ABSTRACT

This article aims to deconstruct the concept of transparency in trade policymaking and analyse its consequences on the redistribution of power among stakeholders. To do so, it examines the presidency of Barack Obama (2009–2016), who repeatedly promised to make transparency one of its central governing principles. The study relies on policy analysis of legislative reform, executive orders, and recent trade agreements as well as discursive analysis of government sources. It reveals that while transparency has gained traction in the trade sphere, it can have diverging meanings and even opposite effects. By providing greater information to the public, transparency mechanisms can foster inclusiveness and democratic accountability to the benefit of civil society actors. However, transparency rules also have exclusionary effects that can not only shut out non-state actors but also constrain democratically elected governments under the logic of free market expansion. Under the Obama administration, efforts to bring greater accountability to the trade policy process mostly failed, while the transparency narrative was instrumentalised to pursue national economic objectives and impose greater market disciplines on America’s trading partners. Evidence shows that the prevalence of exclusionary forms of transparency over inclusive mechanisms persisted under the Trump presidency.

摘要

本文旨在解构贸易政策制定中的透明度概念，并分析其对利益相关者之间权力再分配的影响。为此，它考察了巴拉克·奥巴马 (Barack Obama)（2009-2016 年）的总统任期，他一再承诺将透明度作为其核心管理原则之一。该研究依赖于对立法改革、行政命令和最近的贸易协定的政策分析，以及对政府来源的论述分析。它表明，虽然透明度在贸易领域获得了关注，但它可能具有不同的含义，甚至可能产生相反的效果。通过向公众提供更多信息，透明度机制可以促进包容性和民主问责制，从而造福民间社会行为者。然而，透明度规则还具有排他性效果，不仅可以将非国家行为者拒之门外，而且可以在自由市场扩张的逻辑下限制民选政府。在奥巴马政府的领导下，加强贸易政策进程问责制的努力大多失败了，而透明度叙事被用来追求国家经济目标，并对美国的贸易伙伴施加更大的市场纪律。有证据表明，在特朗普担任总统期间，排斥性形式的透明度高于包容性机制的盛行仍然存在。而透明度的叙述则被用来追求国家经济目标，并对美国的贸易伙伴施加更大的市场纪律。有证据表明，在特朗普担任总统期间，排斥性形式的透明度高于包容性机制的盛行仍然存在。而透明度的叙述则被用来追求国家经济目标，并对美国的贸易伙伴施加更大的市场纪律。有证据表明，在特朗普担任总统期间，排斥性形式的透明度高于包容性机制的盛行仍然存在。