Trade policy with the lights on: linking trade and politicization

As the most hotly debated trade topic in recent history, several observers have dubbed TTIP a ‘politicized’ issue. Yet in the trade literature, there has not been much attention to what the latter concept entails, nor what its drivers and consequences are. I argue that we need to explicitly link the scholarly fields of trade and politicization, not only to explain several societal features in the TTIP debate, but also because it carries constraining consequences for policymakers on national and European level, and because this link will be increasingly relevant in the future. Through a selected review of the politicization literature, I want to show that linking these fields is beneficial in both ways. This opens up a research agenda that maps, explains and investigates the consequences of the increasing societal contestation of trade policy, manifested through public debates, mobilization efforts and rising citizen awareness

Huddle Up! Exploring domestic coalition formation dynamics in the differentiated politicization of TTIP

The politicization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has manifested itself to different extents across EU Member States. In some countries, conflicting interpretations about the deal were highly visible in public and political debates, while in others there was hardly any awareness. To further understand this phenomenon, trade scholars have to date not yet deepened nor leveraged the insights of the ‘differentiated politicization’ and social movement literature, which both point to coalition formation as an important trigger of politicization processes. This article contributes to our understanding of variation in politicization across EU Member States, by exploring coalition formation dynamics in differentiated politicization processes, in order to identify the factors facilitating successful domestic coalition formation. Through an exploratory case study design, I focus on three countries that exemplify high, middle, and low politicization cases: Germany, Belgium, and Ireland. By relying on the testimonies of campaigners active during the TTIP episode, I identify three elements that facilitated the formation of a diverse domestic coalition, which subsequently played an important role in pushing for a broad-based debate about the implications of TTIP: (i) an expert ‘mesomobilization’ link with a transnational advocacy network, (ii) the prior availability of domestic alliances, and (iii) an inclusive framing approach in order to establish a diverse coalition. The findings also underline the importance of timing in the unfolding of (successful) politicization processes

Adding fuel to the flames: how TTIP reinvigorated the politicization of trade

It is a truism to state that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a politicized issue, yet the explanations that account for this politicization are mostly singular in nature. In this paper I add to this understanding theoretically and empirically by presenting a broad analytic framework that puts TTIP at the intersection of two evolutions. There is, firstly, a longer-term trend of increasing political authority of (European) trade policy that is (at least by several organizations and citizens) not considered legitimate. I argue that TTIP is an extension and an intensification of this perceived authority-without-legitimacy trend. Secondly, the particular explosive situation that has occurred since 2013 is furthermore the result of a specific combination of a favoring political opportunity structure, combined with pre-existing mobilization resources that have facilitated a large mobilization by civil society organizations. This explains the spike of politicization that is attached onto this longer term trend. Relying on several exploratory interviews, I try to uncover the determinants in the different categories

Conceptualizing the parliamentarization and politicization of European policies

In the past 20 years, two related literature strands have gradually moved centre stage of the attention of EU Studies scholars. The first is preoccupied with the ‘politicization of European integration’, a multi-faceted concept that aims to tie together a multitude of political and societal manifestations underlying an increasing controversiality of the EU. A second concerns the parliamentarization of the EU, referring to the changing (institutional) role and EU-related activities national parliaments engage in. The key point of this contribution is simple, but often overlooked: We can and should be seeing parliamentarization as a necessary, yet insufficient, component of a wider process of politicization. Doing so goes beyond the often ad hoc or pars pro toto theoretical assumptions in both literature strands, sheds new light on the normative consequences attached to these phenomena, and furthers a more complete understanding of how a ‘comprehensive’ politicization of European policies develops

Understanding the debate about policy space: from the WTO to EU FTAs

C

From nada to Namur : national parliaments' involvement in trade politics, the case of Belgium

In the past years we have seen a somewhat paradoxical evolution in EU trade politics. While the Lisbon Treaty was meant to facilitate the adoption of trade agreements by bolstering the exclusive supranational competence of the European Union, (sub-)national Parliaments have now become more involved in trade policy than ever before. We investigate this shift in involvement across the Belgian parliaments. In the past fifteen years, both the Federal, Flemish and Walloon parliament paid little attention to EU trade policy. This has changed since 2014, especially in Wallonia but also in the other assemblies. Combining a variety of sources, we conclude that several interacting factors have fuelled this increase in Parliamentary involvement. First, TTIP and CETA contain ‘deep trade’ provisions that have alerted MPs. Second, TTIP has generated an unseen amount of mobilisation and contestation, and this has led politicians (especially on the left and in the opposition) to join the fray as well. Finally, the asymmetry between the Walloon and federal governing coalitions have favoured a more activist opposition by Wallonia, while Flanders’ centre-right coalition has remained supportive

Mondiale standaarden of race-to-the-bottom? Een analyse van regelgevende samenwerking in de onderhandelingen over een Trans-Atlantisch Vrijhandels- en Investeringsakkoord (TTIP)

Since the summer of 2013, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Especially for the EU, this is one of the policy priorities for the present term. TTIP is supposed to bring much-needed growth and jobs and to enable the EU to remain a global standard- setter, all without lowering EU levels of regulatory protection. Opponents of the agree- ment, however, fear that TTIP would lead to a regulatory race-to-the-bottom. This article scrutinizes these claims through a detailed document analysis complemented with a number of interviews. It is embedded in the political-economic literature on the trade-regulation nexus as well as on exporting standards and secondary literature on past EU-US regulatory cooperation attempts. We argue that the effects of TTIP are dependent on the concrete mode of regulatory convergence chosen in the agree- ment. If, as seems presently most plausible, the negotiators opt for bilateral mutual recognition as their preferred mode for regulatory convergence, the plausibility that TTIP would lead to global standards is reduced. The risk of running into a regulatory race-to-the-bottom increases in that case, but will ultimately depend on the number of sectors where this mode is applicable and under which conditions this is applied. We conclude that the probability is low that the TTIP agreement being negotiated will lead either to a significant increase in global standards or to a direct large-scale race- to-the-bottom

How much is enough? Explaining the continuous transparency conflict in TTIP

Transparency has been a central issue in the debate regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), especially on the side of the European Union (EU). The lack of transparency in the negotiating process has been one of the main criticisms of civil society organizations (CSOs). The European Commission (EC) has tried to gain support for the negotiations through various ‘transparency initiatives’. Nonetheless, criticism by CSOs with regard to TTIP in general and the lack of transparency in specific remained prevalent. In this article, we explain this gap between various transparency initiatives implemented by the EC in TTIP and the expectations on the side of European CSOs. We perform a content analysis of position papers on transparency produced by CSOs, mainly in response to a European Ombudsman consultation, complemented by a number of official documents and targeted interviews. We find that the gap between the TTIP transparency initiatives and the expectations of CSOs can be explained by different views on what constitutes legitimate trade governance, and the role of transparency, participation, and accountability herein