EU trade and development policy beyond the ACP: subordinating developmental to commercial imperatives in the reform of GSP

Siles‐Brügge, Gabriel

doi:10.1080/13569775.2014.881604

Cited by 36 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since then, the EU has focused on reaching agreements with the old Quad members (Canada, Japan and the USA) which are even more important trade partners. Moreover, these results are in line with the conclusions reached by some authors (Siles-Brügge, 2014;De Ville and Orbie, 2011) that policy-makers in DG Trade at a time of economic crisis are being more sympathetic to the arguments of exporters than importcompetitors. They are also in alignment with recent research on how the reciprocity agenda of the EU, recognized in 2006 by the European Commission in 'Global Europe', varies depending on the degree of economic development of the partner.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Efficient Multilateralism or Bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy Perspective

García-Durán

Millet

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The EU bilateral trade strategy since 2006, including the TTIP, has been justified by the European Commission on the bases that deep and comprehensive trade agreements are compatible with efficient multilateralism. The Commission argument is the following: in a context marked by international supply-chains, preferential agreements that allow for progress on what has been achieved at the multilateral level (topics WTO +) and in areas not already covered by the WTO (items WTO-X) may be considered as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for multilateral liberalization. In other words, EU recent bilateral negotiations and agreements should be seen at worst as complementary to multilateral negotiations and at best as promoters. This paper challenges this argument by pointing out that the multilateralization potential of a bilateral agreement may not be a sufficient condition for compatibility between the bilateral and multilateral approaches. Their complementarity may also be influenced by what is happening at the multilateral level. Content analysis of a primary source of information -the Bridges Weekly reports -shows that there has been a change in EU actions in the Doha Round towards Brazil, India and China since 2009. Though the EU did not preclude the inclusion of these emerging powers in the high table of negotiations at any time and was in favour of the Bali agreement of 2013, its willingness to respond to their demands reached a plateau in 2008. That may signal a change in the nature of its bilateral strategy. Indeed, from 2006 until 2009 the EU may have sought bilateral partners among new important trade players (India, ASEAN and South Korea) to complement or even facilitate a multilateral agreement. Since then, however, the EU may have focused on reaching agreements with even more important trade partners: the old Quad members (Canada, Japan and the USA) as a way to ensure the market access opportunities that it cannot longer expect to obtain from the Doha Round. Following this analysis, the TTIP should be read, at least in the short time, as an example of efficient bilateralism.. JEL Codes: F13, F53, N44.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Efficient Multilateralism or Bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy Perspective

García-Durán

Millet

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2014, the revision of the GSP regime, which provided non-reciprocal market access to developing countries, reduced the number of beneficiaries from 177 to 90 developing countries. According to Siles-Brügge (2014), this revision was driven by the EU's "exporter-driven trade agenda". Indeed, by withdrawing the unilateral preferences granted to the many of the developing countries, the EU increased its leverage in trade negotiations with them.…”

Section: Values In the Backseatmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Drieghe

Potjomkina

2019

Global Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for EU Studies. Her doctoral dissertation studied the EU's cooperation policies towards African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. During a two-year assignment at the United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs in New York, she continued working on trade and development issues as trade policy analyst. In 2016, she took up a position at the World Trade Organization in Geneva to work on SPS and TBT related issues. She also contributed to a study on the future relationship between the EU and ACP countries (post-Cotonou) during a consultancy for the European Commission (DG Devco). Before taking up the position at the United Nations, Lotte worked as a research coordinator for the Ghent University College and as a researcher for the KULeuven. She holds a master's degree in international politics and a master's degree in EU law, both from Ghent University. Diana Potjomkina is a PhD Fellow on the project GREMLIN: Global and REgional MuLtistakeholder Institutions. Her doctoral research focuses on multistakeholderism in the EU's trade policy and in global trade governance in general. Diana has acquired professional experience in the civil society sector, having worked as a project manager at the European Movement -Latvia and a researcher at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs. In addition, she served as an expert for three opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee. Diana holds master's degree (with distinction) in International Relations from Riga Stradins University in Riga, Latvia, and spent 9 months in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as a Fulbright Visiting Student Researcher at the George Mason University.

show abstract

“…It argues that the income gained from trade can be used to fight poverty (European Commission, ), this is the closest to a discussion of the link between trade and human development. As was already strongly signalled in EU policy documents (European Commission, ; Siles‐Brügge, ) the Commission is proposing a stronger distinction between least developed countries/LDCs (poorer developing countries) and emerging economies. It stresses the responsibilities of emerging economies including on reducing barriers to south–south trade.…”

Section: Proposals For the Sdgsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Finding Common Ground? European Union and European Civil Society Framing of the Role of Trade in the Sustainable Development Goals

Holden

2019

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate on the Sustainable Development Goals framework offered a set piece for civil society organizations/CSOs to challenge institutions such as the EU. This article maps and analyzes how the EU's framing of trade policy in the SDGs related to that of European CSOs. The process is understood in terms of the interaction of different forms of ideational power. Key lines of contestation emerged over the question of constraining market forces. The lead EU institutions adopted some of the CSO's moral economy discourse but used various techniques to insulate trade policy from interventionist thought. They allocated a new range of responsibilities to developing countries, ignored numerous political issues and rejected calls for more regulatory global governance from CSOs and the European Parliament. To do so they were able to deploy a range of ideational and institutional powers. However, EU trade policy remains full of contradictions and potential 'rhetoric traps'.

show abstract

EU trade and development policy beyond the ACP: subordinating developmental to commercial imperatives in the reform of GSP

Cited by 36 publications

References 17 publications

Efficient Multilateralism or Bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy Perspective

Efficient Multilateralism or Bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy Perspective

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

Finding Common Ground? European Union and European Civil Society Framing of the Role of Trade in the Sustainable Development Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About