Changing the terms of trade policy making: From the ‘club’ to the ‘multistakeholder’ model

World Trade Review

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 3-26

  Hocking, Brian ^a  

^a Department of Economics Finance and Accounting   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746618047     PISSN: 14747456     EISSN: 14753138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1474745604001600     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Marceau and Pedersen, ‘ Is the WTO Open and Transparent?’, p. 7.
2. W. A. Dymond and M. M. Hart, ‘Post-Modern Trade Policy: Reflections on the Challenges to Multilateral Trade Negotiations after Seattle’, Journal of World Trade, 34(3) (2000), 21–38.
3. W. A. Dymond and M. M. Hart, ‘Post-Modern Trade Policy: Reflections on the Challenges to Multilateral Trade Negotiations after Seattle’, Journal of World Trade, 34(3) (2000), 34.
4. R. O’Brien, M. Goetz, J. A. Scholte, and M. Williams, Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5. B. Hocking, ‘Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond ‘Newness’ and ‘Decline’ ’, in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan, 1999, pp. 21–42.
6. G. Winham, International Trade and the Tokyo Round Negotiation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 349.
7. Aaronson, Redefining the Terms of Trade Policymaking, Washington DC: National Policy Association, 2001, p. 27.
8. J. M. Curtis, ‘Trade and Civil Society: Toward Greater Transparency in the Policy Process’, Trade Policy: Research 2001, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, 2001, p. 305.
9. Aaronson, Redefining the Terms of Trade Policymaking, p. 12.
10. A. Cooper and B. Hocking (2000), ‘Governments, Non-Governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy’, Global Society, 14(3), 361–376.
11. Curtis, ‘Trade and Civil Society’, p. 306.
12. Winham, International Trade, p. 344.
13. J. Twiggs, The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: a Case Study in Building Domestic Support for Diplomacy, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987, p. iv.
14. Aaronson, Redefining the Terms of Trade Policymaking, p. 11.
15. Winham, International Trade, p. 347.
16. Winham, International Trade, pp. 339–340.
17. R. Bouzas and E. Evogadro, ‘Trade Policy-Making and the Private Sector: A Memorandum on Argentina’, in INTAL-ITD-STA, ‘The Trade Policy-Making Process’, pp. 1–11.
18. R. Bouzas and E. Evogadro, ‘Trade Policy-Making and the Private Sector: A Memorandum on Argentina’, in INTAL-ITD-STA, ‘The Trade Policy-Making Process’, p. 5.
19. P. da Motta Veiga, ‘Trade Policy-Making in Brazil: Transition Paths’, p. 16.
20. J. Huenemann, ‘On the Trade Policy-Making Process in the United States’, in INTAL-ITD-STA, ‘The Trade Policy-Making Process’, pp. 67–73.
21. A. Ahnlid, ‘The Consultative Process with Civil Society in the Formulation of Sweden’s Positions on Trade Policy within the EU’, Working paper prepared for the Inter-American Development Bank Regional Policy Dialogue Trade and Integration Network, Washington DC, 17–18 September 2002, pp. 6–7.
22. M. Lortie and S. Bédard, ‘Citizen Involvement in Canadian Foreign Policy: The Summit of the Americas Experience 2001’, International Journal (Summer 2002), 323–339.
23. M. Lortie and S. Bédard, ‘Citizen Involvement in Canadian Foreign Policy: The Summit of the Americas Experience 2001’, International Journal (Summer 2002), 338.
24. A. F. Cooper and G. Hayes (eds.), Worthwhile Initiatives? Canadian Mission-Oriented Diplomacy, Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 1999.
25. J. B. Hay, ‘ Practising Democratic Foreign Policy: DFAIT’s Consultations with Canadians’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 8(1) (Fall 2000), 123–129.
26. R. Vickers, ‘Rethinking Diplomacy for the Information Age: Britain and Canada Compared’, paper presented at 42nd Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, February 2001, p. 1.
27. Lortie and Bedard, ‘Citizen Involvement in Canadian Foreign Policy’, pp. 330–331.
28. B. Hocking, Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and Multilayered Diplomacy, London: Macmillan, 1993, pp. 113–114.
29. W. A. Dymond and L. R. Dawson, ‘The Consultative Process in the Formulation of Canadian Trade Policy’, Memorandum for Inter-American Development Bank/Inter-American Dialogue, September 2002, pp. 7–8.
30. Dymond and Dawson, ‘The Consultative Process’, p. 17.
31. M. Smith, ‘The European Union’s Commercial Policy: Between Coherence and Fragmentation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5) (2001), 787–802.
32. M. Smith, ‘The European Union’s Commercial Policy: Between Coherence and Fragmentation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5) (2001), p. 792.
33. S. Woolcock, ‘European Trade Policy’, in H. Wallace and W. Wallace, Policy-making in the European Union (fourth edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 394.
34. N. Clegg, ‘EU Trade Policy: A Case Study in Illegitimacy’, Challenge Europe, 9 (March 2003), 1.
35. S. Meunier, ‘Trade Policy and Legitimacy in the European Union’, Comparative European Politics, 1 (2003), 67–90;
36. Muguruza, ‘Civil Society and Trade Diplomacy in the “Global Age” ’, p. 9.
37. D. Stairs, ‘Foreign Policy Consultations in a Globalizing World: the Case of Canada, the WTO, and the Shenanigans in Seattle’, Policy Matters (Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal), 1(8) (December 2000), 22–33.
38. D. Stairs, ‘Foreign Policy Consultations in a Globalizing World: the Case of Canada, the WTO, and the Shenanigans in Seattle’, Policy Matters (Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal), 1(8) (December 2000), 30–31.
39. Muguruza, ‘Civil Society and Trade Diplomacy in the “Global Age” ’, p. 13.
40. Stairs, ‘Foreign Policy Consultations in a Globalizing World’.
41. Dymond and Dawson, ‘The Consultative Process’, pp. 15–16.