‘Access to Medicines’, in this case. Alceste also lists the passive variables or ‘tags’ associated with each class – in this case I have added the name of the trade negotiators responsible for each statement. For each analysis, the program produces a dendrogram which shows the relationship between the classes and indicates the percentage of the text corpus associated with each. By looking at the analysis overall, the researcher can interpret the meaning of each branch and give it a name which reflects the argumentation employed. The next sections set out the results of the analysis.
Launching The Doha Round In the run up to the launch of the Doha round in 2001, the US and EU spend a lot of time and effort on trade diplomacy (attending summits or meetings to cultivate personal relationships and initiating new
5
negotiations). 73% of statements in the corpus discuss the creation or negotiation of new trade agreements, and relationship building activities with other states. Therefore, classes 1 and 3 most concern us here. They show the EU and US taking distinct approaches, with the EU emphasizing the social elements of development and the US talking about the links between economic growth and increased investment. Trade defense activities are mentioned less (27% of the corpus). Trade defense activities include the identification of unwanted behavior in trading partners, threats to initiate disputes against others, initiating disputes against others, and justifying an existing policy in the event of a negative dispute ruling. Class 2 is associated with discussions of trade disputes via the DSU and class 4 discussing the lifting of trade restrictions as a result of dispute rulings.
Distribution of Classes, July-December 2001
Associations by Class, July-December 2001 Class
Theme
Tags
1
Economic & Social Development
Lamy (118.62)
Typical Words
develop+(131.5), we(44.82), incentive+(27.8), aid+(26.4), medicines(26.2), social(24.4), health+(22.8), co-oper+(19.98), labor+(19.79), deliver+(18.26), together(18.04), Seattle(16.87), poor+(16.87), benefit+(16.78), concern+(16.45), facilit+(15.94), help+(15.74), societ+(13.68), environment(12.43), non-trade(10.7) 2 Trade Disputes Zoellick panel+(368.5), appellate(194.0), ruling+(112.6), subsid+(92.1), (19.68) settle+(82.0), violate(77.68), request+(76.56), appeal+(76.32), inconsistent(59.61), challenge(50.57), comply(46.49), investigat+(45.39), dispute+(44.33),discrimin+(29.69), obligation+(27.09) 3 Competitive Zoellick minister+(115.3), meet+(82.78), economic+(76.8), leader+(69.46), Liberalization (212.99) free(37.1), discuss+(35.18), bilateral+(33.93), promot+(30.39), growth(28.49), expand+(26.6), democrac+(24.41), join+(24.12), commerce+(19.31), informal(18.27), summit(18.24), vote+(22.36), September(22.36), global+(23.03), private(16.04), access+(14.63), 4 Lifting Restrictions Lamy quota+(166.3), duty+(107.6), rate+(74.8), tariff+(71.7), supplier+(55.2), (86.2) lift+ (54.22), phase+(42.32), understand(37.83), enter+(36.16), increase+(36.01), elig+(34.55), monitor+(34.45), regulation+(32.98), sanction(29.79), impose+(28.13), conform+(20.47), exempt(17.97), fall(15.16), cut(14.02) 1321 E.C.U.s classified (81%), threshold for validation 60%. Brackets show χ2 value, indicating association with that class.
Class 1, Economic and Social Development, is strongly associated with EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy (χ2=118.62). It is the largest class in this analysis. The typical words for this class suggest a cooperative relationship, with developed and developing countries working together to
6
promote social welfare for all. Looking at the press releases and key statements most associated with this class adds more detail to this picture. The enforcement of core labor standards is discussed alongside initiatives to foster ‘social development’ in developing countries. Several of the statements associated with this class concern the adoption of an EU strategy to ‘promote core labor standards and social governance globally’ (figure in brackets indicates the statement’s χ2 association with this class, # indicates a word which is statistically representative of this class): EU(39): this #international #dialogue would #help #identify #best practices and #policies that will further the #contribution of trade #to #social #development worldwide. The #communication stays true #to the #fundamental #principle of #clearly rejecting any #use of #core #labor #standards for #protectionist purposes or #putting #into #question the #comparative #advantage of low-wage #developing #countries. EU(21): this is the most generous GSP #package ever #put forward by the #European #Union. we #want #to #see more #use #made of GSP, and #particularly of the strong #incentives #provided for compliance with #core #labor #standards. EU(20): #international #consensus #to #promote #corporate #social #responsibility has also #developed, such as the UN global compact and the OECD guidelines on multinational #enterprises, which the #Commission #supports. Here the EU is making an explicit trade-off. In return for allowing goods from developing countries to enter duty-free, the EU expects its trading partners to adhere to a set of standards, and retains for itself the right to judge if those standards have been upheld. When commenting on the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, the same balancing act occurs. Intellectual property rights are described as essential for encouraging investment, but special provisions which allow developing countries greater access to generic medicines are strongly promoted: EU(28): the #text of the #declaration on #intellectual #property rights and public #health was accepted by 142 #WTO #members after some very #difficult #negotiations. it strikes the #right #balance between the #concerns of #developing #countries where HIV/AIDS and other #killer #diseases are most prevalent and the need #to maintain #incentives for research-based industries that #develop life-saving #drugs. US(26): this requires both #incentives #to #invest in #research on the #diseases that drive #poverty and #protection #provided by #international agreements on #intellectual #property. #TRIPS is just one #element of the needed global response #to a #pandemic such as #HIV/#AIDS. The United States is pursuing a #comprehensive, #integrated #approach, #stressing #education, #prevention, #care, #training, and #treatment. The emphasis on enabling developing countries to better participate in the trading system through capacity building initiatives can also be seen:
7
EU(23): now we need #to pull #out all the #stops #to #help #countries #take part #effectively in #negotiations and #to #make #best #use of the #Doha #outcome. EU(19): #to be #better equipped #to #deal with the increased #demand for #technical #assistance from its #members. The #European #Union is #fully #committed #to #providing #assistance for #capacity #building in the longer term, over and above the proposed increased #technical #assistance #to #enhance #developing #countries' #capacity #to #negotiate. But some of the statements, particularly those concerning pharmaceuticals, seem implausible: EU(19): as United #Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan #pointed #out in April, #intellectual #property #protection is #key #to bringing forward #new #medicines, vaccines, and diagnostics urgently needed for the #health of the #world’s #poorest people. EU(19): A strong #intellectual #property regime also discourages brain drain, as it #encourages the #best and the brightest in #developing #nations #to carry #out #research at #home, #confident that the fruits of their #labours will enjoy #patent #protections. Statements in this category reflect previous statements by Lamy that globalization should be maîtrisée- managed. They are part of a ‘broad and encompassing doctrine that subordinated trade policy to a variety of trade and non-trade objectives, such as multilateralism, social justice and sustainable development’ (Meunier 2007). In this sense, the trade round is portrayed as the means to ‘creating opportunities for all’: the mechanism may be economic but the goals are portrayed as social ones. The round is described as a ‘slap in the face for isolationism’ by Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler. Trade officials emphasize other pro-development policies such as the push to increase the Global Trust Fund for Developing Countries. Throughout, Europe is portrayed as having listened to the concerns of developing countries and willing to act in concert with them to rectify the situation. Although the vast majority of statements in this class are made by the EU, 6 US press releases are strongly associated with this class, discussing proposals for the new round, a public commentary process for the FTAA, trade-related capacity building, TRIPS and health emergencies. Typical USTR statements with the strongest association are ‘10 ways global trade negotiations would benefit developing nations’ and a statement from USTR Robert Zoellick which claims that the ‘world has chosen path of hope, openness, development and growth’. In these statements US negotiators emphasize trade liberalization as the preferred alternative to aid. In particular, they highlight arguments for ‘strong, effective intellectual property protection’ as ‘the cornerstone on which an
8
attractive investment climate is built’; and the potential for increased trade capacity assistance as a reward for participating in the new trade round4.
Competitive Liberalization (Class 3) Zoellick is strongly associated with class 3 (χ2=212.99), the second largest class in the 2001 analysis. The typical words for this class suggest multiple diplomatic visits and meetings with many foreign officials to discuss the benefits of increased trade: better economic growth and stable democracies. Many of the statements announce the negotiation of new bilateral free trade agreements outside of the WTO talks. Zoellick argues that not only were parallel bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations beneficial, but that In his view the new FTAs would create new ‘champions’ for liberalization in the WTO and ‘serve as models’ for countries that ‘need to embrace openness’, while also creating ‘a momentum that strengthens U.S. influence’ (Zoellick 2003). His statements portray a version of the ‘competitive liberalization’ argument made by economist C F Bergsten to explain why so many countries were forming regional trading blocs in the 1990s (Bergsten 1996). It is a reflection of a perceived necessity to attract investment in a globalized world, and seeing trade agreements as a means to attract and retain that investment. Zoellick’s version of ‘competitive liberalization’ reflected his views on negotiation and US hegemony. At this point, America saw itself as playing catch-up in the ‘FTA game’, being only party to one trade agreement out of the 30 in existence in the Western Hemisphere (Feinberg 2003). The USTR sought to link passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)5, to its ability to negotiate agreements that would ‘improve the economic environment for US agriculture’ in an attempt to persuade Congress that a vote for TPA was a vote for protecting farmers. Negotiators argued that opening markets abroad should be the major focus of any trade deal ‘because 96 percent of all consumers in the world live outside the United States’ (USTR 2001). Zoellick initiates an ambitious series of diplomatic meetings, as we can see from the typical statements associated with this class: US(50): #Zoellick arrived late #last #night for three #days of #meetings with #senior #Indian #government #officials and #private #sector #leaders. US(37): in #Washington, United #States #Trade #Representative #Robert B #Zoellick #met with the four #MERCOSUR #ministers #responsible for #trade from #Argentina,
4
th
USTR Press Release, ‘10 ways global trade negotiations would benefit developing nations’, 12 November 2001. 5 Previously known as ‘fast-track’.
9
#Brazil, #Paraguay, and #Uruguay to #discuss #global and #regional #trade #liberalization and #issues #related to #promoting #economic #prosperity. US(33): #today’s #vote in the #House of #Representatives to renew #Trade #Promotion #Authority is a #vote for #American #leadership, #American #workers US(29): as #President #Bush #said #today, #continued #trade #liberalization is essential to #promoting #global #economic #growth and #alleviating poverty. Only four EU press releases are associated with this class. Compared to the wide range of bilateral agreements the US is pursuing at this time, EU officials take a firmly multilateral approach. One of the four statements refers to EU-China bilateral relations, two to regional EU-Asia relations, and one to discussions with the ACP group of countries.
Preparing for Cancun By 2003, WTO members had solidified the agenda for the Doha round. US and EU officials spent considerable time making claims -highlighting their own achievements and the shortcomings of other countries’ positions. Agriculture and services, not substantial parts of the 2001 discourse on their own, have expanded to take up 27% of the corpus. Zoellick’s competitive liberalization argument continues largely unchanged in class 2 (487.44), and the US is only weakly to moderately associated with other categories. Statements concerning issue linkages are a key part of the discourse at this point, making up 29% of the text corpus. Above all, classes 3, 4 and 6 most concern us here.
Distribution of Classes, January-June 2003
Associations by Class, January-June 2003 Class
Theme
Tags
Typical Words
1
Meetings & Summits
Lamy (49.74)
minister+(342.72), relation+(181.05), discuss+(143.0), official+(96.38), meetings(85.2), dialogue+(77.3), visit+(67.01), transatlantic(58.7), summit+(57.9), agenda+(56.0), TABD(54.8), political+(54.01), cooper+(52.62)
10
2
Competitive Liberalization
Zoellick (487.44)
FTA(297.6), free+(266.0), liberal+(92.9), negoti+(88.81), build(87.35), Congress+(86.92), Bush+(80.58), growth(74.72), econom+(73.76), agreement+(70.2), capacit+(44.49), expand+(42.53), regional+(37.62), bilateral(36.43) 3 You must liberalize Zoellick product+(230.64), agricultural(204.3), farm+(112.2), agriculture (8.55) payment+(109.4), export+(107.1), cut(73.9), food+(67.6), tariff+(65.2), market+(60.79), maximum(58.8), increase+(56.2), maize(56.1), GM(52.6), barrier+(48.72) 4 We are liberalizing Lamy services+(581.6), offer+(314.38), companies+(219.8), services (31.59) foreign+(163.3), national+(96.5), loyalty(95.9), computer+(89.6), remove+(86.14), sector+(85.4), cross-border(76.6), telecom+(75.9), open+(71.57), insurance(67.4) 5 Trade Disputes Zoellick panel+(663.8), body+(367.5), dispute+(332.2), appellate(310.8), (37.25) settle+(306.1), dump+(239.9), findings(194.8), investig+(162.6), appeal+(160.2) 6 Issue Linkages Lamy health+(94.3), disease+(62.4), ensure+(56.49), medicine+(55.4), Vital (161.29) polic+(49.0), environment(48.7), public+(47.9), resource+(45.02), adopt+(40.83), action+(40.83), control+(40.1), research+(37.01), should(32.24), consider+(31.51) 2077 E.C.U.s classified (74%), threshold for validation 60%. Brackets show χ2 value, indicating association with that class.
You Must Liberalize Agriculture (Class 3) Class 3 is weakly associated with Zoellick (χ2=8.55), but the EU’s contributions are also key. Typical words provided for this class suggest technical discussions over agricultural trade barriers. Typical statements in this class provide some more details- US negotiators boast about their ambitious agricultural proposals, discuss the agricultural benefits of new free trade agreements for US farmers and condemn regulatory barriers to exporting their products, including the EU’s moratorium on GMOs: US(46): that’s why we’ve #proposed to eliminate #export subsidies, #slash global #agricultural #tariffs, and #cut $100 #Billion in #annual #trade-distorting #domestic #farm support in a fashion that harmonizes the limits at much #lower #levels. US(38): yet US #agricultural #exports would be even greater without the NTBs that are #used against them. since the EU imposed a #moratorium on #imports of #agricultural #biotech #products in 1998, for #example, US #corn #exports to the EU have declined by 55 #percent. EU(38): some of the #market access problems #faced by EU #exporters #include: an outright ban on the #import of a #range of #agricultural #products such as #fruit and #vegetables US(36): other #examples of NTBs #include #unfair treatment of US #agricultural #exports under Chinese tariff-rate #quotas, TRQs, on #imports of wheat, #corn, rice, #cotton, barley, oilseed and #vegetable #oils; US(37): #agricultural #commodities that would #benefit from an FTA #include US #meats, #fruits and #vegetables, #cereals, and dairy #produce. Bahrain’s #goods #exports to the united states in two thousand and two #totaled $395.
11
The EU also attempts to take the moral high ground on agriculture highlighting its actions to ‘move negotiations forward’ with the agricultural reform proposal, the example this should set for other countries, and relating this to what it sees as the ‘distorting’ policies of other states on topics such as food aid. The potential social gains from trade are also emphasized: EU(36): it is ironic that the #amount of #food #aid given by some countries tends to #increase #significantly when #prices are low whereas #levels are much #lower when #prices are #high and #food #aid is most needed. EU(34): indeed, major #industrial powers should recognize this need for more #equal treatment. By opening #agricultural #markets, consumers around the world would #benefit from more #choice of #foods at #lower #prices, with the greatest #benefits #gained by #families with #lower #incomes and less #money to spend on their meals. Several of the EU’s statements also show Europe’s preoccupation at this time with internal political reforms – both the technicalities of CAP reform and the related complexities of EU enlargement.
We are liberalizing services (class 4) A second key issue area of concern is the liberalization of services. Lamy is moderately associated with this class (χ2=31.59). Typical words provided for this class concern claims made on the recently tabled services offers – a great deal more concrete than 2001’s discourse. Typical statements in this class provide more details. Key to this class is the emphasis on the EU as a single political actor, with negotiators underlining their achievement in getting all member states to agree on services. Again, EU officials argue that they are negotiating in ‘good faith’- tabling an offer which will push the round forward. Behind this are several statements aimed at domestic actors, including European Parliamentarians, NGOs and trade unions who raised concerns that various public services such as education and health will not be deregulated by stealth via WTO rules: EU(66): in order to meet #various requests received, #particularly from developing countries, the #offer includes #several #improvements: for #overseas #companies having a #contract to #provide #services to a #client in the EU, for the first time, all 15 #member states have taken #commitments on a range of #sectors, including #legal, architectural, #engineering and #computer #services EU(72): this is the case with the #temporary #entry of #foreigners into the EU to #provide #services, #so-called #mode 4, where the #EU #offers to #widen the scope of #sectors #covered and the duration of the #stay in the #EU.
12
EU(58): at the #same time, the rules and #functioning of universal #service as they exist within the #EU are #fully #preserved. #Professional #services #foreign lawyers and law #firms will be #able to #establish in any #member state and #provide #legal #services in #full respect of the law of any country in which those lawyers are qualified. The EU offer emphasizes the benefits to developing countries of opening its service sector further, while simultaneously pointing out benefits for Europe: “the further opening of trade in a number of areas, ranging from telecommunications, to banking, insurance, environmental services or distribution will contribute to growth and employment in the EU. At the same time, the EU offer should encourage other WTO Members to table ambitious offers. A particular focus of the offer aims to give developing countries a better deal especially in sectors of interest for them via the temporary entry of foreign nationals into the EU to provide services.”6 Only 4 US Press releases are associated with this class, and the US services offer is somewhat obscured among other issues the US is considering during this period, namely the large number of FTA and regional negotiations the US is engaged in.
Issue Linkages are Vital (Class 6) Lamy is closely associated with class 6 (χ2=181.29). The EU discusses the trade consequences of contemporary international public health debates, including the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and reform of the International Health Regulations on communicable diseases. This class is the heart of the managed globalization discourse – again, increasing trade is portrayed as a means of obtaining greater social justice and a ‘sustainable’ future, rather than the goal of the negotiations: EU(32): it is the best #way of delivering what #concerns our #citizens most - prosperity, more and #better jobs, #greater #social cohesion and a #cleaner #environment- and #making sure that they are #achieved #sustainably for #future #generations. EU(32): after a passionate and intense #debate, we have unanimous #support in the #Commission and Council and a #clear #majority in the #European #Parliament. this should be a guarantee to the #European #citizens that this important matter has been #properly handled, and that we are #serious about our assurances that we will not #undermine #public services. EU(29): the #proposal includes specific #actions to #give #developing countries a #better #deal, as well as #emphasising the importance of #addressing #non-trade #concerns such as the #environment, rural #development and #animal #welfare. EU(29): the WTO #green #light should be welcomed as a #clear #demonstration of coherence among #international rules. it #shows that WTO rules are #sufficiently
6
DG Trade Press Release, ‘EU proposes to improve trading opportunities giving developing countries a better deal’, April 29th 2003.
13
#flexible to accommodate the #implementation of a UN #mandated activity. carefully #drafted trade #measures can and do #support #development. EU(27): a strong focus on #major #diseases afflicting the #developing world, but offering #sufficient #flexibility to #tackle other #public #health #problems. despite the failure to #reach a #solution by the end of 2002, all WTO members agreed that there should be no WTO constraints on #measures to provide #medicines on #affordable terms EU(26): #measures to #make #drugs available must work in conjunction with other #points taken up in the #commission #action #plan the need for stable, functioning #health care #systems and #better #public #health awareness via #education. European officials are also staking out an important policy space – statements point to the ‘flexibility’ of WTO rules, the need to accommodate other policy areas as part of the trade agenda. By arguing that trade can support development, or public health goals, the EU is also making a case for trade to support issues such as environmental sustainability or rural development which are directly linked to the defense of European agricultural subsidies in the blue box.
Pushing Towards Hong Kong By 2005, American and Europe were increasingly under pressure to come to an agreement on agriculture, and developing countries had proved that they were willing to assert their authority at the Cancun and Hong Kong WTO Ministerial meetings. Businesses in Europe and America were likewise frustrated at the lack of progress on the services agenda. The 2005 analysis shows that the discourse has narrowed, with the issue linkage approach being pushed out. A large part of the corpus (46%) concerns bilateral meetings between states. Portman is very strongly associated with these discussions of trade diplomacy (class 4, χ2=596.62) particularly the extension of CAFTA to the Dominican Republic and the creation of a new bilateral FTA with Oman. Again, US statements are only weakly linked to other classes. Classes 1 and 2 most concern us here.
Distribution of Classes, July-December
2005
14
Associations by Class, July-December 2005 Class
Theme
Tags
1
Bargaining Over Agricultural Subsidies
Mandelson (174.42)
Typical Words
proposal+(119.0), tariff+(103.0), access+(86.8), allow+(51.53), adopt+(44.78), put(43.51), move+ (42.33), others+(42.31), arbitrator+(39.3), offer+(36.65), cut(35.31), clear+(32.45), subsid+(32.06), ambition+(31.02), reduction+(30.86), reform+(30.49) 2 Agricultural billion+(221.5), aid(216.5), export+(182.5), food+(153.3), Liberalization million+(88.18), goods(66.2), provid+(59.95), product+(52.6), Key to Growth benefit+(48.92), heavily(41.53), shipp+(41.5), market+(39.35), donor+(35.39), increase+(34.67), wheat(33.19), fund+(32.02) 3 Stakeholder Mandelson cooperat+(248.9), dialogue+ (202.6), side+(123.51), Dialogue (181.98) summit+(122.2), exchange+(117.2), mutual+(92.1), view+(91.5), strateg+(84.5), joint+(74.32), strengthen+(71.65), research+(69.6), enhance+(67.07), human(58.6), technolog+(57.48), society+ (55.8), issue+(52.6) 4 Bilateral Portman President+(112.7), meet(73.7), commerce+(64.8), negoti+(63.6), Meetings (596.62) announce+(59.7), represent+(52.96), agenda+(52.2), minister(51.04), Middle East (49.1), Congress+ (42.3), free+ (41.3) 1708 E.C.U.s classified (68%), threshold for validation 60%. Brackets show χ2 value, indicating association with that class.
Agriculture (Classes 1 and 2) Peter Mandelson, as EU Trade Commissioner, is strongly associated with this class (χ2=176.42). The typical words in this class suggest proposals to reform agricultural subsidies and cut tariffs. But the key statements associated with this class provide more detail, showing the EU adopting much tougher rhetoric than previously: EU(38): for the #EU #to #offer a #final #date for #eliminating #Europe’s export #subsidies before #others have even #made #equivalent #commitments #to #reform would be senseless. EU(32): no #final #date for #ending export #subsidies until #others sign up #to #reform. The #European #Union is not #willing #to #discuss #dates for the #elimination of export #subsidies EU(28): New Zealand and Canada must be #reformed before #talks on an #end #date for all #measures could begin. After securing #commitments from #others #to #reform their own export #subsidies, the #EU has #offered #to #eliminate its export #refund #system by 2013, #conditional on #similar #moves from #others. EU(24): I #said we #came #to #Hong #Kong #to do business and this #shows we #meant it. we have #demanded, and received, #equivalent #commitments from #others for #similar #subsidy #reform. There is an emphasis here on equivalency- the need for others to commit before the EU is willing to do so. Here, EU negotiators are performing a very difficult task – attempting to
15
demonstrate to developing countries that they are willing to negotiate on subsidies, but also indicating to domestic interests that they could make tough demands of other states. Both the EU and US discuss agricultural liberalization in class 2. Typical words suggest links being made between agricultural liberalization and economic development. But this link is made more forcefully by European negotiators, who are still focusing on the multilateral Doha round. In particular, key statements form part of the EU’s defensive strategy for Hong Kong, which builds upon previous statements since 2003 to highlight EU progress in ‘export competition’ issues in relation to the perceived defects in US policies on this issue: EU(51): #food #aid is also #used as an #instrument for #surplus produce #disposal and #distorts #global trade. Non-genuine #food #aid also #disrupts #local #production in #developing #countries, and #imports #food rather than drawing on #local #markets. EU(31): with this kind of tied #food #aid, #up to 60 #percent of the budget stays in the #donor #country, agribusiness #companies, #logistics and #shipping #companies As part of its export competition rhetoric, the EU emphasizes its trade facilitation efforts, in an attempt to deflect attention away from criticism of its high export subsidies: EU(35): if Sub Saharan #Africa could regain just 1 percent more of #global commerce that would be #worth seven times more #income every #year than the continent #currently #receives in #foreign #aid and in debt #relief. EU(33): the president of the European Commission, #pledged €1 #billion per #year to #support the #trading #capacity of #developing #countries. EU #aid for trade #helps #poor #countries make #use of the #export #opportunities #provided by #market #opening. Taken together, these two rhetorical tactics show an attempt by the EU to move towards a broader discussion of agricultural reform which does not solely focus on subsidies, perceived as its weakest bargaining point. In comparison with this multilateral agenda, the US focuses on domestic agriculture, particularly the benefits for US farmers from new bilateral FTAs. Negotiators talk less about the WTO agenda, emphasizing heavily the progress being made for domestic interests through ongoing FTAs: US(33): across the region, #producers of #soybeans, #cotton, coffee, processed #foods, #fruits and #vegetables, and other #agricultural #goods will #benefit. Other #Montana and regional #goods and #services #providers will be able to take #advantage of #increased #opportunities from a US-Thailand FTA. US(31): #Mexico is an #important and #growing #export #market for #US #rice #farmers. in 2004, #Mexico #imported #approximately $183 #million of #rice from the united states. US(30): the FTA will be particularly beneficial for #US #agricultural #producers. The United States is #currently the #top supplier to #Thailand of #agricultural #products,
16
#selling #cotton, #wheat, #soybeans and #soybean meal, hides and skins, prepared #animal #feed, #dairy #products, and processed #foods.
The ‘Post-Doha’ Agenda In July 2006, after last minute talks in Geneva failed to produce a deal to break the stalemate, the Doha round was officially suspended. Despite repeated attempts to get the negotiations moving, developed and developing countries could not reconcile their differences over agricultural tariffs, nonagricultural market access, and trade in services. The charts below show increasing concern with domestic politics and unilateral statements which reassure domestic interests. Development framing is largely absent from the discourse. Without a common trade agenda, American and European statements are bifurcated to a greater extent than previously seen. Classes 1, 2 and 4 most concern us here, representing the majority of the domestically focused statements. Class 3 is a common discourse which reflects attempts by the EU and US to make policy in response to China’s increasing presence. The statements here are mostly unilateral declarations that the EU and US are tackling issues of concern to domestic interests, such as the enforcement of intellectual property rights, concerns about piracy and counterfeit goods. Class 5 refers to discussions of WTO disputes. It is very similar to trade defense debates in previous years and is moderately associated with Schwab (class 5, χ2=95.14).
Distribution of Classes, January-June 2007
Associations by Class, January-June 2007 Class
Theme
Tags
Typical Words
1
Europe Must Unite
Mandelson
Bilateral Investment Treaties
Schwab (189.13)
Europe+(107.06), argue+(83.0), global+(53.0), political+(41.9), debate+(39.0), negoti+(38.5), energy(31.8), change+(31.69), deal(31.64), call+(30.92), offer+(28.21), develop+(24,71), towards(22.86), social(22.86), end+(21.49), Union+(19.9), cut(19.31) investment+(162.9), forum(137.2), initiat+(90.3), bilateral+(88.2), ties(85.6), trade+(78.21) official+(68.5), relation+(55.21), discuss+(55.0), delegation+(43.97), sign+(39.91), private(31.66), framework+(30.07), senior(28.15), visit+(28.15), capacity(24.24)
2
(439.26)
17
3
Relationship with China
Both
protection+(258.83), right+(177.59), intellectual property(149.6), enforce+(130.4), China+(102.4), Special 301(72.3), serious+(57.7), geographical(56.7), counterfeit+(56.7), indication+(42.5), software(36.0), improve+(33.03), compete+(31.3) 4 Praising Schwab Congress+(168.4), bipartisan(167.9), Trade Promotion Bipartisanship (112.04) Authority(155.8), farmers+(154.9), ranchers(131.6), provid+(63.18), promote+(53.09), agree+(52.93), look+(52.7), work+(47.93), path(47.59), leader+(42.66), create+(41.79), approval(35.67) 5 Trade Disputes Schwab Dispute+(200.2), panel+(164.4), WTO(159.0), (95.14) request+(137.2), duties(131.2), settle+(131.2), spirit+(122.2), consult+(115.3), wine+(111.7), resolve+(62.3), applie+(49.18), ruling+(49.18) 2 1299 E.C.U.s classified (77%), threshold for validation 60%. Brackets show χ value, indicating association with that class.
Europe Must Unite (Class 1) Mandelson is strongly associated with this class (χ2=439.26). Typical words suggest that Europe is engaging in a political debate about its place in the world. This reflects a key policy strategy report‘Global Europe: Competing in the World’- published by DG Trade in October 2006, which was promoted as a new, ‘hardnosed’ approach to opening foreign markets. Three months later, Mandelson’s approach shows up in the 2007 analysis as a balancing act between the EU’s desire to protect its own social and regulatory policies and its attempts to enhance its image as a benevolent foreign power: EU(42): In a #global #age, if the #EU did not #exist, I am 100 percent sure we would invent it. It does #exist and we need to strengthen it. EU(33): together we have the weight to #shape the #debate; the weight to #bring #others to the #table. One of the reasons why the #EU is indispensable for #Europe in the #global #age is precisely because without it or when it is divided against itself we suffer a #political #power #cut. EU(27): because only the #EU gives us the #power and #collective weight to #shape #globalisation. The #alternative for #European #member states in #dealing with #powerful continental #partners like the US, or #Russia or China is diminished influence, or no influence at all. EU(27): #warning that this would be to mortgage #Europe’s economic #future to its #present, Peter Mandelson #argues instead that the #EU is a way of #shaping #globalisation to ensure it reflects #European #interests while preserving the benefits #globalisation #offers for #Europeans and hundreds of millions in the #developing #world. EU(25): Peter Mandelson #argued that the key #rationale for #EU lies in #projecting #Europe’s #collective #interests in a #globalised #world, and in equipping #Europeans for the economic and #social challenges it #brings.
18
EU(25): this #position makes a #powerful appeal to our anxiety about #change and our #sense of #social solidarity. but its picture of a static #European #society should worry us because everything we know about the #global #age #suggests that nothing is standing still. Representing a tension between domestic policies and liberalization efforts, these statements show coherence with Lamy’s managed globalization agenda. In these statements, Mandelson is talking to domestic actors, persuading them of the need to present a united front to the world. A unified Europe is seen as essential in order to shape the global trade agenda, but European negotiators are still attempting to define (and protect) Europe’s collective interests.
Bilateral Investment Treaties/Praising Bipartisanship (Classes 2 and 4) USTR Susan Schwab is strongly associated with both of these classes (class 2, χ2=189.13, class 4, χ2=112.07). With the Doha round stalled, the USTR focuses on pushing forward trade and investment framework agreements, as these key statements from class 2 show: 143 53 US #holds #trade and #investment talks with #largest #African #regional #economic #group. US #trade and development #officials #held #in-depth #discussions #today with a #delegation from the #common market for #eastern and #southern #Africa, COMESA. 22 38 #signed a #trade and #investment #framework agreement, TIFA. #Deputy #USTR John K Veroneau #signed for the US and #presidential #chief of #staff Gonzalo Fernandez #signed for #Uruguay. 442 36 #US-India #trade #policy #forum. The #US-India #trade #policy #forum is a critical instrument for #advancing #bilateral #trade and #investment, #said #Ambassador #Susan Schwab. it is our hope that the #private #sector #advisory #group will infuse our very productive existing #dialogue with new #ideas to #enhance the #bilateral #trade and #investment environment. (US)35: US and #Philippine #government #officials #today #held constructive #discussions on how to #address #outstanding #bilateral #issues and further #deepen their #trade and #investment #relations. US(34): our FTA with #Singapore has #deepened and #strengthened our #trade and #investment #ties with one of the world’s most vibrant #economies, #said #Assistant #USTR Barbara Weisel, who #led the US #delegation. But with the Democratic party back in control of Congress (and the powerful Ways and Means Committee), US trade discourse becomes much broader. In May 2007 a bipartisan deal was reached between Congressional Democrats and Republicans in which Democrats agreed to support new FTAs if they included chapters on labor standards, environmental protections, port security, and access to essential medicines, among other issues including government procurement and
19
investment. In recognition of this, key statements in class 4 heap praise on the ‘bipartisan’ Congressional consensus and highlight its benefits to key interest groups: US(84): the #Bush #administration and the #bipartisan #leadership of #congress #agreed on a clear and reasonable #path forward for #congressional consideration of #free trade #agreements with #Peru, #Colombia, #Panama, and #Korea. US(79): the new trade policy template also opens the #way for #bipartisan #work on #TPA. this will #ensure the creation of new economic #opportunities for #American #farmers, #ranchers, #manufacturers, service #providers, more #choices for #consumers, and #help #guarantee that the #benefits of trade #extend to all #people. US(74): the #administration will also #work with #congress on a #bipartisan basis to #secure an extension of #TPA. the #bush #administration will #continue to listen and consult with members of #congress on a #market-opening and enforcement #agenda that #benefits all #Americans, #helps #people in developing #countries US(53): this #agreement will #promote increased economic growth and #prosperity for both of our #nations and will #generate #significant economic #opportunities for US #workers, #consumers, #manufacturers US(47): the report #details the many #benefits of trade for US #manufacturers, #farmers, #ranchers, service #providers, #workers, and #consumers; reviews the #administration’s accomplishments of 2006; and #lays out its ambitious, growth-oriented trade #agenda for 2007. What is entirely absent from the 2007 discourse is any attempt to resurrect development rhetoric. Trade capacity building and reform of agricultural subsidies are likewise no longer discussed.
Discussion and Conclusions This paper has outlined the different approaches of the EU and US to non-trade issues between 2001 and 2007 in order to substantiate more fully the linkages made between development and trade in trade discourse during the Doha round. What is notable is that mentions of ‘pro-development’ trade policy are high on rhetoric, but ultimately fairly weak, with some of the claims implausible. Overall in the analysis, development themes are invoked early but as time passes, are pushed out by other issues. The proportion of classes in the analysis that substantively mention development issues is fairly low. This is particularly the case in American positions, with US negotiators promoting and negotiating numerous new bilateral trade agreements during this period and using those successes to entice further trading partners into making new deals, the essence of Zoellick’s ‘competitive liberalization’ doctrine. Development becomes one of a basket of non-trade issues which are used to justify existing policies,
20
balancing, for example, agricultural subsidies with promotion of trade preferences for developing countries or portraying intellectual property rights as a means for developing countries to secure greater investment. When development issues are discussed, they are often narrowly defined as trade facilitation efforts. Evidence from developing country negotiators suggests that they do not find this link particularly credible: rhetoric in support of liberalization does not make up for protectionist policies. Trade facilitation is welcomed, but not viewed as a substitute for real reform on issues of concern to developing countries such as agriculture and textiles (Elgström 2007). Strong, credible linkages should have certain characteristics. They have clear benefits, all parties should benefit in some way, and benefits can be effectively articulated by negotiators. The negotiating parties should have at least some faith that the eventual bargain will be approved by domestic actors, and implemented. With a more diverse WTO membership, it becomes harder to create deals that benefit all parties. With more diffuse issues on the trade agenda, it becomes more difficult to clearly define and articulate concrete benefits. Although the WTO is fairly efficient at handling legal rules and regulations, it is ill-equipped to deal with the intersection of trade and complex development, environmental, health or social policies. Neither do WTO officials wish to deal with those policies. As Pascal Lamy stated in reply to a question from a member of the European Parliament in 2003: ‘Is development the objective of these negotiations? Yes, of course, but development cannot be negotiated, whereas trade can.’7 This is the fundamental dilemma at the heart of the Doha Development Agenda.
7
Pascal Lamy, response to European Parliament Question No 42 (H-0039/03) asked by Glenys Kinnock, 28th January 2003.
21
Data Appendix Alceste was developed in 1974 by Max Reinert, based on the ideas of Jean Paul Benzécri on correspondence analysis in linguistics (Reinert 1983; Benzecri 1981). As described meticulously in Schonhardt-Bailey (Schonhardt-Bailey 2006), it has been used extensively in the humanities and the social sciences (Greenacre, & Underhill 1982; Weller, & Romney 1990; Blasius, & Thiessen 2001; Lahlou 1996; Allum 1998) and in the last decade has been utilized as a method in political science (Brougidou 2000; Bailey & Schonhardt-Bailey 2005; Schonhardt-Bailey 2006; Schonhardt-Bailey 2008). Alceste codes data using hierarchical classification analysis. First, the program splits up the text into ‘Elementary Context Units’ (ECUs). ECUs are ‘gauged sentences’, which are constructed by Alceste based on word length and punctuation in the text (Schonhardt-Bailey 2002). Alceste slices up the text into ECUs, slicing thickly or more thinly based upon punctuation and word length to maximize the number of ECUs it can analyze. Alceste then looks for words that are present in multiple ECUs. It notes the distribution of these words among ECUs, recording the presence or absence of words in a matrix. All ECUs in the corpus are divided into two groups or ‘classes’ with the least number of overlapping words, using a chi-squared criterion to compare their distribution with the average distribution of words among ECUs. This process – hierarchical classification analysis- is repeated until repetition fails to create any new and distinct classes. The chi-squared criterion reads as follows, as laid out in (Kronberger, & Wolfgang 2000):
Where
Validation of Alceste results is determined by the proportion of ECUs that the program can classify. A result is considered to be valid if 60% of ECUs are successfully classified. The table below details these figures for the analyses performed in this study.
22
23
Bibliography Allum, N., 1998, A Social Representations Approach to the Comparison of Three Textual Corpora Using Alceste, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Benzecri, J.-P., 1981, L'Analyse des Données. Tome 1: La Taxinomie. Tome 2: L'Analyse des Correspondances, Dunod, Paris. Bergsten, C.F., 1996, Competitive liberalization and global free trade: a vision for the early 21st century, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics. Blasius, J. & Thiessen, V., 2001, Methodological Artifacts in Measures of Political Efficacy and Trust: A Multiple Correspondence Analysis, Political Analysis, 9(1), pp. 1-20. Brougidou, M. "The Discourse of Demands and Action in Trade Union Press Editorials (1996-1998)." Revue Française de Science Politique 50.6 (2000): 967-992. Davis, C.L., 2004, International institutions and issue linkage: Building support for agricultural trade liberalization, American Political Science Review, 98(01), pp. 153-69. Elgström, O., 2007, Outsiders' Perceptions of the European Union in International Trade Negotiations, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), pp. 949-67. Feinberg, R., 2003, The Political Economy of the United States' Free Trade Agreements, The World Economy, 26(7), pp. 1019-40. Finger, J.M. & Schuler, P., 2002, Implementation of WTO Commitments: The Development Challenge, Development, Trade and the WTO: A Handbook, pp. 493-503. Greenacre, M. & Underhill, L. 1982, Topics in Applied Multivariate Analysis, in D Hawkins (ed), Scaling a Data Matrix in Low-Dimensional Euclidean Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,. Kronberger & Wolfgang 2000, Qualitative researching with text, image and sound : a practical handbook for social research, in Bauer & Gaskell (eds), Keywords in Context: Statistical Analysis of Text Features, Sage, London, pp. 299-317. Lahlou, S., 1996, A Method to Extract Social Representations from Linguistic Corpora, Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, pp. 278-91. Meunier, S., 2007, Managing Globalization? The EU in International Trade Negotiations, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), pp. 905-26. Moore, M., 2002a, Inter-American Development Bank, The challenges of the Doha Development Agenda for Latin American and Caribbean countries.. Moore, M., 2002b, Development Needs More than Trade, Financial Times,18 February 2002, . Moore, M., 2003, A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reinert, M., 1983, Une methode de classification descendante hierarchique: application a l'analyse lexicale par contexte, Les Cahiers de l'Analyse des Données, 8(2), pp. 187-98. Schonhardt-Bailey, 2002. Conservatives Who Sounded Like Trustees but Voted Like Delegates: The Reinterpretation of Repeal. MS. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2006. From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas and Institutions in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schonhardt-Bailey, C., 2005, Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and Kerry's National Security Speeches, Political Science and Politics, 38, pp. 701-11. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2008. "The Congressional Debate on Partial-Birth Abortion: Constitutional Gravitas and Moral Passion." British journal of political science 38.03 (2008): 383-410. Stiglitz, J.E., 2005, Competing With the Best, Commonwealth Secretariat, London, U.K. Weller, S. & Romney, A., 1990, Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis, Sage, London. Zoellick, R., 2003, Our Credo: Free Trade and Competition, The Wall Street Journal,10 July 2003.
24
