The Geneva effect: where officials sit influences where they stand on WTO priorities <sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do representatives of member states in Geneva and officials based in capitals agree on priorities for cooperation in the World Trade Organization? Exploiting an original survey of trade policy officials, we find that respondents representing their countries in Geneva often accord substantially different priorities to institutional reform and policy issues than officials based in capitals. We hypothesize that this ‘Geneva effect’ reflects bureaucratic capacity in capitals and autonomy of Geneva-based officials, and that the effect should be smaller for officials from OECD member states, given extensive interaction outside the WTO to define good regulatory policies and address trade issues of common concern. Empirical analysis supports these hypotheses but also reveals differences in prioritization between Geneva and capital-based officials from OECD countries for specific issues. The results suggest that the prospects of international cooperation may be influenced not only by well-understood differences between states that reflect material interests and domestic political economy drivers, but by differences in relative priorities accorded to issues by officials representing states in international organizations and officials based in capitals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".