HETP/2-2012: 5-33 ESSAYS Reciprocity in Retrospect: A Historical Inquest of Bilateralism in U.S. Trade Policy Treb Allen and Stephen Meardon* Introduction As Doha-round negotiations for a new multilateral trade agreement stagger into their second decade, bilateral negotiations proceed apace. As of the first half of 2012, over 300 regional and bilateral trade agreements have been reported to the GATT/WTO to be in force; over one-third of them were formed in the last decade, and over four-fifths in the last two decades. 1 The United States, whose policy is to negotiate simultaneously in multilateral, regional and bilateral forums – understood sometimes as “competition for liberalization” – has contributed to the trend. 2 Since 2001 the U.S. has signed and enacted agreements with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, the CAFTA-DR countries, Bahrain, Oman, Peru, Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. The U.S. policy is guided by the premise that simultaneous negotiations are complementary to the end of increa- sing trade. The premise is hotly debated. The most salient counterargument is that bila- teralism is counterproductive because it attenuates the will for multilateralism (Limão 2006; Bhagwati 2008). But there are those who argue that, quite apart from its effect on the will for multilateralism, bilateralism does not increase tra- * Allen: International Economics Section, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2012- 2013), and Department of Economics, Northwestern University; e-mail: treballen@gmail.com. Meardon: Department of Economics, Bowdoin College; e-mail: smeardon@bowdoin.edu. We thank Roxana Bobulescu, Graciela Márquez Colín, Jane Flaherty, Mushfiq Mobarak, Marc-William Palen, and the anonymous referees of this journal for helpful suggestions. Any errors or omissions are ours. 1 The WTO tracks the number of bilateral and regional trade agreements at http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/region_e/regfac_e.htm. Consulted by the authors on 20 April 2012. 2 For “competition for liberalization,” see the United States Trade Representative’s 2005 Trade Policy Agenda (USTR 2005: 1). While the term has been dropped of late, the Office of the USTR continues to state its commitment to the same effect (USTR 2012: 5).