Beyond Trade

• Author: Duncan Snidal,James Hollway,Claire Peacock,Karolina Milewicz
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002716662687
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Beyond Trade: The

Expanding Scope of

the Nontrade Agenda

in Trade Agreements

Karolina Milewicz

1

, James Hollway

2

, Claire Peacock

1

,

and Duncan Snidal

1

Abstract

Increased complexity and density of transnational problems create unprecedented

challenges and opportunities for contemporary international governance. ‘‘Issue

linkage’’ is one institutional arrangement through which states address these

changing circumstances. In this article, we examine the widening scope of the

nontrade agenda in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Nontrade issues (NTIs)

such as human rights, democracy, environment, corruption, and labor standards are

increasingly linked to PTAs. This issue linkage has important implications for

understanding changing patterns of international trade, including the shift to PTAs

and the rise of NTIs. We show that (1) states’ choices to commit to bilateral or

plurilateral versions of traditional PTAs and to PTAs with NTIs are highly inter-

dependent, (2) states increasingly incorporate NTIs into PTAs, as the associated

costs of policy change are lowered through earlier agreements, and (3) network

pressures favor the increasing adoption of bilateral and especially plurilateral NTIs

over time. Using an original data set on NTIs covering 522 PTAs and spanning the

period 1951 to 2009, we evaluate states’ motives behind the widening nontrade

agenda of trade agreements using longitudinal network modeling. We employ

multiplex coevolution stochastic actor-oriented network models in a novel design to

1

Department of Politics & International Relations, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2

International Relations/Political Science Department, Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland

Corresponding Author:

Duncan Snidal, Department of Politics & International Relations, Nuffield College, University of Oxford,

New Road, Oxford, OX1 1NF, UK.

Email: duncan.snidal@politics.ox.ac.uk

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2016, Vol. 62(4) 743-773

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022002716662687

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

account for interdependencies within and across states’ decisions. Following a

descriptive mapping of major NTIs, we evaluate our theoretical arguments. Testing

against the alternative explanations of power and commitment, we find that endo-

genous cost considerations are the most significant factor explaining the inclusion of

NTIs into PTAs.

Keywords

trade, network analysis, international cooperation, trade interdependence, nontrade

issues, preferential trade agreements, SAOM

Preferential trade agreements (PTAs) increasingly go beyond their traditional sub-

ject matter of market access. This has become especially visible in the current

negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and United States.

US President Barack Obama has deemed the TPP to be ‘‘the highest-standard, most

progressive trade deal in history,’’ praising its ‘‘strong, enforceable provisions for

workers ... [and] on the environment’’ (The White House 2015). Similarly, the

TTIP is ‘‘about more than ... [an] economic boost’’ as it is likely to include

provisions covering democracy, rule of law, environment, and social standards

(Malmstro¨m and Hill 2015). We term such provisions that do not directly concern

trade and go beyond what is typically regulated by the multilateral trading system

‘‘nontrade issues’’ (NTIs).

While the inclusion of NTI provisions has received extraordinary attention in

negotiations over the plurilateral TPP and bilateral TTIP, both agreements actually

build on the experience of over 327 previousPTAs that include NTI provisions. NTIs

are not just a feature of the contemporary trade agenda but have become increasingly

common over the past couple of decades. However, their incorporation remains

largely outside of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) regulatory jurisdiction.

1

Although developed states have long sought to more fully incorporate NTIs into the

WTO agenda, they have encountered strong resistance primarily from developing

states, which see the linking of NTIs to trade as a cover for Northern protectionism

(Bhagwati 2002; Joseph 2013; Shahin 2002). Indeed, NTI provisions are potentially

costly commitments that may require costly policy changes. For example, four TPP

members—Vietnam, Mexico, Brunei, and Malaysia—have labor rights practices that

do not conform to current TPP proposals (Trumpka 2015), implying the need for

expensive reforms. Why then have NTIs proliferated along with PTAs?

2

We begin our investigation of this question by considering three theoretical

explanations. First, NTIs could express a commitment among trade partners to

protect the trade agreement from being undermined by ‘‘race to the bottom’’ com-

petition on NTIs and/or to use trade as a means to achieve NTI-related values. In this

view, the TTIP also offers an opportunity to strengthen ‘‘shared Atlantic values,

from the fundamentals of democracy and the rule of law, to key areas such as the

744 Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(4)