Building synergies between WTO and UNESCO: the case for data-driven policy coordination

Abstract

The different legal worldviews of WTO and UNESCO on trade and culture vividly illustrate the formidable challenges we face nowadays to deliver legal and policy coherence in global governance. Bridging the trade and culture policy divide in this area requires stronger inter-agency dialog and cooperation, starting with joint initiatives for improved policy-oriented statistics.

Keywords:

• World trade
• trade in cultural goods and services
• cultural expression
• cultural diversity
• WTO
• UNESCO

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under Grant Number DER 2014-55484-P. We would also like to thank two anonymous referees and the editor of this journal for their comments and suggestions that substantially improved the contribution. All errors remain our own.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [grant number DER 2014-55484-P].

Notes

1. Compare Article 4.4 of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO 2005a).

2. Regarding the term ‘culture’, a wide range of definitions have been compiled by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) in the 1950s.

3. On the way in which images of popular culture circulate, and, the ways in which they are internalized, and how they adapt life styles (see Appadurai 1996).

4. Compare WTO (2015a) on audiovisuals.

5. For the initial reflections on the idea of ‘cultural industry’ see Horkheimer and Adorno (2002), Mattelart and Piemme (1982, pp. 51–61).

6. Definition of the Convention on Cultural Diversity and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity from ‘the conclusions of the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mondiacult, Mexico City, 1982), the World Commission on Culture and Development (Our Creative Diversity, 1995), and the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development (Stockholm 1998)’ according to UNESCO (2007, p. 707).

7. See UNDP (2004) for the challenges faced by cultural diversity due to these asymmetric cultural flows.

8. See Bernier (2000) for a selection of the relevant provisions of multiple international instruments.

9. The European Commission claimed (in a communication to the European and Council and Parliament) that the new instrument has no effect on the rules of the multilateral trade system: ‘such instrument would not affect and be without prejudice to’ (see COM 2003).

10. On the idea of how cultural industries eliminate autonomy of art see Horkheimer and Adorno (2002). For a brief historical analysis also see Buchloh (2000).

11. The Canadian cultural community was a central influence in the process. For the initial proposals see SAGIT (1999). See also Bernier and Ruiz Fabri (2002).

12. For the revised text of the European offer see WTO (2005).

13. On the concept of cultural exception and its implication in domestic and global public policies see Farchy (1999) and Gournay (2002).

14. For an explanation of the point of departure and context of negotiations see Messerlin et al. (2004), and Graber (2004, pp. 15–65).

15. See United Nations International Trade Statistics, Concepts and Definitions, Series M, N° 52, Revision 2 as summarized at WTO (2015c).

16. According to UN (2015) World’s GDP in 2011 amounted USD71, 956,931,320,123 at current prices.

17. For historical background about inter-agency joint task force initiative, refer to UN (2012, p. V).

18. Compare UNCTAD (2010, p. 285) and IMF (2009, pp. 176, 177) for the definition of ‘Computer and information services’.

19. Compare UNCTAD (2010, p. 285) and IMF (2009) for the definition of ‘Royalties and license fees (Royalties)’.