Abstract
European Union (EU) trade policy is in the spotlight. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations triggered substantial public mobilization which emerged in a surge of literature on trade politicization. Notwithstanding politicization’s topicality and significance, it varies considerably over time, across trade agreements negotiations as well as across EU member states. By picking up on the latter, this article examines why, despite similar economic benefits potentially to be gained from trade liberalization, TTIP negotiations revealed striking differences in politicization in Germany and the UK. Understanding this variation is illustrated by highlighting the impact of some of TTIPs’ substantial issues mobilizing a range of materially and ideationally motivated stakeholders, who in turn shaped diverging governments’ trade positions of the countries under scrutiny. In explaining this selective politicization across two European countries, focus is on three explanatory variables, domestic material interests (business associations and trade unions), societal ideas (voters and non-governmental organizations [NGOs]) dominant in these countries’ domestic politics, as well as their interaction with national institutions. For this reason, the societal approach to governmental preference formation is employed which provides a detailed exploration of these three domestic factors, as well as the importance of their interdependence, in shaping the TTIP positions of the UK and German governments.
Subject
Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science
Reference70 articles.
1. Adriaensen, J. (2016). National administrations in EU trade policy: Maintaining the capacity to control. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Bauer, M. (2016). The political power of evoking fear: The shining example of Germany’s anti-TTIP campaign movement. European View, 15(2), 193-212.
3. BMWi. (2014). Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Anforderungen an Freihandelsgespräche zwischen der EU und den USA unter der Berücksichtigung von Nachhaltigkeit, Arbeitnehmerrechten und der Gewährleistung der Daseinsvorsorge. [Requirements for EU–US free trade negotiations, taking into account sustainability, labour rights and the guarantee of services of general interest]. BMWi. Retrieved from https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/S-T/ttip-dgb-bmwi.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
4. Bollen, Y. (2018). The domestic politics of EU trade policy: The political-economy of CETA and anti-dumping in Belgium and the Netherlands (PhD thesis). University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
5. Bouza, L., & Oleart, A. (2018). From the 2005 constitution’s ‘permissive consensus’ to TTIP’s ‘empowering dissensus’: The EU as a playing field for Spanish civil society. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 14(2), 87-104.
Cited by
7 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
1. A Worker Centric Approach – Eine erste Bilanz der Handelspolitik von US-Präsident Joe Biden;Weltordnung und Weltordnungspolitik der USA von Trump zu Biden;2023
2. Article 9 - EU FTAs and divided sovereignty: Transformative shifts in trade authority;Perspectivas - Journal of Political Science;2022-12-22
3. To Politicize or Not to Politicize;Handbook of Research on Challenges in Public Economics in the Era of Globalization;2022
4. Liberalism and Domestic Politics Approaches in IR;The Liberal International Theory Tradition in Europe;2021
5. The Saga Continues: contestation of EU trade policy;Global Affairs;2020-10-19