Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
DOI: | 10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 |
Resumo: | Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union’s (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners’ speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission’s initial response to civil society organizations’ contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission’s messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes. |
id |
RCAP_26b7de327b2e9fbaf8a8fe9f304ab77f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2567 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade PoliticizationComprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; European Commission; managed globalization; politicization; trade; trade policy; Transatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipSeveral studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union’s (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners’ speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission’s initial response to civil society organizations’ contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission’s messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes.Cogitatio2020-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2567Politics and Governance; Vol 8, No 1 (2020): Politicization of EU Trade Policy across Time and Space; 290-3002183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2567https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2567/2567https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2567/860Copyright (c) 2020 Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson, Oriol Costahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGarcia-Duran, PatriciaEliasson, Leif JohanCosta, Oriol2022-12-22T15:16:45Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2567Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:25.911135Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
title |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
spellingShingle |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization Garcia-Duran, Patricia Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; European Commission; managed globalization; politicization; trade; trade policy; Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Garcia-Duran, Patricia Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; European Commission; managed globalization; politicization; trade; trade policy; Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership |
title_short |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
title_full |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
title_fullStr |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
title_full_unstemmed |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
title_sort |
Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission’s Response to Trade Politicization |
author |
Garcia-Duran, Patricia |
author_facet |
Garcia-Duran, Patricia Garcia-Duran, Patricia Eliasson, Leif Johan Costa, Oriol Eliasson, Leif Johan Costa, Oriol |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Eliasson, Leif Johan Costa, Oriol |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Garcia-Duran, Patricia Eliasson, Leif Johan Costa, Oriol |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; European Commission; managed globalization; politicization; trade; trade policy; Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership |
topic |
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; European Commission; managed globalization; politicization; trade; trade policy; Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership |
description |
Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union’s (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners’ speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission’s initial response to civil society organizations’ contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission’s messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-03-31 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2567 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2567 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2567 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2567/2567 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2567/860 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson, Oriol Costa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson, Oriol Costa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Politics and Governance; Vol 8, No 1 (2020): Politicization of EU Trade Policy across Time and Space; 290-300 2183-2463 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1822181903109718016 |
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv |
10.17645/pag.v8i1.2567 |