The National Element in Regional Trade Agreements: The Role of Southeast Asian Countries in ASEAN-EU Trade

Lindberg, Lena; Alvstam, Claes-Göran

doi:10.1355/ae24-2f

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Indonesia is not more competitive than other countries in ASEAN. Indonesia was ranked 44th out of 134 countries in the 2011 Global Competitiveness Ranking issued by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which lags behind Singapore (ranked 3), Malaysia (26), Brunei (28), and Thailand (38) (Lord, Oktaviani, & Ruehe, 2010). Moreover, based on the result of a joint study between the Regional and Bilateral Center of the Ministry of Finance and the School of Postgraduate European Studies, Universitas Indonesia (Kementerian Keuangan RI, 2012), there are several weaknesses that hinder Indonesia economic relations with other countries, including the EU.…”

Section: European Union External Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indonesia: Not a Priority in the European Union Bilateral FTA Negotiations with ASEAN

Assegaff¹

2021

Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Universitas Indonesia Conference (APRISH 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This explains why Indonesia was not a priority for the European Union (EU) in negotiating a bilateral FTA (Free Trade Agreement). Qualitative analysis was used and data was collected in the form of books, articles, journalism, and official pages from relevant organizations. Foreign Policy theory was employed to define Indonesia's status in regard to the EU. Using this theory, the internal and external factors of the EU were analyzed. The analysis revealed that Indonesia was indeed not a priority for the EU when bilateral FTA negotiations began in 2010. The EU internal factors demonstrate the fact that Indonesia is not popular in Europe; the EU had experienced a trade deficit with Indonesia; the EU was occupied with the election of the European Parliament; the EU conducted economic relations with many other countries in the world, hence it had to divide its priorities; and the EU's perception of Indonesia related to environmental issues is also unfavorable. Whereas, there were also two external factors that greatly influenced the EU's decision not to prioritize Indonesia. The first was the condition of Indonesia-EU economic relations and Indonesia's domestic condition. Indonesia is not the EU's primary trading partner in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The EU economic relations with other countries in ASEAN like Singapore and Malaysia are more significant than those with Indonesia. In terms of Indonesia's domestic condition, Indonesia is not as competitive as other countries in ASEAN like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. In terms of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), Indonesia is also behind Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Thailand, and Malaysia. Moreover, the policies and regulations issued by Indonesia in 2014 were also unfavorable for in terms of trade with the EU. Likewise, the investment climate in Indonesia is not more favorable than in Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam. For Indonesia, the EU is equally not a priority target for cooperation because Indonesia is focusing on cooperation with countries in ASEAN and China. As an international actor, the EU is also less known in Indonesia.

show abstract

Section: European Union External Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indonesia: Not a Priority in the European Union Bilateral FTA Negotiations with ASEAN

Assegaff¹

2021

Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Universitas Indonesia Conference (APRISH 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This dissatisfaction emerged because of the member states' growing divergence regarding the trade agenda. Trade flows with the EU27 concentrated on few Asean member states (trade flows between the EU27 and some Asean countries decreased while others increased between 2007 and 2010; UN Comtrade, 2012; Figure 3) so that some countries were more interested in an FTA with the EU than other Asian states (Lindberg, 2007). This divergence led also to different preferences regarding negotiation issues (Camroux, 2010): while Singapore was very liberal on all issue areas, other countries were not ready to the same degree (Interview 22; 30).…”

Section: Design Change Of Eu Trade Policy From Inter-regional To Bilamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cherry picking in the design of trade policy: why regional organizations shift between inter-regional and bilateral negotiations

Meissner

2019

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As states have established preferential trade agreements outside of the World Trade Organization over the past three decades, different designs have been developed: region-to-region, region-to-single state or state-to-state even if members belong to regional organizations. What accounts for this variation? Conventional approaches which focus on domestic politics provide no fully sufficient explanation for this variation. I argue that coherence within regional organizations, or a lack thereof, triggers design changes between inter-regional and bilateral. More specifically, I hypothesize that a lack of coherence within a region leads to the adoption of a bilateral design by the negotiation partner in situations where this partner competes with other states for a trade agreement with the same region. I test my argument on interactions of the European Union (EU) with regional organizations in Asia and Latin America by employing rigorous process-tracing and interviews with negotiation officials from all three regions. The findings show that the EU shifted from trade negotiations with these regional organizations to singling out member states when regional coherence faded. This was part of an attempt by the EU to advance commercial interests against its competitors China and the United States in these regions.

show abstract

“…Lindberg (2007a)). The WTO should have a role to play as a venue for closer cooperation between governments and the business sector in order to facilitate convergence among separate FTAs, and, consequently, to reduce heterogeneity between different agreements (see e.g.…”

Section: Degree Of Homogeneity/heterogeneity -The Geopolitics and Geomentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ambiguous Role of the WTO in Times of Stalled Multilateral Negotiations and Proliferating FTAs in East Asia

Lindberg

Alvstam

2012

Int Negot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world trading system is characterized by a growing number of free trade agreements (FTAs). Limited progress in the negotiations at the multilateral level within the WTO has contributed to this development, inducing countries to seek faster, alternative ways to speed up liberalization, which make it possible to take advantage of preferential treatment with key trading partners. This article discusses what role the WTO should take with regard to FTAs in times of stalled multilateral negotiations and proliferating FTAs, and how FTAs can contribute to the multilateralization of regionalism. When results at the multilateral level are scarce, there may be a shift towards other alternatives in which the WTO is left out. This may force the WTO to function reactively, simply facing facts as an organization, rather than proactively, where it may play some role in shaping the FTA development. FTAs are not an entirely separate phenomenon from the WTO, since countries that negotiate FTAs play two roles. They are members of the WTO and as such are part of the work and negotiations of the organization. They are also part of trade arrangements that are limited to a smaller number of countries, and hence can negotiate against the interest of the entire multilateral organization. This article explores how these agreements can facilitate the work and negotiations of the WTO to regionalize bilateralism and multilateralize regionalism, here named the "sticky rice" approach. Various East Asian trade arrangements are used as empirical examples.

show abstract

The National Element in Regional Trade Agreements: The Role of Southeast Asian Countries in ASEAN-EU Trade

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Indonesia: Not a Priority in the European Union Bilateral FTA Negotiations with ASEAN

Indonesia: Not a Priority in the European Union Bilateral FTA Negotiations with ASEAN

Cherry picking in the design of trade policy: why regional organizations shift between inter-regional and bilateral negotiations

The Ambiguous Role of the WTO in Times of Stalled Multilateral Negotiations and Proliferating FTAs in East Asia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About