There are two aspects to the WTO power structure that lead it to deviate from even a moderately acceptable level of democracy. The first has to do with the behind-the-scenes manipulation, which Patrick referred to. It is only formally a one-country, one-vote institution. The second has to do with the role of the WTO in imposing the interests of some sectors of each member country's ruling class on the rest. This is the part that gets modeled in all those formulaic "political economy of free trade" papers. Those who own or run particular industries often have their own desired trade barriers; the WTO, in principle, exists to lean against them in order to reduce trade barriers generally. In practice, this has been highly uneven, with much more protection permitted in some sectors than others. But the main point is that the WTO serves as a quid pro quo mechanism for the market access folks everywhere: your country must accord market access here in order to get market access there. And market access reflects one set of political interests among many. What demonstrators have been demonstrating against is the steady push, utilizing the WTO as a vehicle, for the market access interests of those who profit from exports in every country against all the other social/economic/environmental interests that conflict with them. By its very nature, the WTO is a club to be used against democracy.
I agree, however, that there are many levels of hell, and the IMF occupies a rung that makes the WTO's look like, well, Lake Geneva (where it actually sits).
Peter
Doug Henwood wrote:
Peter Dorman wrote:
rgely powerless. It benefits from the importance of being unimportant. The WTO is fatally flawed because it rests on the foundation of trade ministers, the designated corporate gofers within any government. On top of that, it is the product (as are all really important international organizations, unlike the ILO, UNESCO, etc.) of global power imbalances.
Yes, but...it is a one country, one vote institution, and as Bhagwati argues, for that reason, not a favored instrument of the U.S. or the other G7 countries. Its entire budget, as he pointed out, is smaller than the IMF's travel budget. Unlike the IMF, though, it's ruled against the U.S. It seems to me less dangerous than the Bretton Woods Institutions.
Doug
