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

Abstract

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'.

‘A Force for Good’: The Narrative Construction of Ethical EU–Vietnam Trade Relations

“…Yet, existing literature tells us relatively little about the narration of these ethical trade policies. Literature on the FTAs has largely focused on the effectiveness of these ethical trade policy instruments (Young and Peterson, 2013; Oehri, 2017; Harrison et al ., 2019; Holden, 2019; Yildirim et al ., 2021). Meanwhile, research on the FLEGT VPAs has focused on the VPAs' cultural and socio‐economic implications (Buhmann and Nathan, 2012; Maryudi and Myers, 2018; McDermott et al ., 2019).…”

Role of public health and trade for achieving sustainable development goals

“…In fact, health research already benefits from large amounts of public expenditure directed to academic institutions and public research organizations (WHO, WIPO and WTO, 2013), as well as to private firms conducting publicly funded research thanks to subsidies, soft loans, and tax credits. In this context, the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures becomes relevant (Holden, 2019).…”

“…Lower trade restrictiveness enhanced the performance of domestic services sectors. Moreover, Helble and Shepherd (2017), Holden (2019), Navarro‐Pabsdorf, Martínez‐Alcalá, and Moral‐Pajares (2020) also highlighted that international trade is an important determinant for achieving SDGs.…”

“…There are two most relevant options for a health‐oriented reform of the WTO disciplines. The first and most straightforward option would be the adoption of an explicit and narrowly defined agreement declaring that any subsidy intended to develop a product that satisfies the prevalent health needs of a population, and particularly subsidies relating to any disease and health situations mentioned in the SDG, could be made non‐actionable (Cammack & Byrne, 2012;Holden, 2019).…”

Forging their path in the Brussels bubble? Civil society resistance within the domestic advisory groups created under the EU trade agreements

“…Stakeholders mostly direct their criticism at the institutional weaknesses (Altintzis 2013;Ebert 2016;Marx et al 2016;Orbie et al 2017;. In addition, academics have pointed to the absence of clear linkages between civil society input and policy-making (Velut 2016;, to EU discourses delimiting possibilities for civil society to advocate paradigmatic changes which may foster cooptation (Hannah 2016;Orbie et al 2016;Ford 2018;Lawrence 2018;Holden 2019), and to overall structural limitations on the influence of certain interest groups within the DAGs (Smith et al 2018).…”