Developing a novel index to evaluate labour chapters in trade agreements: Canada’s ambition–enforceability compromise

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
H. Williams, M. Lilly
{"title":"Developing a novel index to evaluate labour chapters in trade agreements: Canada’s ambition–enforceability compromise","authors":"H. Williams, M. Lilly","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-10-2020-0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nLack of progress advancing labour provisions in multilateral trade instruments has led some countries to develop their own labour chapters in bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements. This study aims to track the evolution of 25 years of labour chapters in Canadian trade agreements.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nModelled on Hoekman (1995), the authors present a novel index using the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) core labour standards to compare and evaluate ambition and enforcement in Canada’s labour chapters.\n\n\nFindings\nThe quality of Canada’s labour chapters has steadily improved from 1994 to 2020, with scores rising from 46 to 91 out of 100. In addition, Canada has used its negotiating leverage to encourage partners with weak labour regimes to make improvements. Yet, the highest quality chapters were achieved with trade partners similar to Canada, and those chapters have not pushed either party to improve their own domestic labour regimes. The authors discuss the limits of the ILO standards for addressing contemporary debates about labour and trade.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe authors’ assessment provides the first empirical evidence to demonstrate that Canada’s labour chapters have evolved over time, and that the origins of this evolution predate the Liberal government’s progressive trade agenda by several decades. The authors also suggest that Canada’s “middle road” compromise on ambition versus enforceability may increase the relevance of the index for research on other middle powers and potentially countries in the global south.\n","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2020-0056","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Lack of progress advancing labour provisions in multilateral trade instruments has led some countries to develop their own labour chapters in bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements. This study aims to track the evolution of 25 years of labour chapters in Canadian trade agreements. Design/methodology/approach Modelled on Hoekman (1995), the authors present a novel index using the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) core labour standards to compare and evaluate ambition and enforcement in Canada’s labour chapters. Findings The quality of Canada’s labour chapters has steadily improved from 1994 to 2020, with scores rising from 46 to 91 out of 100. In addition, Canada has used its negotiating leverage to encourage partners with weak labour regimes to make improvements. Yet, the highest quality chapters were achieved with trade partners similar to Canada, and those chapters have not pushed either party to improve their own domestic labour regimes. The authors discuss the limits of the ILO standards for addressing contemporary debates about labour and trade. Originality/value The authors’ assessment provides the first empirical evidence to demonstrate that Canada’s labour chapters have evolved over time, and that the origins of this evolution predate the Liberal government’s progressive trade agenda by several decades. The authors also suggest that Canada’s “middle road” compromise on ambition versus enforceability may increase the relevance of the index for research on other middle powers and potentially countries in the global south.
开发一种新的指数来评估贸易协定中的劳工条款:加拿大的雄心-可执行性妥协
目的在推进多边贸易文书中的劳工条款方面缺乏进展,导致一些国家在双边和多边贸易协定中制定了自己的劳工章节。这项研究旨在追踪25 加拿大贸易协定中多年的劳工章节。设计/方法/方法以Hoekman(1995)为模型,作者提出了一个新颖的指数,使用国际劳工组织(ILO)的核心劳工标准来比较和评估加拿大劳工章节的雄心和执行情况。调查结果从1994年到2020年,加拿大劳工分会的质量稳步提高,100分中的得分从46分上升到91分。此外,加拿大利用其谈判杠杆,鼓励劳工制度薄弱的合作伙伴做出改进。然而,最高质量的章节是与类似于加拿大的贸易伙伴达成的,这些章节并没有推动任何一方改善自己的国内劳工制度。作者讨论了国际劳工组织标准在处理当代关于劳工和贸易的辩论方面的局限性。原创性/价值作者的评估提供了第一个实证证据,证明加拿大的劳工章节是随着时间的推移而演变的,这种演变的起源早于自由党政府的进步贸易议程几十年。作者还认为,加拿大在雄心与可执行性方面的“中间路线”妥协可能会增加该指数对其他中间大国和全球南方潜在国家的研究相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信