Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 225–233 | Cite as

Consequences of southward enlargement for EC-Latin American relations

  • Guido Ashoff
Articles Integration
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past two decades Latin America, due to both political and economic considerations, has been endeavouring to establish intensive cooperative relations with the European Community. For a variety of reasons this objective has so far only been achieved in part. The Falklands/Malvinas conflict subjected these relations to a serious strain, the results of which cannot as yet be estimated. Another factor, in the longer term, is the European Community's southward enlargement. Latin American assessments of the effects of this diverge: a fear of serious disadvantages to trade on the one hand is matched on the other by the hope that Spain and Portugal will become champions of Latin American interests in the European Community.

Keywords

Latin American Country Industrial Good SELA Study Southward Enlargement Common External Tariff 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For greater detail cf. G. Ashoff: Lateinamerika und die Europäische Gemeinschaft—Bilanz und Perspektiven der Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen (Latin America and the European Community—Review and Perspectives of Foreign Trade Relations), in: K. Lindenberg (ed.): Lateinamerika—Herrschaft, Gewalt und internationale Abhängigkeit, Bonn 1982, p. 263–291.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    (cf. E. Greño Velazco: España y la integración iberoamericana, in: Integración Latinoamericana, año 3 (1978), No. 25, p. 43; cf. also Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21. 4. 1980, p. 14). Such expectations are encountered also in academic journals (cf. the editorial “España: puente entre América Latina y la CEE?” in: Integración Latinoamericana, Año 5 (1980), No. 45-46, p. 1–3).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    (Cf. CEPAL/ICI: Las relaciones económicas entre España e lberoamérica, Madrid, Santiago de Chile 1981, p.121; Interamerican Development Bank: Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, Vol. 1980–81, Washington D. C. 1981, Statistical Annex, Table 51).Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Cf. E. Greño Velazco, op. cit. España y la integración, iberoamericana, in: Integración Latinoamericana, año 3 (1978), No. 25, p. 43 ff.; G. Minet: Spanish and European Diplomacy at a Crossroad, in: Sussex European Research Centre (ed.): The Mediterranean Challenge, Vol. VI, Sussex 1981, p. 50 ff.; CEPAL: Primera conferencia iberoamericana de cooperación económica, in: CEPAL: Notas sobre la economía y el desarrollo de América Latina, No. 353, 1981, p. 3.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Cf. F. Granell: El futuro del comercio hispano-latinoamericano ante el ingreso de España a la Comunidad Económica Europea, in: Comercio Exterior (México), Vol. 29 (1979), No. 1, p. 44. For critical comment on the idea of a Lomé Agreement for Latin America and on the “bridge theory” cf. N. Elkin: Dificultades del diálogo entre América Latina y la Comunidad Económica Europea, in: Comercio Exterior (México), Vol. 31 (1981), No. 12, p 1427.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Cf. Die Zeit, 20. 2. 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    (cf. Expresso, Lisbon 5. 6. 1982).Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    G. Minet: Spanish and European Diplomacy at a Crossroad, in: Sussex European Research Centre (ed.): The Mediterranean Challenge, Vol. VI, Sussex 1981, p. 48 ff.;Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    (cf. Expresso, Lisbon, 1./8. 5. 1982).Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Cf. G. Ashoff: The Southward Enlargement of the EC—Consequences for Industries and Industrial Policies, in: INTERECONOMICS, No. 6, 1980, p. 302 ff.Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    (cf. R. J. Langhammer: Die Präferenzabkommen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft mit Entwicklungsländern—Anpassungsprobleme für die Beitrittsländer? (The Preference Agreements between the European Community and Developing Countries—Problems of Adjustment for the Newly Acceding Countries?), in: Die Weltwirtschaft 1980, No. 1, p. 192). Portuguese imports of industrial goods from the EC are subject, on average, to a protection of only 2.0% (calculations for 1978); this is due to the reduction of tariffs within the framework of the free trade agreement with the EC as well as to the erosion of protection (due to inflation and devaluations) in a system of specific customs tariffs of the kind still in use by Portugal. In addition Portugal in 1979 introduced new ad valorem tariffs vis-à-vis the EC (on average 18%)—(cf. A. Silva: A indústria transformadora portuguesa e a adesão à CEE, in: Estudos de Economia, Vol. II (1981), No. 1, p. 74, 95.) In both Iberian countries there are still considerable non-tariff trade barriers whose tariff equivalents are almost impossible to quantify.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Cf. R. J. Langhammer, op. cit. Die Präferenzabkommen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft mit Entwicklungsländern—Anpassungsprobleme für die Beitrittsländer? (The Preference Agreements between the European Community and Developing Countries—Problems of Adjustment for the Newly Acceding Countries?), in: Die Weltwirtschaft 1980, No. 1, p. 188 ff.Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    SELA: Impacto de la segunda ampliación de la CEE sobre las exportaciones latinoamericanas, parte general y varios anexos, Caracas 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    These percentage data were calculated on the basis of the data of the SELA study (cf. SELA, op. cit., Impacto de la segunda ampliación de la CEE sobre las exportaciones latinoamericanas, parte general y varios anexos, Caracas 1981. Anexo VIII, p. 12 ff.; year of reference essentially 1978) in accordance with IMF: Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    CEPAL/CI: Las relaciones económicas entre España e Iberoamérica, Madrid, Santiago de Chile 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    (cf. Borrmann et al.: Das Allgemeine Zollpräferenzsystem der EG (The Generalized System of Preferences of the EC), Hamburg 1979, p. 105). Conversely, several South-east Asian developing countries, in spite of even more restrictive market access conditions within the GSP, increased their exports of industrial goods to the EC to a considerably greater extent than Latin America (cf. G. Ashoff. op. cit. The Southward Enlargement of the EC— Consequences for Industries and Industrial Policies, in: INTERECONOMICS, No. 6, 1980, p. 274). The below average competitiveness of Latin America by international standards is also pointed out by a “constant market share analysis” by UNIDO, which examines the determining factors of the growth of exports of industrial goods for a variety of developing country regions (cf. UNIDO: World Industry Since 1960—Progress and Prospects, New York 1979, p. 160–165).Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    Cf. EC Commission: Stellungnahme zum Beitrittsantrag Spaniens (Comment on Spain's Application for Accession), in: Bulletin der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Annex 9/78, p. 22.Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    Cf. R. Stanton: Foreign Investment and Host-Country Politics: the Irish Case, in: D. Seers et al. (eds.): Underdeveloped Europe. Studies in Core-Periphery Relations, Sussex 1979, p. 108; A. Coughlan: The Impact of European Integration on Member Countries: Ireland, in: D. Seers et al. (eds.): Integration and Unequal Development. The Experience of the EEC, London 1980, p. 129.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    Cf. also Expresso, Lisbon 5. 1. 1980; O Estado de São Paulo 20. 3. 1980: Portugal no MCE, ponte para o Brasil (Portugal in the Common Market—a Bridge for Brazil); O Dia, Lisbon 8. 4. 1980; O Jornal Lisbon 6. 2. 1981. In this context the Portuguese government is considering a free production zone in Sines as well as tax incentives to attract foreign and especially Brazilian investors (cf. Expresso, Lisbon 9. 4. 1982).Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    Cf. O Jornal, Lisbon 30. 5. 1980: Mercado Comum não aceita Portugal como ponte para exportacões brasileiras (The EC does not accept Portugal as a bridge for Brazilian exports).Google Scholar
  21. 30.
    In 1979 Latin America (excluding the Lomé States of the Caribbean) accounted for a mere 4.7% of bilateral and 1.5% of Community development aid from the EC (cf. G. Ashoff, op. cit. The Southward Enlargement of the EC— Consequences for Industries and Industrial Policies, in: INTERECONOMICS, No. 6, 1980, p. 276).Google Scholar
  22. 31.
    Cf. R. Taylor: Auswirkungen der zweiten Erweiterung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft auf die Länder des südlichen Mittelmeerraumes (Effects of the Second Enlargement of the European Community on the Countries of the Southern Mediterranean), in: Europa-Information “Entwicklung”, Brussels 1980, p. 15.Google Scholar
  23. 33.
    Cf. G. Ashoff, op. cit. The Southward Enlargement of the EC— Consequences for Industries and Industrial Policies, in: INTERECONOMICS, No. 6, 1980, p.288–289.Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    Cf. E. V. Iglesias: Latin America on the Threshold of the 1980s, in: CEPAL Review No. 9 (1979), pp. 18, 24–28.Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    Cf. G. Guzman: Commentaires sur l'impact possible de l'adhésion de l'Espagne à la CEE sur les relations avec l'Amérique latine, in: Institut d'Etudes Européennes (Université Libre de Bruxelles): La Communauté Européenne et l'Amérique latine, Brussels 1981, p. 151; L. Berrocal: La politique latinoaméricaine de l'Espagne— Quelques éléments d'analyse, ibid., p. 199.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Ashoff
    • 1
  1. 1.German Development InstituteBerlin

Personalised recommendations