WTO – Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: WTO – Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century Anna Lanoszka (bio) Debra P. Steger, editor. WTO – Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. xv, 475. $44.95 The editor, Debra P. Steger, begins this new volume on the WTO by arguing that institutional reform of the organization is necessary because we are facing a transformative moment in the global economy. The emergence of new economic powerhouses (such as Brazil, China, and India – but no mention of Russia) is fundamentally altering global power structures. International economic organizations such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB) are, therefore, in trouble. As Steger notes, ‘[These] organizations [End Page 683] face major legitimacy and accountability crises because their internal voting and decision-making structures do not reflect the realities of the new power relationships in the global economy.’ Unfortunately, despite the importance of this statement, it remains largely unexamined because the focus of the book is almost entirely on the WTO. This is the biggest weakness of this volume. Despite the presence of very substantive chapters, the whole book misses the global context responsible for many of the problems facing the WTO. Instead, the volume’s contributors spend a lot of time describing the debate on WTO reform (contained in a limited literature review chapter by Carolyn Deere Birkbeck), examining the operational structures of the IMF and WB (an excellent though largely descriptive chapter by Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez), and contemplating a more substantial role for the WTO Secretariat (a chapter by Manfred Elsig) and nongovernmental organizations (chapters by Peter Van den Bossche and Yves Bonzon). These chapters are useful because they synthesize diverse arguments recently articulated in academic and trade policy circles. However, they do not offer anything original. What is worse, some of the arguments can be considered non-starters. Van den Bossche, for example, admits that most NGOs are considered ‘Western’ and hence laden with agendas that make them unacceptable in the eyes of developing countries. The term ‘developing countries’ is itself problematic when we consider how emerging economies are now rewriting the rules of the game. The chapter on the WTO Secretariat serves only as a reminder of things long known to those who have worked in the organization. The idea that the Secretariat can play a strengthened role in the decision-making processes is an academic dream. Member countries emphasize that the WTO is a member-driven organization and that the WTO Secretariat should always remain a place where politically neutral public servants are expected to politely exchange information and simply coordinate activities among its members. To be sure, the WTO is a complex entity and an important first step is to thoughtfully analyze the existing tensions within the organization. To this effect, several chapters offer valuable suggestions. Thomas Cottier is very persuasive in arguing for a two-tier approach to WTO decision-making. I also like the radical proposal by Debra Steger and Natalia Shpilkovskaya that would see establishment of a management board in the WTO. Professor Steger promoted this idea before in one of her articles. If implemented, such reforms could improve efficiency of the decision-making processes in the WTO. But they would also most likely mean doing away with the ‘take it all or nothing’ burden of the single undertaking and removing the inherently democratic but increasingly impractical consensus principle. [End Page 684] Unfortunately, these suggestions for a more structured decision-making processes seem only theoretically possible. Above all, the consensus principle ensures that the traditionally powerful trading nations cannot dominate the decision-making processes. One could ask the question: who would be best served if the efficiency of the decision-making processes is improved? I am afraid that a majority of less-powerful members of the WTO will conclude that such reforms would structurally disadvantage them. I enjoyed reading this important book. It presents a good overview of the critical issues facing the WTO and discusses most of the recently proposed reforms of the organization. However, my suggestion for the editor is to contemplate a more comprehensive volume in the future. Instead of looking at the world...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".