Theorizing EU trade politics

This special issue aims to take the first step towards an inter-paradigmatic debate in the study of European Union trade politics

The Social Dimension of European Union Trade Policies

The European Union (EU) is widely considered as a formidable trade power. It represents about one fourth of worldwide trade fl ows and generally speaks with one voice in its common commercial policies. In addition, policy-makers and scholars often regard the Union as a distinctive, ‘normative power’ in the world. From this perspective, Europe tries to be at the forefront of promoting values such as human rights, democracy, sustainable development, and social justice, this with a clear preference for supporting international dialogue and cooperation in these areas, rather than for using trade sanctions. This special issue combines both aspects of the EU’s international role. More specifi cally, it concerns the social dimension of the EU’s trade policies. It raises the questions of how, why, and with what impact the EU has promoted social objectives through its common commercial policies. These three questions will be addressed in this introduction, followed by a brief summary of the way in which the different contributions of this special issue deal with them

Towards engaged pluralism in the study of European Union trade politics

Going back to the Kuhnian debate about the assumed incommensurability of different paradigms, we point at the need for engaged pluralism in political science. We illustrate this by giving illustrations from the different paradigmatic perspectives included in the special issue and how they could speak to each other. While this analysis clearly shows the limits and difficulties encountered during such an endeavor, we hope to have laid the basis for a more reflexive dialogue within the literature

Zugang und Legitimität in der EU: vorläufige Ergebnisse der Befragung deutscher Interessenverbände, politischer Parteien, Ministerien und politischer Stiftungen zur Außenhandelspolitik in der Europäischen Union

"Dieser Bericht stellt erste Ergebnisse der deutschen Teilstudie des Forschungsprojekts 'Access and legitimacy' vor. Ausgehend von der wachsenden Bedeutung europäischer Politik untersucht dieses Projekt, wie Interessengruppen und soziale Bewegungen auf die EU-Politik im Allgemeinen und die EU-Handelspolitik im Besonderen reagieren. Der Bericht präsentiert Daten von insgesamt 113 strukturierten face-to-face Interviews mit Vertreterinnen und Vertretern deutscher Interessenorganisationen (Wirtschaftsverbände, Gewerkschaften und NGOs) sowie Vertreterinnen und Vertreter politischer Parteien, Ministerien und politischer Stiftungen in Deutschland. Wir konzentrieren uns auf die Meinungen, Einstellungen und Präferenzen der Akteure in der Handelspolitik und untersuchen die unterschiedlichen Formen politischer Aktivität, die zur Einflussnahme auf politische Entscheidungen verwendet werden. Die Daten zeigen, dass Europa für die deutschen Akteure insgesamt eine sehr große Rolle spielt und dass diese einen beachtlichen Teil ihrer Ressourcen zur Einflussnahme auf der EU-Ebene einsetzen. Gleichwohl wird der größte Anteil der Ressourcen für die politische Interessenvertretung auf nationaler Ebene verwendet. Bei der Frage, mit welchen Strategien Interessenorganisationen vorgehen, um Einfluss zu nehmen, kann auf die recht verbreitete Nutzung von Netzwerkstrategien verwiesen werden. Bei der Nutzung von Öffentlichkeitsstrategien lassen sich dagegen größere Unterschiede zwischen den Akteursgruppen festhalten. Schließlich zeigt diese erste Auswertung, dass eine der Hauptkonfliktlinien im Bereich der Handelspolitik zwischen der Forderung nach stärkerer wirtschaftlicher Liberalisierung und der Forderung nach besserem Schutz des Sozialstaates verläuft." (Autorenreferat)"This paper presents preliminary results on the German data that is part of the larger research project 'Access and Legitimacy'. Given the increasing significance of European policy-making, this project investigates how interest groups and social movements respond and adapt to EU-policies in general and trade policy in particular. The paper presents data generated in 113 structured, face-to-face interviews with representatives of German interest groups (economic associations, labour unions, and NGOs) as well as representatives of political parties, ministries, and political foundations in Germany. Our focus is on the ideas, attitudes and preferences of specific actors regarding trade policy, and we investigate the different forms of political action that actors employ in order to exert influence on policy outcomes. The data indicates that Europe has great influence on German actors and that a majority of these actors have invested resources in order to influence European policies directly at the EU-level. Nevertheless, actors tend to spend the lion's share of their resources at the national level. In terms of which strategies actors employ, the data shows that most actors to a large extent utilize network strategies, while a considerable difference with regard to the use of public strategies across different types of actors can be detected. Finally, our initial research findings show that one main cleavage in the trade domain exists between economic liberalism and welfare state protectionism." (author's abstract

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. Methods The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. Actionable Recommendations The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. Discussion The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background: Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. Methods: The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. Actionable Recommendations: The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. Discussion: The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases

Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups

Although EU institutions and policies create additional opportunities for national interest groups to influence policy-making, not all domestic groups make use of the extended niche provided by the EU. Lagging Europeanization has often been explained by resource-based accounts, for instance the group’s staff resources or financial strength determines the ability to Europeanize. This article explores an alternative explanation and analyzes the importance of ties that bind national interest groups to their constituencies, their critical resource dependencies and their immediate environment. Our main conclusion is that Europeanization is not just shaped by properties of the EU system, but also by the interest group’s embeddedness in its immediate environment

Labour standards in EU-ACP relations: what explains for their limited role?

[From the introduction]. In the Preamble of the Cotonou-Agreement, both the EU and the ACP countries express being “anxious to respect basic labour rights, taking account of the principles laid down in the relevant conventions of the ILO” (OD0). This reference to ILO-type, fundamental labour rights creates many expectations with regard to the EU’s commitment to promote labour standards in ACP-countries. In practice, however, the EU seems to be reluctant to use its market power to promote compliance with fundamental labour standards, particularly when comparing with other political elements of the agreement, such as the promotion of (general) human rights, good governance and democratic principles. The question is, how can we explain this? The objectives of this paper are therefore two-fold. First of all we aim to critically review the EU’s commitment to the promotion of labour standards in ACP countries, by looking at the concrete implementation of the main political pillars of the Cotonou-Agreement since its first signature. Secondly, we will try to formulate an alternative explanation for this lack of attention for labour standards, based on a model where two elements are crucial: the prominence of the Member States when negotiating association agreement and the role played by national political parties when societal interests are to be aggregated