Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Global Trade Governance: Whither Post-Ukraine?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO22045 | Global Trade Governance: Whither Post-Ukraine?
    Pradumna Bickram Rana, Jason Ji Xianbai

    09 May 2022

    download pdf

    SYNOPSIS

    Some argue that trade multilateralism is dead. This view is incorrect, trade multilateralism has taken a different form. Global trade governance in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine War era could be more fragmented and challenging.

     

    wto
    A logo is pictured on the headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva, Switzerland, June 2, 2020, Reuters

    COMMENTARY

    THE CENTRALISED global trade architecture established with the enactment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in the late 1940s worked well and brought about economic prosperity and social development all over the world.

    Impediments to global trade, both tariffs and non-tariff barriers, were brought down significantly across a broad range of participating countries. This momentum towards trade liberalisation and investment facilitation had culminated in the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 as the sole legitimate governor of world commercial affairs.

    Decentralising Multilateralism

    More recently, there has been slow progress in multilateral trade negotiations including the Doha Development Round, and the establishment and proliferation of new regional trade agreements (RTAs). These include mega-scale trade deals such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in the Asia-Pacific region.

    This trend towards alternative trade liberalisation strategies have led some to argue that trade multilateralism is dead.

    Indeed, the viability of multilateralism in the narrow sense of being a broad-based global deal-making exercise is being called into question given the tectonic shifts in the global balance of power. But trade multilateralism is not dead.

    Rather, it has taken a different form. The world is moving from centralised global trading architecture embodied by WTO-centrality to a decentralising one with the WTO as the “senior” institution working with bilateral, regional, inter-regional and mini-lateral RTAs in the lower rung.

    Rise of Nationalism and Populism

    In other words, today’s global trade governance architecture is defined by the co-existence of multilateralism and regionalism as two complementary approaches to the provision of global public goods namely open trade and investment regimes.

    In addition to slowing multilateralism, rising nationalism and populism worldwide, as well as Brexit, are other factors that are leading to the establishment of new RTAs.

    For example, in 2021, the WTO saw a large number of RTA notifications thanks to Britain entering into RTAs with countries that had free trade relations with the European Union (EU).

    Interestingly, many such RTAs had been negotiated during the transition period but could only take effect after Britain formally left the EU. Britain is now also negotiating a trade deal with India in accordance with its ‘Global Britain’ campaign.

    Pros and Cons of Regionalism

    There are a number of benefits from regionalism, though. First, regionalism provides a feasible approach to liberalising trade and is useful when WTO negotiations stall as in the present time. Second, modern RTAs typically promote deeper integration as compared to the shallower integration of the WTO which mainly tackles ‘on-the-border’ barriers.

    RTAs can, therefore, address ‘behind the border’ issues such as rules for protecting investments, intellectual property, environment and labour rights, and regulations on product standards that are relevant to supply chain trade which now constitutes a large component of global trade.

    RTAs also have several costs. The first is that they are discriminatory in nature. Granting preferences to some countries effectively discriminates against trade with others. That said, problems with trade diversion are more serious at the theoretical level than in practice.

    The second category of risks are the so-called ‘spaghetti bowl’ effects. This arises when overlapping RTAs create a web of trade agreements with different documentation rules, inspection procedure, and rules of origin, in effect raising the transaction and compliance costs for businesses.

    While there is some element of truth, a number of studies including one by the Asian Development Bank and the other by the Inter-American Development Bank have found that these costs tend to be overestimated.

    In a forthcoming volume co-edited by us, using a benefit-risk framework rather than the ‘contested multilateralism’ argument which focuses solely on the costs of decentralisation, we find that, so far, decentralisation of the trade architecture has not led to its fragmentation.

    In fact, global trade governance might have improved. RTAs appear to be complementary to the WTO and this architecture is more appropriate in the present context of a multi-polar world.

    Governing Trade in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine Era

    There are, however, limits to the complementarity between the WTO and RTAs. A new question is whether the above conclusion will hold in the future in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine War era?

    The answer is that it depends on when the pandemic will end and how the relationship between the United States and its allies, Russia, and China will evolve in the future.

    The global trade architecture is presently under severe strain and the world is moving towards trading blocs. It is not inconceivable for the conflict in Ukraine to lead to global economic bifurcation and fragmentation as in the past (the Western system versus the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance of the Soviet Union).

    On 8 April, President Biden backed by the Congress signed into law a bill to end permanent normal trade relations with Russia thereby ending Russia’s most-favoured-nation status.

    The move authorising imposition of discriminatory trade policy measures with Russia is being replicated by other members of the Group of Seven (for example, Japan) as well. On the same day, Biden also signed another bill prohibiting importation of oil, gas, and coal from Russia.

    Russia’s Counter Response: Will WTO Reform Finally Come?

    Russia’s countermoves include, among others, building and enlarging a regional trade order around itself. The Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is concluding an expedited trade deal with Iran.

    Russia could also extend its geo-economic influence by making inroads into the Balkans. Bosnia Herzegovina is, for example, particularly keen on a trade deal with the EAEU.

    Russia’s economic relations with China and India are also improving. In such a context, how should the decentralising global trade architecture be managed?

    The WTO must engage in serious reform, lest it fades into irrelevance. Being a member-driven organisation, the WTO is legitimate and universal in membership but it falls short on effectiveness.

    The WTO needs to reform its decision-making modality (consensus) and negotiation formula (single undertaking) in order to strike a better balance between the three objectives of institutional legitimacy, membership universality, and output effectiveness.

    The WTO also needs to strengthen its cooperation with RTAs. The WTO should tighten up transparency protocols to monitor the negotiation, conclusion, and implementation of RTAs.

    Where possible, a WTO-sanctioned RTA textual template could be offered to countries to guide their ensuing negotiation efforts. This way, cross-RTA inconsistency could be minimised to enhance the global coherence of the RTA networks.

    What Does the Future Look Like?

    Governing trade in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine era will be more challenging. But challenges also come with opportunities.

    The WTO and the RTAs should seize the opportunity to reinvent themselves to enhance complementarity to better regulate, promote, and facilitate global trade for a better future.

    The Buenos Aires G20 Summit in 2019 had introduced the subject of WTO reforms as an agenda item for the G20 for the first time. But unlike in the area of global finance, the G20 has yet to come up with principles for WTO-RTA cooperation.

    About the Authors

    Pradumna B. Rana is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Ji Xianbai, who holds a doctorate from RSIS, is an Assistant Professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / International Political Economy / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism / East Asia and Asia Pacific / Europe / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
    comments powered by Disqus

    SYNOPSIS

    Some argue that trade multilateralism is dead. This view is incorrect, trade multilateralism has taken a different form. Global trade governance in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine War era could be more fragmented and challenging.

     

    wto
    A logo is pictured on the headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva, Switzerland, June 2, 2020, Reuters

    COMMENTARY

    THE CENTRALISED global trade architecture established with the enactment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in the late 1940s worked well and brought about economic prosperity and social development all over the world.

    Impediments to global trade, both tariffs and non-tariff barriers, were brought down significantly across a broad range of participating countries. This momentum towards trade liberalisation and investment facilitation had culminated in the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 as the sole legitimate governor of world commercial affairs.

    Decentralising Multilateralism

    More recently, there has been slow progress in multilateral trade negotiations including the Doha Development Round, and the establishment and proliferation of new regional trade agreements (RTAs). These include mega-scale trade deals such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in the Asia-Pacific region.

    This trend towards alternative trade liberalisation strategies have led some to argue that trade multilateralism is dead.

    Indeed, the viability of multilateralism in the narrow sense of being a broad-based global deal-making exercise is being called into question given the tectonic shifts in the global balance of power. But trade multilateralism is not dead.

    Rather, it has taken a different form. The world is moving from centralised global trading architecture embodied by WTO-centrality to a decentralising one with the WTO as the “senior” institution working with bilateral, regional, inter-regional and mini-lateral RTAs in the lower rung.

    Rise of Nationalism and Populism

    In other words, today’s global trade governance architecture is defined by the co-existence of multilateralism and regionalism as two complementary approaches to the provision of global public goods namely open trade and investment regimes.

    In addition to slowing multilateralism, rising nationalism and populism worldwide, as well as Brexit, are other factors that are leading to the establishment of new RTAs.

    For example, in 2021, the WTO saw a large number of RTA notifications thanks to Britain entering into RTAs with countries that had free trade relations with the European Union (EU).

    Interestingly, many such RTAs had been negotiated during the transition period but could only take effect after Britain formally left the EU. Britain is now also negotiating a trade deal with India in accordance with its ‘Global Britain’ campaign.

    Pros and Cons of Regionalism

    There are a number of benefits from regionalism, though. First, regionalism provides a feasible approach to liberalising trade and is useful when WTO negotiations stall as in the present time. Second, modern RTAs typically promote deeper integration as compared to the shallower integration of the WTO which mainly tackles ‘on-the-border’ barriers.

    RTAs can, therefore, address ‘behind the border’ issues such as rules for protecting investments, intellectual property, environment and labour rights, and regulations on product standards that are relevant to supply chain trade which now constitutes a large component of global trade.

    RTAs also have several costs. The first is that they are discriminatory in nature. Granting preferences to some countries effectively discriminates against trade with others. That said, problems with trade diversion are more serious at the theoretical level than in practice.

    The second category of risks are the so-called ‘spaghetti bowl’ effects. This arises when overlapping RTAs create a web of trade agreements with different documentation rules, inspection procedure, and rules of origin, in effect raising the transaction and compliance costs for businesses.

    While there is some element of truth, a number of studies including one by the Asian Development Bank and the other by the Inter-American Development Bank have found that these costs tend to be overestimated.

    In a forthcoming volume co-edited by us, using a benefit-risk framework rather than the ‘contested multilateralism’ argument which focuses solely on the costs of decentralisation, we find that, so far, decentralisation of the trade architecture has not led to its fragmentation.

    In fact, global trade governance might have improved. RTAs appear to be complementary to the WTO and this architecture is more appropriate in the present context of a multi-polar world.

    Governing Trade in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine Era

    There are, however, limits to the complementarity between the WTO and RTAs. A new question is whether the above conclusion will hold in the future in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine War era?

    The answer is that it depends on when the pandemic will end and how the relationship between the United States and its allies, Russia, and China will evolve in the future.

    The global trade architecture is presently under severe strain and the world is moving towards trading blocs. It is not inconceivable for the conflict in Ukraine to lead to global economic bifurcation and fragmentation as in the past (the Western system versus the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance of the Soviet Union).

    On 8 April, President Biden backed by the Congress signed into law a bill to end permanent normal trade relations with Russia thereby ending Russia’s most-favoured-nation status.

    The move authorising imposition of discriminatory trade policy measures with Russia is being replicated by other members of the Group of Seven (for example, Japan) as well. On the same day, Biden also signed another bill prohibiting importation of oil, gas, and coal from Russia.

    Russia’s Counter Response: Will WTO Reform Finally Come?

    Russia’s countermoves include, among others, building and enlarging a regional trade order around itself. The Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is concluding an expedited trade deal with Iran.

    Russia could also extend its geo-economic influence by making inroads into the Balkans. Bosnia Herzegovina is, for example, particularly keen on a trade deal with the EAEU.

    Russia’s economic relations with China and India are also improving. In such a context, how should the decentralising global trade architecture be managed?

    The WTO must engage in serious reform, lest it fades into irrelevance. Being a member-driven organisation, the WTO is legitimate and universal in membership but it falls short on effectiveness.

    The WTO needs to reform its decision-making modality (consensus) and negotiation formula (single undertaking) in order to strike a better balance between the three objectives of institutional legitimacy, membership universality, and output effectiveness.

    The WTO also needs to strengthen its cooperation with RTAs. The WTO should tighten up transparency protocols to monitor the negotiation, conclusion, and implementation of RTAs.

    Where possible, a WTO-sanctioned RTA textual template could be offered to countries to guide their ensuing negotiation efforts. This way, cross-RTA inconsistency could be minimised to enhance the global coherence of the RTA networks.

    What Does the Future Look Like?

    Governing trade in the Post-Pandemic and Post-Ukraine era will be more challenging. But challenges also come with opportunities.

    The WTO and the RTAs should seize the opportunity to reinvent themselves to enhance complementarity to better regulate, promote, and facilitate global trade for a better future.

    The Buenos Aires G20 Summit in 2019 had introduced the subject of WTO reforms as an agenda item for the G20 for the first time. But unlike in the area of global finance, the G20 has yet to come up with principles for WTO-RTA cooperation.

    About the Authors

    Pradumna B. Rana is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Ji Xianbai, who holds a doctorate from RSIS, is an Assistant Professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / International Political Economy / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info