Thread by @CoppetainPU

Thanks, but I have reservations.

I'm happy to read about where policies might be going wrong, to discuss whether the characterisation of the ideologies behind trade liberalisation are correct.

But is the WTO is only of that ideology? The leap to "WTO reform" is illogical

1/5

https://twitter.com/JohnHol32019188/status/1389464497933402114

1. It's false to assume that "rules-based" (p8) means the same as "liberalisation". You can have "rules-based" trade barriers and indeed the WTO agreements allow for many. Some argue that having predictable rules is more valuable than lowering tariffs that are already low.

2/5

2. Which highlights the fact that WTO agreements—the outcome of negotiations—are a compromise between different interests and different ideologies. The WTO system does not come from just one ideology.

That makes the paper's notion of "WTO reform" quite off target.

3/5

3. A couple of illustrations.

The paper is scathing about calls to cut "trade-distorting" policies. That assumes complaints about the huge distortions of farm subsidies in rich countries are also invalid.

Trade-distortion is a problem. How and when to deal with it are key.

4/5

It complains about developing countries "binding" tariffs (setting legal ceilings). This is the "policy-space" argument. But many of them have bound agricultural tariffs at 100% or more. How much more policy space do they need? What would that do to their own food prices?

5/5