Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:47:39.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open the door to more of the same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

MARCEL HANEGRAAFF ,
JAN BEYERS  and
CAELESTA BRAUN
MARCEL HANEGRAAFF*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
JAN BEYERS
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp and University of Agder
CAELESTA BRAUN
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
*Email: marcel.hanegraaff@ua.ac.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The openness of the World Trade Organization (WTO) towards non-state actors has led to much debate among scholars and practitioners. The objective of this paper is to add empirical knowledge to this ongoing debate. In particular, we examine the effects of allowing interest groups to participate at WTO Ministerial Conferences (MCs) during 1996–2009 by analyzing a novel dataset of 1992 interest organizations that attended seven MCs. The data we present demonstrate that, in contrast to what many expected, the WTO did not attract a more diverse population of interest groups since these organizations were allowed to participate at MCs. Moreover, we observe an increasing overrepresentation of some specific issue-related interests, especially agriculture, and a strong presence of Northern American and European interest organizations attending MCs. Another important observation is that MCs are not particularly dominated by business interests at the expense of NGOs (non-governmental organization), who are also consistently well represented at the WTO meetings. Yet, the high levels of volatility observed at the level of individual organizations suggests that, although it is rather easy to start lobbying at WTO MCs, only a relatively small number of interest organizations keep a long lobbying presence at this level.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 447 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Marcel Hanegraaff, Jan Beyers, and Elesta Braun 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaronson, S. A. (2001), Taking Trade to the Streets: The Lost History of Public Efforts to Shape Globalisation, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. J. and Meunier, S. (2009), ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics, 7(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Leech, B. L. (1998), Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Leech, B. L. (2001), ‘Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics’, Journal of Politics, 63(4): 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1983), ‘A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, J. and Lowery, D. (2007), ‘Counting Organized Interests in the EU: A Comparison of Data Sources’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4): 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, J. and Lowery, D. (2011), ‘Short-Term Volatility in the EU Interest Community’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, M. B. (2001), ‘Legislative Professionalism and the Demand for Groups: The Institutional Context of Interest Population Density’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(4): 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. and Kerremans, B. (2007), ‘The Press Coverage of Trade Issues: A Comparative Analysis of Public Agenda-Setting and Trade Politics’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3): 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J., Eising, R., and Maloney, W. (2008), ‘Researching Interest Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know?’, West European Politics, 31(6): 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, W. P. (1990), ‘Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain’, Journal of Politics, 52(2): 477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2000), ‘Opening the WTO to Non-Governmental Interests’, Fordham International Law Journal, 24(1).Google Scholar
De Bièvre, D. and Hanegraaff, M. C. (2011), ‘Non-State Actors in Multilateral Trade Governance’, in Reinalda, B. (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Aldershot: Ashgate Publisher.Google Scholar
Dunhoff, J. L. (1998), ‘The Misguided Debate over NGO Participation at the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(3): 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. (2008), ‘Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They?’, West European Politics, 31(6): 1212–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esty, D. C. (1998), ‘Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Trade Organization: Cooperation, Competition, or Exclusion’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(1): 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esty, D. C. (2001), ‘The World Trade Organization Legitimacy Crisis’, World Trade Review, 1(1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. B., Jacobson, H. K., and Putnam, R. D. et al. (eds.) (1993), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, J. (1997), ‘Globalization and International Law: Some thoughts for States and Citizens’, Queen's Law Journal, 23: 259–274.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. and Martin, L. L. (2000), ‘Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note’, International Organization, 54(3): 603–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1996), ‘A Niche Theory of Interest Representation’, The Journal of Politics, 58(1): 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. (2001), Special Interest Politics, Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpin, D. R. and Baxter, G. (2008), ‘Searching for ‘Tartan’ Policy Bandwagons: Mapping the Mobilization of Organized Interests in Public Policy', APSA 2009 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (2001), ‘The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy’, in Porter, R. B., Sauve, P., Subramanian, A., and Beviglia Zampetti, A. (eds.), Efficiency, Equity, Legitimacy: The Multinational Trading System at the Millennium, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
Lowery, D. (2007), ‘Why Do Organized Interests Lobby? A Multi-Goal, Multi-Context Theory of Lobbying’, Polity, 39(1): 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D. and Gray, V. (1996), The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lowery, D., Poppelaars, C., and Berkhout, J. (2008a), ‘The European Union Interest System in Comparative Perspective: A Bridge too Far?’, West European Politics, 31(6): 1231–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D., Gray, V. and Monogan, J. (2008b), ‘The Construction of Interest Communities: Distinguishing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Models’, The Journal of Politics, 70(4): 1160–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, J. O. and Movsesian, M. L. (2004), ‘Against Global Governance in the WTO’, Harvard International Law Journal, 45: 353.Google Scholar
Messer, A., Berkhout, J., and Lowery, D. (2011), ‘The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model’, British Journal of Political Science, 41(1): 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, S. (2003), ‘Trade Policy and Political Legitimacy in the European Union’, Comparative European Politics, 1(1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narlikar, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2004), ‘Collapse at the WTO: A Cancun Post-Mortem’, Third World Quarterly, 25(3): 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, A. J. (2004), ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing for Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States, 1950–98’, British Journal of Political Science, 34(1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, A. J. (2010), ‘Density Dependent Dynamics in the Population of Transgender Interest Groups in the United States, 1964–2005’, Social Science Quarterly, 91(3): 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, A. J. and Lipinski, D. (2005), ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death: Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups in the United States, 1945–98’, British Journal of Political Science, 35(2): 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. J., Goetz, A. M., and Williams, M. A. (2000), Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, J. S. (2006), Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1982), The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2002), ‘The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(2): 325–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2003), ‘How to win a WTO-dispute based on non-WTO Law: Questions of Jurisdiction and Merits’, Journal of World Trade, 37(6): 997–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piewitt, M. (2010), ‘Participatory Governance in the WTO: How Inclusive Is Global Civil Society’, Journal of World Trade, 44(2): 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piewitt, M., Rodekamp, M., and Steffek, J. (2010), ‘Civil Society in World Politics: How Accountable are Transnational CSOs?’, Journal of Civil Society, 6(3): 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppelaars, C. (2009a), Steering a Course between Friends or Foes: Why Bureaucrats interact with Interest Groups, Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Poppelaars, C. (2009b), ‘Corporatism or Lobbyism behind Dutch Dikes? Interest Representation in the Netherlands’, in McGrath, C. (ed.), Interest Groups and Lobbying, Volume II: Europe, Lewistone, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’, International Organization, 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, D. (2000), ‘Civil Society and the WTO’, World Economy, 23(9): 1119–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960), The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America, Hinsdale, ILL: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Scholte, J. A. (2000), ‘Civil society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance’, Government and Opposition, 39(2): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, J. A. (2004), ‘Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance’, Government and Opposition, 39(2): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, G. C. (2001), ‘The World Trade Organization under Challenge: Democracy and the Law and Politics of the WTO's Treatment of Trade and Environment Matters’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 25: 1–93.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. C. (2003), Defending Interests: Public–Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, P. J. (1998), ‘Learning to Live with NGOs’, Foreign Policy, 112: 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (2005), ‘Globalization and Transnational Social Movement Organizations’, in Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, R. W., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (2006), ‘Social Movements and Multilateralism’, in Neuman, E., Thakur, R., and Tirman, J. (eds.), Multilateralism under Challenge? Power, International Order, and Structural Change, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. and Weist, D. (2005), ‘The Uneven Geography of Global Civil Society: National and Global Influences on Transnational Association’, Social Forces, 84(2): 621–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smythe, E. and Smith, P. J. (2006), ‘Legitimacy, Transparency, and Information Technology: The World Trade Organizations in an Era of Contentious Trade Politics’, Global Governance, 12(1): 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, P. J. (2000), ‘The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and Its False Prophets’, Foreign Affairs, 79(9): 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, D. P. (2009), ‘The Future of the WTO: The Case for Institutional Reform’, Journal of International Economic Law, 12(4): 803–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, J. and Kissling, C. (2006), ‘Civil Society Participation in International Governance: The UN and the WTO Compared’, TranState Working Papers, Bremen: University of Bremen.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B. (1951), The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. (2008), ‘NGO Involvement in the WTO: A Comparative Perspective’, Journal of International Economic Law, 11(4): 717–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F. R., Mahoney, C., and Berkhout, J. (2010), ‘Measuring the Size and Scope of the EU Interest Group Population’, European Union Politics, 11(3): 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. R. and Peterson, J. (2006), ‘The EU and the New Trade Politics’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6): 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar