Dergiler / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 1

A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the Incomplete Doha Development Trade Round

Sayfa
237–255
Yayın Tarihi
2019-02-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Hence, the paper argues that the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well-being of all members in the world trade regime.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Öz This paper analyzes the lack of progress and the breakdown of the Doha Round talks in world trade since 2001 from a neo-Gramscian perspective.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Major economic powers, including the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada as well as leading transnational companies used to have a significant impact on guiding the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations as well as defining the outcomes.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Hence, the paper argues that the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well-being of all members in the world trade regime.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2001 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Anahtar Kelimeler Hegemony · Counter-hegemony · Doha trade round

Özet

Öz This paper analyzes the lack of progress and the breakdown of the Doha Round talks in world trade since 2001 from a neo-Gramscian perspective. The failure to conclude multilateral trade negotiations reflect an emerging new architecture of power politics in the world political-economic order. Major economic powers, including the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada as well as leading transnational companies used to have a significant impact on guiding the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations as well as defining the outcomes. However, in the context of the WTO, emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and China and several non-governmental organizations critical of neoliberal globalization began to confront the former groups’ dominance. Developing and developed countries have contending views on the agenda issues, marked by confrontation on the former’s insistence for the liberalization of agricultural markets by industrialized states and the latter’s pressure for the liberalization of non-agricultural markets. Both sides employ certain strategies and discourses to coerce or to persuade the opposing parties. Hence, the paper argues that the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well-being of all members in the world trade regime.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ŞAHİN, S. B. (2019). A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the Incomplete Doha Development Trade Round. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 1, 237–255. https://ajindex.com/articles/10086

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Altay, S. (2011), “Hegemony, Private Actors, and International Institutions: Transnational Corporations as the Agents of Transformation of the Trade Regime from GATT to the WTO”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Trento University, Italy. Anderson, Kym. (2001), “Bringing Discipline to Agricultural Policy via the WTO”, in Hoekman, Bernard and Will Martin (eds.), Developing Countries and the WTO A Proactive Agenda (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers): 25-58.
  2. Anderson, Kym and Ernesto Valenzuela (2007), “The World Trade Organization’s Doha Cotton Initiative: A Tale of Two Issues”, The World Economy, 30(8): 1281-1304.
  3. Baker, Andrew (1999), “Nebuleuse and the Internationalisation of the State in the UK?”, Review of International Political Economy, 6(1): 79-100.
  4. Bieler, Andreas (2006), “Class Struggle over the EU Model of Capitalism: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives and the Analysis of European Integration”, in Bieler, Andreas and A. David Morton (eds.), Images of Gramsci.Connections and Contentions in Political Theory and International Relations (New York:Routledge): 119-132.
  5. Bieler, Andreas (2008), “The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: Turning Base Metal into Gold?”, International Studies Quarterly, 52:103-128.
  6. Bieler, Andreas and A. David Morton (2001) Social Forces in the Making of the New Europe: The Restructuring of European Social Relations in the Global Political Economy (London: Palgrave). Bieler, Andreas and A. David Morton (2003), “Globalization, the State and Class Struggle”, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(4):467-499.
  7. Boyd, Gavin (2002), “Triad Policy and Interdependencies in the WTO”, in Rugman, Alan M. and Gavin Boyd (eds.), The World Trade Organization in the New Global Economy Trade and Investment Issues in the Millennium Round (Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar): 95-127.
  8. Cho, Sungjoon (2010), “The Demise of Development in the Doha Round Negotiations”, Texas International Law Journal, 31: 573-601.
  9. Cohn, Theodore H. (2002), Governing Global Trade: International Institutions in Conflict and Convergence (Hampshire: Ashgate). Cox, Robert W. (1981), “Social Forces, States and World Orders”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2): 126-55.
  10. Das, Dilip (2006), “The Doha Round of Multilateral Negotiations and the Embellishing Role of the Developing Economies”, The International Trade Journal, 20(3): 307-354.
  11. Deckwirth, Christina (2007), “Compromises and failures in the GATS negotiations. The impact of the WTO-services agreement on th