Advertisement

European Trade Policy: Weak and Too Liberal

  • Jörg Huffschmid

Abstract

The common trade policy was initially given great importance within European politics: it was seen as a contributing factor to the smooth running of the Common Market (through the suppression of trade barriers) and a way of allowing the Community to express a single viewpoint in international negotiations. The main goal was the promotion of international free trade. However the progressive dismantling of the common tariff barrier meant that one of the essential instruments of trade policy disappeared. It also proved extremely difficult for the Community to control the non-tariff interventions of the different member states; these proliferated in the late 1970s in the context of economic crisis and industrial restructuring.

Keywords

Trade Policy Public Procurement Dispute Settlement Social Standard Southern Country 
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 and bibliography

  1. Bayard, T. and E. Kimberly, Reciprocity and Retaliation in US Trade Policy, Institute for International Economics (Washington DC, 1994).Google Scholar
  2. Benaroya, F. and J. P. Cling, ‘Crise du développement et impasse des négociations commerciales multilaterals’, Revue Française d’Economie, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (2001) pp. 73–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhagwati, J., The World Trading System at Risk (Princeton University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, D. K., ‘Labour Standards: Where do They Belong on the International Trade Agenda?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 3 (summer 2001) pp. 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carfantan, J. Y., La mondialisation déloyale (Fayard, 2002).Google Scholar
  6. Cling, J. P., E.M. Mouhoud and J. Capdevielle, ‘Normes sociales: quelles propositions avancer?’, mimeo (2003).Google Scholar
  7. Coriat, B., ‘Le nouveau régime américain de la propriété intellectuelle’, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, No. 99, 2nd trimestre (2002a) pp. 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coriat, B., ‘Du Super 301 aux TRIPS: la vocation impériale du nouveau droit américain de la propriété intellectuelle’, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, No. 99, 2nd trimestre (2002b) pp. 179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jennar, R., ‘Les pièges de l’Accord général sur le commerce et les services’, Oxfam, (February 2003).Google Scholar
  10. Rodrik, D., Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Institute for International Economics (Washington DC, 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Huffschmid
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations