Advertisement

Shaping EU-Mercosur Relations

  • Carolyn Marie DudekEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

EU policy due to deeply embedded norms of liberalism and protectionism as well as external policies focused on development and promoting regional integration has shaped EU-Mercosur relations and marks a stark contrast to US policy toward the region as the historic hegemon. The following utilizes historical institutionalism to understand how liberal tenants of EU competition policy as well as the protectionism of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have shaped EU-Mercosur relations. In particular, we shall examine Spain’s role spearheading efforts to promote EU-Latin American relations and how EU competition policy’s breaking up of monopolies in Europe spurred increased investment in Latin America, especially the Southern Cone, prompting the EU to forge closer ties with Mercosur utilizing cooperation and development programs as well as promoting regional integration and liberal trade in Latin America.

Keywords

European Union Foreign Direct Investment Regional Integration Competition Policy Free Trade Agreement 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the generous support from the Fulbright Scholar Program, Hofstra University and Harris Manchester College, Oxford, which made this research possible. I greatly appreciate the time, experience and knowledge interviewees shared with me and I would especially like to thank Jose Eduardo Corbetta, for facilitating my research in Buenos Aires, and Alberta Sbragia for her very helpful comments.

References

  1. Arahuetes, A. (1998). Spain. In FDI in Latin America: Perspectives of the major investors (pp. 105–128). Madrid: Inter-American Development Bank and IRELA.Google Scholar
  2. Arts, K., & Dickson, A. (Eds.). (2009). EU development cooperation: From model to symbol. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aspinwall, M., & Schneider, G. (2000). Same menu, separate tables: The institutionalist turn in political science and the study of European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 38(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  4. Birns, L., & Ciriaco, C. (2011). Clinton’s failed attempt to mend relations with Latin America. Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from http://www.coha.org/clinton-plays-hostess-in-a-failed-attempt-to-mend-u-s-latin-america-relations/
  5. Blasseti, R., Piñeiro, M., Moreno, M., & López Saubidet, R. (2003). Sanitary and phytosanitary measures and other obstacles to trade. In A. Valladão & S. Page (Eds.), Agriculture and agribusiness in the EU-Mercosur negotiations: Negotiating issues II (pp. 77–111). Paris: Working Group on EU-Mercosur Negotiations, Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  6. Bulmer-Thomas, V. (2000). The European Union and MERCOSUR: Prospects for a free trade agreement. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cini, M., & McGowan, L. (2009). Competition policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Crawley, A. (2000). Toward a biregional agenda for the twenty-first century. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(2), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dehousse, R. (1994). Community competences: Are there limits to growth? In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Europe after Maastricht: An ever closer union (pp. 103–125). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  10. DeVries, B. (2000). Multifunctionality agriculture in the international context: A review. The Land Steward Project. Retrieved April 24, 2011 from http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/mba/MFAReview.pdf
  11. Dickson, A. (2009). The unimportance of trade preferences. In K. Arts & A. Dickson (Eds.), EU development cooperation: From model to symbol (pp. 42–59). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  12. EU Trade Commission. (2011). Highlights of the trade pillar of the Association Agreement between Central America and the European Union. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  13. EUBusiness. (2009). New vision for EU-Latin America relations – briefing. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/trade/eu-latin-america.02/
  14. European Union External Action Service. (2011–2013). Mid-term review and regional indicative programme for 20112013. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  15. Fawcett, L. L., & Hurrell, A. (1995). Regionalism in world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fouilleux, E. (2010). The common agricultural policy. In M. Cini & N. Pérez-Solórzano Borragán (Eds.), European politics (3rd ed., pp. 340–357). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garrett, G. (1992). International cooperation and institutional choice: The European Community’s internal market. International Organizations, 46, 533–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gennaro, E. (2006, November 15). Director of Foreign Commerce and Data Base Center of the Cámara Española de Comercio de la República Argentina, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  20. Givord, D. (2000–2001). Defending the European rural and agricultural model at the WTO. LEADER Magazine (25). Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leader2/rural-en/biblio/model/art02.htm
  21. Goetz, K., & Hix, S. (2001). Europeanized politics? European integration and national political systems. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  22. Green Cowles, M., Caparoso, J., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2001). Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and domestic change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grugel, J. (2000). Romancing civil society: European NGO’s in Latin America. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(2), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grugel, J. (2004). New regionalism and modes of governance—comparing US and EU strategies in Latin America. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 603–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamner, K. (2002). The globalization of law: International merger control and competition law in the United States, the European Union, Latin America and China. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 11(2), 385–405.Google Scholar
  26. Harmsen, R., & Wilson, T. (2000). Introduction: Approaches to Europeanization. Yearbook of European Studies, 14, 13–26.Google Scholar
  27. Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escape from deadlock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hermelin, B., & Tavernier, K. (2003). Multifunctionality of agriculture in the EU-Mercosur negotiations. In A. Valladão & S. Page (Eds.), Agriculture and agribusiness in the EU-Mercosur negotiations: Negotiating issues II (pp. 179–212). Paris: Working Group on EU-Mercosur Negotiations, Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  29. Hussain, I. (2012). EU’s association agreements & Central America: No milk until the cows come home. Conference paper prepared for Council for European Studies International Conference.Google Scholar
  30. Inter-American Developmental Bank. (2011, March). MercosurReport N°15.Google Scholar
  31. Iturriza, J. (2006, November). Secretaria de Agricultura de Argentina (Mercosur-EU), interviewed by author.Google Scholar
  32. Izquierdo Zamarriego, J. (2008, June 27). Spanish Foreign Ministry’s General Sub director of Commercial Politics with Latin America and North America, Spanish-Latin American Trade Relations, interviewed by author, Madrid.Google Scholar
  33. Katzenstein, P. (2005). A world of region. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Konold, D. (2010). Farm interests as bargaining chips: France in the EU-Mercosur free trade negotiations. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lister, M. (1997). The European Union and the South. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Majone, G. (1992). Regulatory federalism in the European Community. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mally, R. (2006, September 11). EU Delegation Argentina, First Secretary Cooperation, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  38. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Martín, G. P. (2006, October 15). EU ambassador to Argentina, speech given at IDB conference.Google Scholar
  40. Martín, F., & Toral, P. (2005). Latin America’s quest for globalization: The role of Spanish firms. Burlington: Ashgate Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Molano, D. (2008, June 29). Director of Telefonica’s Latin American Corporate Relations, Telefonica’s investment in Latin America, intervieweded by author, Madrid.Google Scholar
  42. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nunnenkamp, P. (2002). Foreign direct investment in Mercosur: The strategies of European investors. In P. Giordano (Ed.), An integrated approach to the European Union-Mercosur association (pp. 227–244). Paris: Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  44. Palacio, V. (2011). Spain’s contribution to a European vision for the Americas: A review. In J. Roy & M. Lorca-Susino (Eds.), Spain in the European Union: The first twenty-five years (pp. 1986–2011). Miami: Miami-Florida European Union Center, Jean Monnet Chair.Google Scholar
  45. Patterson, L. A., & Josling, T. (2002). Regulating biotechnology: Comparing EU and US approaches. University of Pittsburgh Center of Excellence European Policy Paper Series. http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/euce/pub/policy.html
  46. Peters, B. G. (2005). Theory in political science: The ‘new institutionalism’. New York: Ashford.Google Scholar
  47. Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Potter, C., & Burney, J. (2002). Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO—legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pulido, S. (2006, September 11). EU Delegation Argentina, EU-Mercosur Relations, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  50. Repsol. (2012). Retrieved March 15, 2012 from http://www.repsol.com/es_en/corporacion/conocer-repsol/quienes-somos/
  51. Robles, A. (2008). EU FTA negotiations with SADC and Mercosur: Integration into the world economy or market access for EU firms? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruano, L. (2010). La relación bioregional y la desintegración en América Latina. In J. Roy & R. Domínguez (Eds.), España, la Unión Europea y la integración latinoamericana (pp. 153–168). Miami: Miami-Florida European Union Center, Jean Monnet Chair.Google Scholar
  53. Salmon, K. (2001). Spanish foreign direct investment, transnationals and the redefinition of the Spanish business realm. International Journal of Iberian Studies, 14(2), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salmon, K. (2002, October 12). Spain: From protectionism to advocacy of liberalization. Conference on the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  55. Santander, S. (2005). The European partnership with Mercosur: A relationship based on strategic and neo-liberal principles. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scharpf, F. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European Integration. Public Administration, 66, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simiele, O. A. (2006, November 8). Director General, Sociedad Rural Argentina, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  58. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  59. Stuhldreher, A. (2011). Mercosur and the challenges of its joint trade policy: Achievements and shortcomings of a process of incomplete communitarization. Integration and Trade, 33, 69–76.Google Scholar
  60. USAID. (1999–2008). Budget justification, 1999–2008. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from http://www.usaid.gov
  61. Valladão, A., & Page, S. (Eds.). (2003). Agriculture and agribusiness in the EU-Mercosur negotiations: Negotiating issues II. Paris: Working Group on EU-Mercosur Negotiations, Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  62. WTO. (2001). Market access: An unfinished business-post Uruguay round inventory? (WTO Special Studies 6). Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
  63. European Commission. (2002). Latin America Regional Strategy Document: 2002–2006 programming. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and European StudiesHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA

Personalised recommendations