This preview shows page 110 - 111 out of 230 pages.
to the Philippines’ more decentralized style is Japan, which has four key players in the trade policy development field–the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Ministy of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry (MAFF) and Ministry of Finance (MoF). (For details on this, see Appendix) While Japan has had more success in arriving at beneficial agreements, one can reasonably argue that its accomplishments have been achieved not because of, but despite, this flawed institutional structure. It has been observed, for example, that the jurisdictional delineation between the MAFF and the METI has left the nation handicapped in negotiating industry-wide agreements, particularly in the WTO. Since Geneva conventions lump fishery and forestry with the manufacturing sector, METI has the responsibility of negotiating for them. However, MAFF retains jurisdiction over the two sectors, one that the collegial nature of the Japanese system prevents METI from counteracting. The result is a forced protectionist bent for METI, as MAFF places strict limits upon the liberalization of those industries. Having its hands tied in the manner reduces METI’s ability to come up with the most ideal creative solutions in the barter system that exists.Interviews with academics and those who have served in the Japanese ministries, as well as books and essays on the policy formation process in the country, have hammered home the reality that the Japanese structure is problematic. For example, the insistence of the MOFA upon lording it over the line agencies who have more expertise on the particular trade areas and its practice of striking the nuances that the latter introduce into trade documents may not produce the most effective proposals. It has also been acknowledged that the split focus of a ministry like METI intermittently leads to the prioritization of the domestic industrial side over the trade aspect. Even within the ministry itself, certain divisions make requests to protect less competitive domestic industries. The move toward liberalization is thus curtailed. CanadaCanada has had a similar experience in the apprehension of the importance of having a single trade agency. While special attention was given to trade issues even back when there was only the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), the Canadian government finally acknowledged that the best course of action would be to officially create separate bodies that focused solely on each of the matters at hand. Given that one in every four jobs in Canada is linked to trade and that roughly 38 percent of its gross domestic product is sent abroad, it is no surprise that the country promulgated the Department of International Trade Act, which created International Trade Canada (ITCan) in order “to recognize the central importance of trade and investment to the long-term growth of the economy and the prosperity of Canadians” (ITCan 2004). The entity, which was