EU's value-based approach in trade policy: (free) trade for all?

Drieghe, Lotte; Potjomkina, Diāna

doi:10.1080/23340460.2019.1584539

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this does not seem to be in line with what the European Union has negotiated for trade. Our analysis is in line with Drieghe and Potjomkina [ 63 ] observations that irrespective of the values talk in trade policy, the aim of opening new markets has been pursued with great commitment even if it may not be in compliance with values promoted, requiring either a new narrative for trade policy or a change in negotiation priorities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

When actions do not match aspirations - comparison of the European Union policy claims against what has been negotiated for health services, trade and investment

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Obligations arising from trade and investment agreements can affect how governments can regulate and organise health systems. The European Union has made explicit statements of safeguarding policy space for health systems. We assessed to what extent health systems were safeguarded in trade negotiations using the European Union (EU) negotiation proposals for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the negotiated agreement for the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Methods We assessed if and to what extent the European Union policy assurances were upheld in trade negotiations. Our assessment was made using three process tracing informed tests. The tests examined: i) what was covered in negotiation proposals of services and investment chapters, ii) if treatment of health services differed from treatment of another category of services (audiovisual services) with similar EU Treaty considerations, and iii) if other means of general exceptions, declarations or emphases on right to regulate could have resulted in the same outcome. Results Our analysis shows that the European Union had sought to secure policy space for publicly funded health services for services chapter, but not for investment and investment protection chapters. In comparison to audiovisual services, exceptions for health services fall short from those on audiovisual services. There is little evidence that the same outcome could have been achieved using other avenues. Conclusions The European Union has not achieved its own assurances of protection of regulatory policy space for health services in trade negotiations. The European Union trade negotiation priorities need to change to ensure that its negotiation practices comply with its own assurances for health services and sustainable financing of health systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

When actions do not match aspirations - comparison of the European Union policy claims against what has been negotiated for health services, trade and investment

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We argue that: 1) the Commission's response was part of a rhetorical counter-strategy, and 2) that the response was grounded in the MG doctrine introduced by Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy in 1999. Our study contributes to the literature on the evolution of the EU's trade policy pertaining to both values and market access (Drieghe & Potjomkina, 2019). Our research also complements, and partly challenges, the analysis carried out by Young (2019), who, when comparing the EU's 2010 and 2015-2017 trade strategies, ar-gues that the Commission "over-generalized from an extreme case" and pursued a policy "characterized more by continuity than by change" (p. 3).…”

Section: Rhetorical Responses To Politicization and The Managed Globalization Doctrinementioning

confidence: 87%

Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization

García-Durán

Eliasson

Costa

2020

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union’s (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners’ speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif<em> </em>of EU trade policy. The Commission’s initial response to civil society organizations’ contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission’s messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes.

show abstract

“…Constructivist EU trade policy studies show how the language and framing used by the EC helps to justify trade agreements and mute potential opposition by moving the discursive beacons of what trade policy is and should be. Following the opposition against TTIP and CETA, for example, authors have identified a discursive re‐emphasis on the role of ‘values’ in EU trade policy (Drieghe and Potjomkina, 2019), and the ‘managed globalization’ discourse of the end of the 1990s (Garcia‐Duran et al ., 2020) which contributed to pre‐empting criticism. Likewise, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as US President have been utilized as mutually reinforcing signs of a populist and isolationist trend that the EU should resist, reinforcing the need for the EU to become an even more passionate global leader regarding international trade, integrating opposition vocabulary such as ‘fair’, ‘modern’ or ‘progressive’ into their repertoire (De Ville and Siles‐Brügge, 2019).…”

Section: Exits From the Politicized Decision‐trap In Eu Trade Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evading Vetoes: Exiting the Politicized Decision Trap in EU Trade Policy

Gheyle

2022

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU has famously been described as plagued by a 'joint decision trap': Member States are obliged to work together yet have difficulties making comprehensive steps forward given high decision-making thresholds. This contribution states that against the background of the politicization of European integration, the prospect of a 'politicized decision trap' (PDT) emerges, where de facto veto positions develop that cannot easily be accommodated in the spotlight. To account for the observation that deadlock is often avoided, even in the face of visible conflict, the literature on exiting the JDT is rehabilitated by categorizing mechanisms as 'anticipating', 'engaging' or 'defusing' vetoes. Empirically, this framework is applied to EU trade policy, as several EU trade agreements in the past decade were (expected to become) confronted with the PDT, yet experienced remarkable resilience. By reviewing contemporary EU trade literature, various mechanisms are identified that have helped the EU evade the PDT.

show abstract

EU's value-based approach in trade policy: (free) trade for all?

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

When actions do not match aspirations - comparison of the European Union policy claims against what has been negotiated for health services, trade and investment

When actions do not match aspirations - comparison of the European Union policy claims against what has been negotiated for health services, trade and investment

Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization

Evading Vetoes: Exiting the Politicized Decision Trap in EU Trade Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About