In the context of writing about what is needed in the field of financial regulation, Dani Rodrik says:
In short, global financial regulation is neither feasible, nor prudent, nor desirable. What finance needs instead are some sensible traffic rules that will allow nations (and in some cases regions) to implement their own regulations while preventing adverse spillovers. If you want an analogy, think of a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for world finance rather than a World Trade Organisation. The genius of the GATT regime was that it left room for governments to craft their own social and economic policies as long as they did not follow blatantly protectionist policies and did not discriminate among their trade partners.
I wish I understood a little better what he meant. I've read some of his work, but I don't think I've ever seen a full explanation. Based on the limited statement here, I think it's safe to assume that he does not like the TRIPS Agreement. But the rest is harder to figure out. He identifies protectionism and discrimination as subjects that should be part of the trade regime. It could be argued that this covers everything outside the TRIPS Agreement, which would mean that there is not much about the WTO he does not like. On the other hand, there are a number of areas that could, depending on how they are interpreted, fall outside his discrimination framework, for example: GATS market access rules, some of the SPS/TBT rules, perhaps some subsidies rules, and maybe some specific dispute settlement rulings. If anyone has seen a detailed explanation by Rodrik of what he has in mind, I'd love to hear about it.
