Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership Research Articles

How TTIP split the social-democrats: reacting to the politicisation of EU trade policy in the European parliament

ABSTRACT This article undertakes an actor-centred case study of the European Parliament’s (EP) reaction to the politicisation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the most controversial EU trade negotiations in history, as structured by the behaviour of its political groups. Specifically, the article traces why and how the EP updated its position on TTIP at the height of politicisation through a new resolution adopted in the summer of 2015. We focus on the role played by the then swing group in the EP, the Socialist and Democrats (S&D), which was a key target of TTIP contestants. Building on the literature on EP politics, we explain how the S&D balanced responsiveness to outside contestants with the responsibility as a group that was required to maintain a stable majority within the EP. We demonstrate how the S&D position was steered by its largest delegations and MEPs with responsible roles. In addition, we show that S&D delegations which faced high levels of domestic politicisation and whose parties hold trade sceptic views defected from the compromise resolution. Our article contributes to the literatures on politicisation of trade, the role of the EP in trade policy, and politics in the European Parliament.

Lobbying in the face of politicisation: interest group strategies in trade policy

ABSTRACT How does the politicisation of trade policy affect the lobbying strategies chosen by interest groups? Several studies have shown that business associations tend to focus more on inside lobbying and citizen groups more on outside lobbying. We argue that politicisation makes this difference in lobbying strategy even more pronounced. Facing an issue that is contested and publicly salient, we should see business actors move even more toward inside lobbying and citizen groups move even more toward outside lobbying. We test this argument using a unique combination of evidence from a survey with 691 interest groups and an analysis of Twitter usage with respect to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) by 993 interest groups. The empirical evidence largely supports our argument. By making and testing this argument, we contribute to the literatures on the politicisation of trade policy and interest group strategies.

The European Commission and the “Europeanisation” of EU trade diplomacy: the case of EU-China relations, 1999–2021

In recent times, the European Commission has shown to have increasing difficulty keeping up its central position in trade diplomacy towards China, in the face of a growing wariness and assertiveness of the member states. In this article, we observe a changing balance, a development from EU diplomacy towards European diplomacy, meaning a growing influence of EU member states in the process. We call this the “Europeanisation” of EU economic diplomacy. This is not limited to China and reflects a broader development, as is visible in the politicisation of the negotiation processes towards the (failed) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the (provisionally applied) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada, and also in the trend towards mixed agreements that require member state ratification. However, it was particularly in the relations with China that such trends became visible for the first time and have continued to manifest themselves throughout the years. Apart from the member states assembled in the Council, also the European Parliament has strengthened its position in the process at the expense of the Commission.

Are FTA’s making the World Less Free? A Case Study of TPP

Abstract On January 23, 2017, right after assuming presidency, US President Donald Trump did good on his promise and signed the executive order that withdrew USA from the very agreement that it commenced the negotiations for: Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The unratified multinational trade agreement encompassed 12 countries which accounted for %40 of the world’s GDP and over 800 million people. On a broader scope, TPP is often affiliated with two other trade deals; Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) both of which in terms of content resemble a lot that of TPP. Given the fact that TTIP and TiSA are not complete and not entirely disclosed with the public, we shall be exclusively focusing on TPP. TPP has been subject to many controversies. But particularly the notion that TPP would enable corporations to sue governments in private arbitration tribunals over lost profits has drawn much attention. In this article we shall be investigating whether there is some truth to these allegations. Providing reference from the articles of the agreement, we shall be discussing the qualities of TPP’s judicial reforms. But firstly, in order to introduce the reader to the subject; we will be providing with some context, to properly frame the subject, and with some information about the nature of these agreements. Secondly, we shall be addressing our main issue. In addition, we will be questioning the framework within which the agreements are officially presented. Finally, a conclusion that compromises the author’s assessment of the case will be provided.

Embedded Neoliberalism and the Legitimacy of the Post-Lisbon European Union Investment Policy

Much has been written about the ongoing legitimacy crisis of the global investment treaty regime and the system of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). In the European Union (EU), the proposed inclusion of investment protection provisions and ISDS in negotiations on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States triggered unprecedented levels of contestation. This article seeks to explain why EU responses to such contestation, in the form of an investment court system and a multilateral investment court, did not bring about a clear break away from the traditional ISDS model. Drawing on critical political economy perspectives, it regards the EU investment policy following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon as deeply embedded in a broader neoliberal project mediated by material, institutional, and ideological configurations. Several factors have inhibited possibilities for more fundamental changes. The European Commission construed the lack of legitimacy as stemming from ISDS’ procedural features rather than questioning its social purpose. There has been no shift in the underlying social power balance, and no comprehensive counter-project has been proposed. The European Commission enjoys relative autonomy vis-à-vis other parts within the EU institutional ensembles and wider societal interests, allowing it to block more radical solutions. Finally, there were no clear signs of a fundamental departure from the neoliberal path in terms of wider EU economic regulation.

Conjectured Cournot Duopoly Model for the EU–US Automobile Trade: A Game Theoretic Analysis of the TTIP’s Most Traded Product

Economic actors, in their interactions with each other, certainly make decisions which are able to improve their original situation. In the case of free trade agreements, tariffs have the effect to manipulate countries’ trade and welfare. In this paper, we try to estimate the impacts of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on the profit level of participating countries in the context of the Cournot duopoly model. More specifically, we elaborate the most traded product (MTP) and determine the profit levels in the equilibrium regarding two scenarios (pre and post situations of the TTIP). The findings suggest that the Cournot model seems suitable since it illustrates the possible options and provides a guideline for the decision-making process. Based on the model, it can be shown at which point the highest benefit can be achieved for the participating economies (EU, US) i.e. how long it is worth for the parties to apply additional automotive tariffs.

When politicization meets ideology: the European Parliament and free trade agreements

AbstractSince the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) has considerably increased its competencies in European Union (EU) trade policy. At the same time, a ‘new generation’ of free trade agreements (FTAs), including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, and the agreement with Japan, have been negotiated by the European Commission. Although existing literature has tackled the process of the EP's institutional self-empowerment in this policy area, there is no systematic research investigating the lines of conflict within the EP over FTAs. Through a newly collected dataset of all EP plenary debates between 2009 and 2019 on six relevant FTAs, we extract EP Members’ (MEPs) preferences by means of a manual textual analysis. We then test the explanatory power of the two traditional lines of cleavages within the EP over MEPs stated preferences: position on the left-right axis and support for EU integration. We find that both these dimensions fundamentally shape the conflict in the EP over FTAs. The impact of these two ideological cleavages is magnified in the context of politicized FTAs, namely the TTIP and CETA. Through these findings, the paper significantly contributes to the research on competition in the EP and, more broadly, to the understanding of EU trade policy and its emerging politicization dynamics.

The Politicization of European Union Trade Policy: Radical-Left Euroskeptic Opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

This study aims to analyze the correlation between radical-left Euroskeptic (RLE) activity and European Union (EU) trade policy by focusing on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). At the beginning of TTIP negotiations, the agreement was not high on political agendas and was not a major concern within European society. Thus, its salience was low. This initial lack of interest stemmed from the fact that the TTIP, as an economic and technical issue, did not draw public attention. This study shows that RLEs profoundly affected public opinion on the TTIP by increasing its salience during the European parliamentary elections in 2014 in France and Germany. Second, RLEs involved social actors and non-governmental organizations in anti-TTIP campaigns and channeled European anxieties into the STOP TTIP European Citizens’ Initiative. Third, RLEs used this proposed agreement between the EU and the United States to increase polarization within European society and ideological cleavages within the European Parliament. Finally, we can assume that an anti-TTIP campaign promoted by radical-right Euroskeptics would have had different drivers. Thus, my findings have implications for understanding the correlation between RLE activity and the politicization of EU trade policy, and they suggest some avenues for future research.

When actions do not match aspirations - comparison of the European Union policy claims against what has been negotiated for health services, trade and investment

BackgroundObligations arising from trade and investment agreements can affect how governments can regulate and organise health systems. The European Union has made explicit statements of safeguarding policy space for health systems. We assessed to what extent health systems were safeguarded in trade negotiations using the European Union (EU) negotiation proposals for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the negotiated agreement for the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).MethodsWe assessed if and to what extent the European Union policy assurances were upheld in trade negotiations. Our assessment was made using three process tracing informed tests. The tests examined: i) what was covered in negotiation proposals of services and investment chapters, ii) if treatment of health services differed from treatment of another category of services (audiovisual services) with similar EU Treaty considerations, and iii) if other means of general exceptions, declarations or emphases on right to regulate could have resulted in the same outcome.ResultsOur analysis shows that the European Union had sought to secure policy space for publicly funded health services for services chapter, but not for investment and investment protection chapters. In comparison to audiovisual services, exceptions for health services fall short from those on audiovisual services. There is little evidence that the same outcome could have been achieved using other avenues.ConclusionsThe European Union has not achieved its own assurances of protection of regulatory policy space for health services in trade negotiations. The European Union trade negotiation priorities need to change to ensure that its negotiation practices comply with its own assurances for health services and sustainable financing of health systems.

The European Commission’s Discourses on Sustainable Development in ‘Trade for All’: An Argumentative Perspective

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations triggered unprecedented contestation over the European Union’s (EU’s) domestic policy space for sustainable development. Whilst extant studies reveal the conflicts between norms and institutions of EU trade politics on sustainable development, and highlight the significance of sustainability in countering neoliberalism, they seldom analyse the incremental steps toward sustainable development achieved by the contestation of TTIP. This article addresses that gap by drawing on an analytical framework that regards political discourse as argumentation for action, which is both constrained and enabled by institutional context (I. Fairclough & N. Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students (Routledge, 2012a).). Based on a textual analysis of policy documents on ‘Trade for All’, there are two significant findings: (1) the public contestation on TTIP triggered the European Commission’s (the Commission) practical arguments on sustainable development in ‘Trade for All’ trade strategy; (2) the Commission adapted its original proposal of measures on sustainable development in light of other actors’ criticisms in the implementation of ‘Trade for All’. Taken more broadly, this innovative analytical framework, and my empirical findings, will make a contribution to a research agenda which clarifies obstacles and opportunities for alternative, counter-hegemonic trade policies. European Commission, Sustainable Development, TTIP, Trade, Political Discourse, Practical Argument

Regional mobilization in international trade policy: The US states in transatlantic trade negotiations

ABSTRACT Ever since the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), noncentral governments in the US have been clamouring for a bigger say in US trade policy making. Yet, constitutional and practical constraints remain for states to represent their trade policy interests. To investigate these constraints and how states try to overcome them, this contribution considers the case of the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US. I analyze how states formulated and represented their interests on the TTIP. While overall state interest representation on the TTIP was low, I find various avenues in which states mobilized, mostly in a coordinated setting including the federal government and mostly driven by progressive-leaning state legislators with a background in international trade. The analysis of state interest representation on the TTIP adds to the literature on noncentral actors in international trade policy making.

Understanding the Importance of International Quality Standards Regarding Global Trade in Food and Agricultural Products: Analysis of the German Media

Rapid globalization of the agrifood industry has important impacts on international trade and quality management (QM). Likewise, the European Union has negotiated a series of bilateral free trade agreements. Of note was the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States of America, where the debate focused on the mutual recognition and harmonization of quality standards, especially for agricultural and food products. This topic offered the mainstream media excellent substances for coverage. This paper explores German print media, television, and radio on the importance of international quality standards in the agrifood sectors in light of the TTIP. A quantitative and qualitative empirical content analysis was performed to investigate media reporting regarding (a) it is scientific character, (b) the use of the term “quality standards” of the agrifood industry, and (c) the reporting on the agrifood industry and QM linked with TTIP, focused on harmonization. The results showed that interrelations between QM and global trade were not presented to recipients in-depth. A trend toward information asymmetries in recipient’s knowledge is indicated. The study addresses recommendations for future collaborations between media, policy-makers, and further cooperation in the mutual recognition and harmonization of quality standards and control procedures within global trade.

Small Firms as the Main Beneficiaries of Trade Agreements? A Framing Analysis of European Commission Discourse

ABSTRACT In recent years, debate about the distributive consequences of trade liberalisation has intensified on both sides of the Atlantic. Within the European Union (EU), a strong politicisation of trade policy occurred in the wake of the launch of negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States (US). These talks were effectively portrayed by critics of the agreements as ‘made for and by big business’, a master frame that succeeded in bringing together a broad coalition of civil society organisations. In this article, we show how the European Commission developed and communicated a counter-frame stipulating that TTIP and similar trade agreements are inclusive of and especially valuable to small firms. Based on a framing analysis of official documents and speeches, we analyse the rationale of this frame and how it has been communicated through story-telling. We show that this positive frame has only partially been mirrored in the positions of associations representing small firms themselves. The debate on the inclusive benefits and redistributive effects of trade agreements, including between enterprises of different sizes, continues within academia, politics, and society.

The Limits of Traditional Bargaining under Deep Integration: TTIP Stumbling over Technical Barriers to Trade

AbstractRemoving so‐called technical barriers to trade is a critical aspect of contemporary deep integration trade agreements. Yet, these barriers – standards, regulations, conformity assessment procedures – form a set of institutional complementarities, named technical infrastructure, which performs a central role for the functioning of integrated markets. Drawing on evidence from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) the paper illustrates that this contradiction reduced the negotiators' bargaining leeway. Changing a technical infrastructure comes at the risk of undermining its effectiveness. Therefore, each party could only offer an unacceptable compromise: Transforming the other's technical infrastructure towards one's own technical infrastructure.

Selling TTIP: The European Commission’s information policy and the spectre of public opinion

This article examines the European Commission’s information policy during the heavily politicised Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. Through the methodologically innovative use of Freedom of Information requests, it moves beyond official discourse to reveal how internal deliberation among Commission officials is preoccupied with monitoring and containing civil society mobilisation against the deal. Underpinned by elitist conceptions of democracy, public opinion emerges as a problem to be solved through strategic public relations, despite the Commission’s discursive commitments to greater transparency and political dialogue with citizens. The findings challenge the widely-held notion that a ‘communication deficit’ between European Union institutions and their publics is at the root of the perennially elusive formation of a European public sphere. Instead, approaching TTIP as a key frontline in the struggle over post-democracy, I conclude that antipublic ideas encoded in the Commission’s information policy are reflective of historically engrained institutional ambivalence towards public-political participation.

Tr ansatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Consigned to Oblivion or Waiting for a Second Chance?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the U.S. and the EU could have become a milestone of the 2010s transforming the current global governance system and the strategic balance of power as well as having a direct impact on the economy and trade. Nevertheless, the negotiations launched in 2013 reached a stalemate and were effectively frozen in January 2017. Although assessments of the new mega bloc’s impact on the U.S. and the EU economies diverged, such a development seems all the more unexpected given that most researchers and politicians advocating the initiative emphasized its geopolitical significance for the West in the face of China’s rise. A question inevitably arises: what can account for the freeze of negotiations? Was it the result of Donald Trump’s election, who was a vocal critic of his predecessor’s legacy during his election campaign? Or are there underlying objective reasons? In order to shed light on the issue it is necessary to analyse the differences that emerged during the fifteen rounds of negotiations as well as to examine the most recent developments in transatlantic trade and economic relations. Trump’s foreign policy sought to advance U.S. national interests in such a way that resulted in weakening multilateral elimination of tariff s for industrial goods and for an agreement on conformity assessment. However, negotiations of the former agreement did not start a year after the Joint Statement had been adopted; there were three meetings of the Executive Working Group focusing on regulatory issues. Apparently, an agreement similar to TTIP in scope is unlikely to be concluded in the near future. It also becomes evident that the parties’ divergent goals and interests at the negotiations rather than subjective factors, such as Donald Trump’s approach, are the main reason for that. Continuing dialogue between the U.S. and the EU on specific issues, e.g. regulation, seems a more viable scenario. Keywords: U.S., EU, trade negotiations, TTIP, transatlantic trade, globalisation, global governance, economic diplomacy, industrial goods, conformity assessment, regulation, tariff and non-tariff barriers.institutions: in 2018 the EU and a number of states became targets of U.S. aluminium and steel tariff s purportedly imposed to protect national security. These unilateral measures turned into leverage ahead of negotiations. In June 2018 the U.S. and the EU issued a Joint Statement: the parties agreed to ‘work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods.’ In April 2019 the Council of the European Union adopted two decisions authorising the opening of negotiations of an agreement with the United States of America on the elimination of tariff s for industrial goods and for an agreement on conformity assessment. However, negotiations of the former agreement did not start a year after the Joint Statement had been adopted; there were three meetings of the Executive Working Group focusing on regulatory issues. Apparently, an agreement similar to TTIP in scope is unlikely to be concluded in the near future. It also becomes evident that the parties’ divergent goals and interests at the negotiations rather than subjective factors, such as Donald Trump’s approach, are the main reason for that. Continuing dialogue between the U.S. and the EU on specific issues, e.g. regulation, seems a more viable scenario.

Elite cueing and attitudes towards trade agreements: the case of TTIP

AbstractHow does elite communication affect citizens’ attitudes towards trade agreements? Building on a growing literature on context factors influencing public opinion about trade and trade agreements; we argue that citizens rely on cues provided by political elites, especially political parties, when forming their views towards these agreements. Such cueing effects are most likely for citizens with little information about a trade agreement and for citizens receiving cues from trusted elites. In addition, citizens exposed to cues from non-trusted elites should exhibit a source-opposing effect. Our key contribution is to test these expectations relying on a survey experiment on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) carried out in Germany and Spain. The findings from our experiment support the existence of elite cueing effects, although to a limited degree. Overall, the paper contributes to a better understanding of public opinion towards TTIP, trade policy attitudes, and public opinion more generally.

Trading Arguments: Opinion Updating in the Context of International Trade Agreements

AbstractPublic opinion can often become a key challenge to international cooperation efforts. In their attempt to garner support for their position, stakeholders fight for the hearts and minds of the public based on arguments about the consequences of different policy options. But to what extent do individuals’ preferences change when exposed to such information? And how does this depend on the information being congruent or contradictory to pre-existing preferences? We address these questions in the context of the negotiations on the potentially largest regional trade agreement in history: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Based on a two-waves-panel-survey-experiment fielded in Germany and the United States, we examine how individuals’ prior opinion influences the way they process new information. We argue that individuals’ existing priors about how they generally think about economic openness interact with new information to inform their opinion about the specific policy proposal at hand. Our experimental results show that while prior opinion constrains opinion updating to some degree, overall, citizens update their existing beliefs in line with new information. This updating process can even result in respondents changing their opinion, although only in one direction: namely to turn from a TTIP supporter to a TTIP opponent.

Brexit and the Effects of the Proposed EU–UK Partnership Agreement on the Audiovisual Sector

The audiovisual media industry has undergone and is undergoing a phase of global consolidation. While the sector is a significant component of the European economy, it is a special sector from a cultural perspective. Governments have reacted to this by trying to accommodate a tension between commercial objectives and what is perceived as ‘cultural’ objectives. Also the European Union has sought to reconcile these tensions. Now, Brexit poses further challenges for the global media sector, much of whose business activity was based in the UK.While the exact details of what Brexit would mean were unclear in June 2016, they have been partially clarified since then. The aim is to base the future EU/UK relationship on a free trade agreement, not on the Single Market. However, the audiovisual sector will be excluded from this agreement in line with the long-established precedent of a cultural exception in EU trade deals. The sector has widely understood these following extensive debates since 2013, ahead of adopting the EU mandate for the now-abandoned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the US. Many international broadcasting groups have anticipated the end of UK Single Market access after Brexit by relicensing channels and relocating staff into the EU27. While the UK will retain and maybe grow some core strengths, notably around content production, its role as the leading European centre for global media companies is likely to be eroded by new hubs in the EU27, while UK-based media companies will continue to be affected by EU regulation in relation to market access as well as free movement. There are particular issues around data transfers and state aids. This article seeks to evaluate if the current negotiations cater to the interest of the audiovisual sector and if not, why not. Brexit, EU–UK Partnership, Audiovisual, Post-Brexit settlement, Personal Data, State Aid

Trump\u2019s Trade Policy, BREXIT, Corona Dynamics, EU Crisis and Declining Multilateralism

Since 1991 there has been a reinforcement of the World Market Economy, not least since China and the, then new Russian Federation have joined the World Trade Organization and because of EU Eastern enlargement and ASEAN integration deepening, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations seemed to indicate stronger regional integration dynamics. With the Trump Administration, the situation has changed dramatically as President Trump is supportive of neither multilateralism in general nor of the EU, which is weakened through BREXIT, in particular. Trump’s focus on the US merchandise trade balance deficit is ill-placed and import tariffs imposed on China seem to be excessive as the optimum tariff rate is miscalculated on the basis of the traditional formula – while a new adequate formula would include the role of sectoral US outward FDI stocks. Asia, the EU and the US could define fighting the Corona World Recession as a global public good, but the United States is weakened in the corona pandemic crisis; the EU is facing serious problems in avoiding a Euro Crisis 2 problem and the €750 billion EU loan package could undermine the Eurozone’s stability while being inadequate to minimize the risk of a Euro Crisis 2. At the same time, the prospects for EU cooperation are declining due to political disappointment concerning the national corona pandemic policy in some member countries. An effective anti-corona pandemic policy would mean to organize a consistent EU-ASEAN cooperation or a G20 cooperation with a later extension to UN Organizations, including the IMF, the World Bank and the WHO. Post-corona, global governance could change strongly because of the long-term political scarring effects of the pandemic shock which could undermine EU and Western stability. Networked international leadership in support of multilateralism is an innovative – but difficult - option for EU-ASEAN-Mercosur.