Rethinking the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Trade Politics

Velut, Jean-Baptiste; Siles‐Brügge, Gabriel; Dalingwater, Louise

doi:10.1080/13563467.2021.1879762

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As European policy has become more contested over the past decades, much of the scholarly debate has focused on the new politicization of trade. The debate revolves around whether contestation and disruptions are occasional and confined to specific trade negotiations (Young, 2017), or indicate a more general phenomenon as trade has gained increased public salience (Tatham, 2018;Velut et al, 2021), or whether they reflect a longer-term pattern of member states engaged in a political struggle over competences and interests…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has contributed to the increased politicization and contestation surrounding trade agreements, in which political conflicts are selectively amplified to create public visibility, as civil society has targeted specific issues to frame opposition to select trade agreements (Siles-Brügge, 2017). In response, European policymakers have sought to enhance civil society participation, which has provided invaluable insights into the deliberative forms of inclusion and exclusion in trade policy (Dür and De Bièvre, 2007;Velut et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Egan¹,

Guimarães²

2022

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In developing an extensive network of trade agreements, the European Union has pushed for liberalization commitments that impinge on the competencies of subnational jurisdictions. This raises new challenges in federal systems as the emerging multilevel character of trade politics means subnational authorities could increasingly demand a say in the negotiation or ratification of these trade agreements. To address the tension between subnational regulatory autonomy and collective problem-solving in trade negotiations, Europe needs to avoid suboptimal trade outcomes where actions of contestation by subnational jurisdictions on the grounds of regulatory encroachment can undermine or veto collective agreement. Using the cases of Belgium and Germany, this article illustrates how the growing subnational contestation around trade agreements requires greater coordination and consensus to avoid domestic gridlock in their ratification. The article suggests normative ideas for the EU to address the overlapping authority challenges across multilevel governance. As the values of trade have changed, these normative measures should include the framing of trade narratives, addressing asymmetries of influence, enhancing subnational engagement, and mitigating the distributive costs of liberalization. These avenues for trade policymaking are to be ultimately advantageous for the EU's pursuit of greater integration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Egan¹,

Guimarães²

2022

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the instrumental purpose implies nominal access when civil society is invited to participate in the implementation process, but this is done in a purely formal manner in order to legitimise the FTA (Dryzek et al 2002, McLaughlin andPickard 2005). Without substantive dialogue, such mechanisms do not enhance deliberative inclusiveness (Hall et al 2014, Velut et al 2020. To the extent that they contribute to legitimising the dominant free trade orientation of the agreement, CSMs may even constitute a deliberate attempt to prevent 'redistributive inclusion' (Velut et al 2020).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without substantive dialogue, such mechanisms do not enhance deliberative inclusiveness (Hall et al 2014, Velut et al 2020. To the extent that they contribute to legitimising the dominant free trade orientation of the agreement, CSMs may even constitute a deliberate attempt to prevent 'redistributive inclusion' (Velut et al 2020). By accepting the invitation, CS members risk becoming co-opted and becoming less critical (Dryzek et al 2002, see above on 'participation trap').…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation of Civil Society in EU Trade Policy Making: How Inclusive is Inclusion?

Drieghe

Orbie

Potjomkina

et al. 2021

New Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to growing contestation and politicisation of trade policy, policy makers have aimed to enhance the 'inclusiveness' of trade policy through the institutionalisation of deliberative forums in which civil society organisations participate. However, it is not clear whether these processes actually enhance inclusiveness. This article adds to our understanding of this question by, first, developing an analytical framework (the 'inclusiveness ladder') and, second, applying it to the civil society mechanisms (CSMs) of European Union (EU) free trade agreements. The unique feature of CSMs is their focus on ensuring that the actual implementation of trade agreement does not run counter to sustainable development principles. Specifically, our empirical research involves a mixed methods analysis of primary and secondary sources and a survey of civil society participants. We find that CS is largely included at the level of logistics and partly at the level of information sharing, whereas monitoring capacities remain limited and impact on policy-making is quasi-absent. Moreover, results suggest differences between business participants, who seem largely satisfied with the lower steps on the 'ladder', and non-governmental actors who insist on policy impact. Finally, we outline avenues for further research and reflect on policy implications.

show abstract

“…Such matters, however, also underscore the wider significance and effects of addressing matters of trade governance. Tackling them requires challenging the long-standing "deliberative exclusion" of non-trade concerns and public interest groups from technocratic and opaque decision-making processes [99].…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brexit and trade policy: an analysis of the governance of UK trade policy and what it means for health and social justice

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is an extensive body of research demonstrating that trade and globalisation can have wide-ranging implications for health. Robust governance is key to ensuring that health, social justice and sustainability are key considerations within trade policy, and that health risks from trade are effectively mitigated and benefits are maximised. The UK’s departure from the EU provides a rare opportunity to examine a context where trade governance arrangements are being created anew, and to explore the consequences of governance choices and structures for health and social justice. Despite its importance to public health, there has been no systematic analysis of the implications of UK trade policy governance. We therefore conducted an analysis of the governance of the UK’s trade policy from a public health and social justice perspective. Results Several arrangements required for good governance appear to have been implemented – information provision, public consultation, accountability to Parliament, and strengthening of civil service capacity. However, our detailed analyses of these pillars of governance identified significant weaknesses in each of these areas. Conclusion The establishment of a new trade policy agenda calls for robust systems of governance. However, our analysis demonstrates that, despite decades of mounting evidence on the health and equity impacts of trade and the importance of strong systems of governance, the UK government has largely ignored this evidence and failed to galvanise the opportunity to include public health and equity considerations and strengthen democratic involvement in trade policy. This underscores the point that the evidence alone will not guarantee that health and justice are prioritised. Rather, we need strong systems of governance everywhere that can help seize the health benefits of international trade and minimise its detrimental impacts. A failure to strengthen governance risks poor policy design and implementation, with unintended and inequitable distribution of harms, and ‘on-paper’ commitments to health, social justice, and democracy unfulfilled in practice. Although the detailed findings relate to the situation in the UK, the issues raised are, we believe, of wider relevance for those with an interest of governing for health in the area of international trade.

show abstract

Rethinking the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Trade Politics

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Participation of Civil Society in EU Trade Policy Making: How Inclusive is Inclusion?

Brexit and trade policy: an analysis of the governance of UK trade policy and what it means for health and social justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About