Are countries control freaks?
One of the interesting puzzles of today’s multilateral world is why regional and bilateral free trade agreements have proliferated even as the World Trade Organization’s own process of liberalization has ground to a halt. At a global governance conference today, I had the chance to hear political scientist Mireya Solis articulate one very compelling possible ...
One of the interesting puzzles of today's multilateral world is why regional and bilateral free trade agreements have proliferated even as the World Trade Organization's own process of liberalization has ground to a halt. At a global governance conference today, I had the chance to hear political scientist Mireya Solis articulate one very compelling possible explanation: states feel more in control during bilateral and regional negotiations than they do in vast and often overwhelmingly complex global negotiations. And so even though the economic benefits of regional or bilateral trade agreements might be minimal, she argues, they are sought after because states have the feeling -- probably exaggerated -- that they can influence the outcome of negotiations. In that sense, comfort level trumps a calculation of economic benefits. A few weeks ago, I recounted a conversation with a State Department official who argued, in part, that Europeans feel comfortable in vast multilateral negotiations in ways that most states, even major powers, do not. If Solis is correct, that desire for some sense of control and comfort in negotiations may be having an important effect on the global trade landscape. The psychology of multilateralism matters.
One of the interesting puzzles of today’s multilateral world is why regional and bilateral free trade agreements have proliferated even as the World Trade Organization’s own process of liberalization has ground to a halt. At a global governance conference today, I had the chance to hear political scientist Mireya Solis articulate one very compelling possible explanation: states feel more in control during bilateral and regional negotiations than they do in vast and often overwhelmingly complex global negotiations. And so even though the economic benefits of regional or bilateral trade agreements might be minimal, she argues, they are sought after because states have the feeling — probably exaggerated — that they can influence the outcome of negotiations. In that sense, comfort level trumps a calculation of economic benefits. A few weeks ago, I recounted a conversation with a State Department official who argued, in part, that Europeans feel comfortable in vast multilateral negotiations in ways that most states, even major powers, do not. If Solis is correct, that desire for some sense of control and comfort in negotiations may be having an important effect on the global trade landscape. The psychology of multilateralism matters.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
