Library of Economics and Liberty masthead logo
 
Search EconLog
Recent Entries
Recent Entries by author
Bryan Caplan
David Henderson
Arnold Kling
Browse Archives
by date
by author
by category
Subscribe
About EconLog
Frequently Asked Questions
EconLog FAQ
Econlib Resources
About Econlib
Contact Econlib
Quote of the Day
Birthdays & Commemorations
Frequently Asked Questions
Get Econlib Newsletter
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)
RDF (Excerpts)
Feedburner (One-click subscriptions)
More
FAQ (Instructions and more options)
Return to top
Articles EconLog EconTalk Books Encyclopedia Guides Search

Andrew Rose has a paper entitled, Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade?. His succinct Executive Summary: "No."


It turns out that membership in the GATT/WTO is not associated with substantially enhanced trade, once standard factors have been taken into account. To be more precise, countries acceding or belonging to the GATT/WTO do not have significantly different trade patterns than non-members.

I will be curious to see Peter Gallagher's take on this. Meanwhile, I find it plausible, since I think of these international trade organizations as just make-work for lawyers and bureaucrats.

For Discussion. Has anyone come across any discussion/criticism of Rose's empirical analysis?

CATEGORIES:


TRACKBACKS (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/71
The author at Peter Gallagher in a related article titled Does WTO Membership Increase Trade writes:
    I have two responses to this. First, I don't think that Rose's analysis shows what he says it shows. Second, I don't accept his premise that the value of the WTO lies in whether it promotes trade. [Tracked on April 18, 2004 4:14 PM]
COMMENTS (4 to date)
Kimon writes:

Subramanian and Wei, "The WTO Promotes Trade, Strongly but Unevenly", NBER W10024.

Posted April 13, 2004 5:02 PM
Peter Gallagher writes:

Hi Arnold,

I accept your challenge. But I may need a day or two to read the revised version of the Rose paper. Other 'made-work' is distracting me right now (thank goodness...).

Incidentally, I referred to the reponse to Rose from Wei and Subramaniam last year in this story. I see Kimon is also aware of this paper.

I'll be back to you.

Best wishes,

Peter

Posted April 13, 2004 6:46 PM
Ivan from Croatia writes:

Contemporary world trade system is very far from libaral. This is very pragmatic system for rich countries. If we have this in mind, Rose´s results seem to be not very exciting. When I look at the world economy as a whole, it seems to me that nothing is how should be. I think that economic theory need a new definition of efficiency, which will be able to explaine why world economic system, together with its institutions, is not what economists expect, especialy liberal economists. I am working on it!

Posted April 15, 2004 5:15 AM
Jamie Lee writes:

I enjoy reading through this informal place. I will surely visit you again to see if anything new appears on it.
Good luck for the future.

Posted November 30, 2004 5:27 AM
Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top
Copyright © 2006-2009
Liberty Fund, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund logo, amagi symbol
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the earliest-known written appearance of the word "freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
spacer gif