The (surprise) return of development policy space in the multilateral trading system: what the WTO Appellate Body blockage means for the developmental state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – which led to a dramatic expansion in the scope of global trade rules and made those rules legally binding on states – scholars have highlighted the constraints it has imposed on development policy space. By prohibiting many of the standard tools of the developmental state, the WTO’s rules have been seen as ‘kicking away the ladder’ for developing countries, preventing them from using the trade and industrial policies needed to catch up with more advanced economies. However, since 2019, the US has disabled the WTO’s enforcement mechanism by blocking judicial appointments to the Appellate Body. As a result, this article shows the trade and development landscape has now changed fundamentally: WTO rules – once a powerful constraint on development policy space – are no longer legally enforceable. The article analyzes two recent landmark disputes – Indonesian nickel export restrictions and Indian export subsidies provided through special economic zones – in which developing countries have successfully blocked WTO panel rulings that would force them to repeal developmentalist policies. Ironically, given that the US was originally the dominant force behind the WTO’s anti-developmentalist rules and its binding dispute settlement system, one important consequence of the US Appellate Body blockage has been the re-emergence of development policy space in the multilateral trading system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".