Extraversion and the West African EPA Development Programme: realising the development dimension of ACP–EU trade?

Langan, Mark; Price, Sophia

doi:10.1017/s0022278x15000579

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Originating in well-established or until recently, partly heavily subsidised European markets, these hold comparative advantage across a wide range of products, which may put severe adverse effects on domestic ACP markets. Presentiments also stem from the experiences of West African countries under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural adjustment programmes in the 1990s and early 2000s, with market opening being associated with substantive losses of agricultural livelihoods (Langan and Price, 2015). In the provisionally applied EPAs, corresponding concerns are recurringly expressed by, for instance, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland which have been collectively imposing safeguard measures in form of a 35.5 per cent additional tariff duty on frozen chicken cuts from the EU.…”

Section: Agricultural Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

The Trade Effects of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States: Early Empirical Insights from Panel Data*

Stender

Berger

Brandi

et al. 2021

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provisionally applied EPAs at a glance 2.1 EU-CARIFORUM EPA 2.2 EU-Pacific EPA 2.3 EU-ESA EPA 2.4 EU-Cameroon EPA 2.5 EPAs with West Africa 2.6 EU-SADC EPA 3 Empirical model 3.1 Data 3.2 Estimation strategy 4 Estimation results 4.1 Total trade 4.2 Agricultural trade 4.3 Manufactures trade 5 Conclusion and outlook References Appendix The trade effects of the EPAs between the EU and the ACP countries: early empirical insights from panel data German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)

show abstract

Section: Agricultural Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

The Trade Effects of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States: Early Empirical Insights from Panel Data*

Stender

Berger

Brandi

et al. 2021

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their acquiescence was facilitated by the EU's promise to finance an EPA Development Programme (EPADP), with €6.5 billion of Aid for Trade. The EPADP seemingly ensures that key export industriessuch as cocoa -will receive PSD support for their supply-side capacity in a post-EPA context (see Langan and Price 2015 for detailed discussion). The underlying rationale is that enhanced productivity will compensate for losses in import-competing sectors that struggle (or collapse) in the wake of tariff dismantling.…”

Section: Psd Discourse: Marrying Epas To 'Development' In the Pwc?mentioning

confidence: 99%

West Africa’s cocoa sector and development within Africa-EU relations: engaging business perspectives

Langan

Price

2019

Third World Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union (EU) has vigorously pursed Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in line with the Post-Washington Consensus (PWC). The European Commission (2016) insists that trade liberalisation under EPAs will be conducive to development objectives enshrined in the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement (2000Agreement ( -2020 and to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). According to EU officials, trade liberalisation will be win-win for both blocs, leading to growth, jobs and social prosperity. This optimistic outlook is, however, contested by numerous civil society organisationsand certain members of the European Parliament -who claim that EPAs will impose premature liberalisation upon former colonies (see European Parliament 2016 and NANTS 2015). Deprived of policy space to set robust tariffs to protect infant industry and sensitive agricultural sectors, ACP countries will, according to EPA sceptics, become losers of free trade. This debate is shaping negotiations for the successor treaty to the Cotonou Agreement and has prompted preferences among African states for intra-African trade liberalisation under the African Union and the African Continent Free Trade Area (ACFTA), as a precursor to EPAs. This article examines the development implications of the EPAs in the case of WestAfrica's cocoa sector. In so doing it critiques the EU's embrace of private sector development (PSD) discourse to legitimise trade liberalisation. The European Commission (2015) promises that it will give aid to ACP private sector operations to ensure that they can compete on a level playing field in EPA liberalised markets (see Langan and Price 2015 for critique of EU aid modalities in West Africa). The EU is in strict alignment here with broader PWC norms of achieving 'pro-poor' free market reform via aid for developing countries' private sector actors, as is enshrined in UN SDG 8. As existing critical literature on the PWC and the UN SDGs highlights, PSD discourse is a crucial lynchpin of contemporary donor thinking (see Onis and

show abstract

“…Trade liberalisation creates adjustment costs resulting from lost tariff revenues and investments in infrastructure. One of the central points of contention in the negotiations was the extent to which the EU would provide funds to compensate West Africa for the fiscal and economic adjustments they would have to make to implement the ECOWAS EPA (Khadiagala 2012;Langan and Price 2015;Meyn 2012;Makhan 2012). While the EU insisted that trade liberalisation and financing were two separate issues, West African negotiators clearly voiced a demand for long-term financing of the EPA as a pre-condition for entering the agreement (Meyn 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Negotiations of the ECOWAS EPA commenced in 2006. An early proposal for an EPA was turned down by West Africa in 2007 due to the lack of a concrete finance mechanism (Langan and Price 2015). As negotiations progressed, West Africa, led by the ECOWAS and UEMOA Commissions, developed an EPA Development programme (conventionally known as PAPED from the French acronym), which would ensure that the EPA would align with the development ambitions of the region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU aid for trade: Mitigating global trade injustices?

Saltnes

Brazys

Lacey

et al. 2020

Third World Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Extraversion and the West African EPA Development Programme: realising the development dimension of ACP–EU trade?

Cited by 20 publications

References 20 publications

The Trade Effects of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States: Early Empirical Insights from Panel Data*

The Trade Effects of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States: Early Empirical Insights from Panel Data*

West Africa’s cocoa sector and development within Africa-EU relations: engaging business perspectives

EU aid for trade: Mitigating global trade injustices?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About