La gobernanza económica de la Zona Euro

[spa] La Unión Europea se encuentra actualmente inmersa en un proceso de cambio de su sistema de gobernanza económica. Este artículo analiza por qué los Estados miembros están siendo capaces de cooperar en temas que en los años 1990s eran tabú en la arena comunitaria. En base a una metodología cualitativa y un marco teórico nutrido por los enfoques neofuncionalista e intergubernamental, concluimos que los acuerdos sobre gobernanza económica a los que se está llegando en la actualidad responden más a la necesidad que a la voluntad de hacer avanzar la integración.[eng] The EU’s system of economic governance is currently undergoing significant change. This article analyses why member states are able to work together in areas in which, in the 1990s, cooperation would have been impossible. Applying a qualitative methodology and a theoretical framework based on neofunctionalist and intergovernmental approaches, we conclude that the agreements on economic governance that are being reached today respond more to the need than to the will to advance towards integration

The determinants of CAP reform: learning from the European financial crisis and CAP 2013

There is an ongoing debate on which are the determinants of CAP reform. The economic environment has not been contemplated as a direct determinant of CAP reform but its proxy, the budget, has not only been looked at as such but underlined as a key cause of CAP reform. This paper argues, however, that the budget does not affect the modus operandi of the CAP. It affects the quantity of support each farmer is going to get and sometimes even the timing of the reform, but not the form it is going to receive it. Other CAP determinants and international negotiations in particular, have an impact on the substance of CAP reform. This hypothesis is not contradicted by an analysis of CAP 2013 changes

Lectura de la política comercial de la UE desde una perspectiva multilateral

This article analyses whether the shift in EU trade strategy in the 21st century towards bilateralism is in conflict with its objective of promoting effective multilateralism. It demonstrates that the emergence of new powers in the trade sphere has produced a breach in the historical structure of international trade that puts the World Trade Organization's capacity to achieve its mission of trade liberalisation at risk. Within this framework, EU bilateralism may be read differently depending on how the EU's attitude to the BIC (Brazil, India, China) as new powers in the field of trade is interpreted. If it tends towards accommodation, its bilateralism may be read in a multilateralist light

Efficient multilateralism or bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy perspective

The EU bilateral trade strategy since 2006, including the TTIP, has been justified by the European Commission on the bases that deep and comprehensive trade agreements are compatible with efficient multilateralism. The Commission argument is the following: in a context marked by International supply-chains, preferential agreements that allow for progress on what has been achieved at the multilateral level (topics WTO +) and in areas not already covered by the WTO (items WTO- X) may be considered as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for multilateral liberalization. In other words, EU recent bilateral negotiations and agreements should be seen at worst as complementary to multilateral negotiations and at best as promoters

Covid-19: la crisis que despertó la solidaridad económica de la UE

Europa vive un momento histórico desde el punto de vista de su integración. Se puede decir que Next Generation EU (NGEU), el fondo de recuperación diseñado por la UE para hacer frente a la crisis provocada por la pandemia, es un Plan Marshall made in Europe

European integration theories: The case of EEC merger policy.

Political scientists have been searching for a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the dynamics of European integration since the European Communities came into being in the early 1950s. European integration theory was dominated by neo-functionalism in the 1960s and by realism in the 1970s and early 1980s. In the late 1980s these two paradigms were finally confronted. As a result of this confrontation, there seems to be an emergence of a new approach based on the idea that neither neo-functionalism nor realism alone can explain European integration but that each perspective provides fundamental insights. Multi-level governance models and even state-centred models tend to recognise that both theoretical frameworks have something to offer. Is it possible to view neo-functionalism and realism as complementary instead of competing theories of European integration. If both approaches contain some elements of truth but neither taken on its own is sufficient, insights from each may be needed to really understand the dynamics of integration. This piece of work tries to establish whether the idea that these two explanations need to be combined is worth considering at all. This hypothesis is tested in relation to European merger policy. The European Economic Community's (EEC) Merger Regulation represents the single most important extension of Community competition law since its inception. Merger control was explicitly contemplated in the 1951 Treaty of Paris but the EEC was created in 1957 without any reference to these policy arrangements. For the first time in 1973, the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for an EEC merger regulation. Yet it was only after five amendments and sixteen years that, in 1989, a merger control regulation was agreed upon. Why was an agreement on European merger regulation possible in 1989 rather than before. This research addresses this question using both neo-functionalism and realism as explanatory theories

The Public Debate over Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Its Underlying Assumptions

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations have become the centre of debate in EU trade policy, where the European Commission and civil society organizations are key actors. This article argues that a key reason why TTIP has become so controversial has to do with the nature of the arguments used by each side. The main arguments in favour of TTIP emphasize the economic and geostrategic benefits (...

The Saga Continue: contestation of EU trade policy

Trade policy constitutes a significant part of the European Union's (EU) foreign policy. The EU's emphasis on global trade liberalization in the 21st century is most evident through its ever increasing number of modern, deep, bilateral trade agreements. However, aspects of EU trade policy and bilateral agreements are hotly contested. We examine this by comparing the rhetoric employed by European civil society organizations from 2013 through 2020. While the focus of contestation and the rhetorical strategy remained fairly consistent, the effects of contestation (politicization, institutionalization of new processes) changed, largely due to the presence or absence of negotiations on a deep trade agreement with an economic and political equal perceived to have greater bargaining power. This study contributes to the literature on norm contestation and politicization by providing empirical evidence that mere contestation is insufficient for politicization, and by showing show that perceived bargaining strength influences trade politicization

Supporters' responses to contested trade negotiations: the European Commission's rhetoric on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) commenced in 2013, and soon became the most controversial bilateral trade agreement negotiations ever attempted by the European Union (EU). When trying to understand the escalating debate over the proposed agreement, most analyses have highlighted opposition to the deal, especially from civil society organizations. However, a full understanding of the debate surrounding TTIP requires analysis of supporters' responses, as these changed in response to strategies used by opponents of the agreement. This article uses a novel approach in trade policy scholarship¿rhetorical analysis¿to focus on the European Commission Trade Directorate's response to contestation over TTIP. Drawing on work on the 'rhetoric of reaction', this article identifies the rhetorical strategies used by EU trade commissioners from 2013 to 2016. It outlines the evolution of the rhetoric and accompanying changes in process and policy, providing insights on the impact of TTIP politicization on the guiding principles of the EU's trade policy