The name is absent

worsened status. Nevertheless, it remains true that, if ideas of fairness are seriously and persistently
violated, the cooperation on which the system rests will be threatened and the system thereby
undermined.

We do not explore the microfoundations of fairness, something that is addressed in the
experimental and game- and negotiation-theory literature.¹ We believe that, while the judgments of
individuals or nations in matters affecting them have inescapably a self-serving bias, they can all
recognize that fairness appears to be met when certain conditions are satisfied — like reciprocity in
bargaining situations or equality of treatment in the application of common rules.²

In what follows, we argue that fairness in the global trading system can best be assessed in terms
of two criteria: equality of opportunity and distributive equity. It should be understood that we do not
advance equality of opportunity as a high moral principle. It is an instrumental criterion to be valued for
its consequences, namely that it facilitates the reaching of inter-governmental agreements that protect and
enhance the mutually advantageous trading system. Distributive equity can also be argued — somewhat
more tendentiously — to be an instrumental criterion. That is, in correcting for the disadvantageous
initial conditions faced by poorer countries, it is ensuring that all can respond to a legal, or formal, notion
of equality of opportunity. For many of us, however, there is also a deontological element in the criterion
insofar as we accept it as a moral obligation and do not insist upon it because of its advantages to
ourselves. The problem that confronts us in this paper thus lies in defining these criteria in more concrete
and operational terms.

¹ See for example Carraro et al. (2005) for a review and synthesis of bargaining theory, negotiation, theory, and the
theory of fair division.

² In an interesting and insightful paper, Suranovic (2000) has classified these conditions into seven principles
divided between “equality fairness” and “reciprocity fairness”. Equality fairness includes non-discrimination
fairness, distributional fairness, and golden rule fairness. Reciprocity fairness includes positive reciprocity fairness,
negative reciprocity fairness, privacy fairness, and maximum benefit fairness. Suranovic describes each of these
conditions in detail and provides examples in the context of international trade. Narlikar (2005) interprets fairness
to mean legitimacy of process and equity of outcomes in the context of the GATT/WTO. She traces the shifts in
attitudes of developing countries towards the GATT/WTO in terms of how the balance between these two concepts
has changed. Her idea of fairness as a composite resembles our framework, but there remain difficulties of
integrating them. Risse (2005) analyzes considerations of fairness that stem from the trading relationships among
countries that reflect differences in comparative advantage, levels of income, and social institutions.

<<   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >>

More intriguing information