Abstract
Over the last decade, European Union (EU) trade agreement negotiations in the form of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada have been strongly contested. By contrast, many other EU trade negotiations have sailed on with far less politicization, or barely any at all. In this contribution, we assess a series of plausible explanation for these very varying degrees of politicization across EU trade agreement negotiations—conceived of as the combination of polarization of opinions, salience given to them in public debate, and the expansion of the number of societal actors involved therein. Through a review of existing explanations, we show how each of these explanations faces a set of challenges. In the third section, we argue it is useful to conceive of these existing explanations as structural background conditions enabling agency on the part of interest group and civil society organizations. We therefore close by sketching how literature on the relationship between interest group mobilization and public opinion could inform further comparative research on trade policy negotiations, and on politicization of EU policy making in general.
Subject
Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science
Reference76 articles.
1. Andsager, J. L. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 577–592.
2. Baccini, L., Pinto, P. M., & Weymouth, S. (2017). The distributional consequences of preferential trade liberalization: Firm-level evidence. International Organization, 71(2), 373–395.
3. Bauer, M. (2016). Manufacturing discontent: The rise to power of anti-TTIP groups (ECIPE Occasional Paper No. 02/2016). Brussels: European Centre for International Political Economy. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/174737
4. Buonanno, L. A. (2017). The new trade deals and the mobilisation of civil society organizations: Comparing EU and US responses. Journal of European Integration, 39(7), 795–809.
5. Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018). Global competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 201–218.
Cited by
40 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献