Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Global Power Europe - Vol. 2 pp 199–217Cite as

Shaping EU-Mercosur Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1513 Accesses

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Union External Action Service (2011–2013, p. 10).

  2. 2.

    Pulido (interviewed by author, 2006); Gennaro (interviewed by author, 2006); Molano (intervieweded by author, 2008); Aspinwall and Schneider (2000, pp. 1–36); Hamner (2002, pp. 385–387); Izquierdo Zamarriego (interviewed by author, 2008).

  3. 3.

    Pierson (1996, p. 126); Dehousse (1994, pp. 103–125); Majone (1992, pp. 299–316).

  4. 4.

    Aspinwall and Schneider (2000, p. 16); Molano (interviewed by author, 2008); Hamner (2002, pp. 385–387).

  5. 5.

    Dickson (2009, pp. 42–59); Lister (1997); Grugel (2004, pp. 603–626); European Commission (2002).

  6. 6.

    Pulido (interviewed by author, 2006); Hamner (2002, pp. 385–387); Molano (interviewed by author, 2008); Gennaro (interviewed by author, 2006).

  7. 7.

    Following the 2001 economic crisis in Argentina much foreign capital fled the country, but a significant amount of European capital remained. As a precautionary measure to avoid capital flight, the administration under Nestor Kirchner enacted regulations that require foreign firms to remain in Argentina for at least 1 full year.

  8. 8.

    Goetz and Hix (2001); Harmsen and Wilson (2000, pp. 13–26); Green Cowles et. al. (2001, pp. 1–20); Featherstone and Radaelli (2003).

  9. 9.

    Molano (interviewed by author, 2008); Pulido (interviewed by author, 2006); Hamner (2002, pp. 385–387); Izquierdo Zamarriego (interviewed by author, 2008); Gennaro (interviewed by author, 2006); Aspinwall and Schneider (2000, p. 21).

  10. 10.

    Competition policy, however, does not explain the massive FDI of Spain’s banking sector in Latin America, which happened simply because of growing opportunities in the region.

  11. 11.

    The impact of privatization in Latin America also depended on how it was actually carried out. In the case of Argentina, state run monopolies were simply traded for private monopolies coming from foreign countries such as Repsol and Telefonica. On the other hand, Chile which was much more successful economically, liberalized the economy but instituted structures to protect Chile.

  12. 12.

    Upstream refers to crude oil retrieval, whereas downstream refers to the refining process.

  13. 13.

    Hermelin and Tavernier (2003, pp. 180–181); DeVries (2000); Potter and Burney (2002, pp. 35–37).

References

  • 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 

  • Arts, K., & Dickson, A. (Eds.). (2009). EU development cooperation: From model to symbol. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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/

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M., & McGowan, L. (2009). Competition policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley, A. (2000). Toward a biregional agenda for the twenty-first century. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(2), 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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/

  • European Union External Action Service. (2011–2013). Mid-term review and regional indicative programme for 2011–2013. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, L. L., & Hurrell, A. (1995). Regionalism in world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Garrett, G. (1992). International cooperation and institutional choice: The European Community’s internal market. International Organizations, 46, 533–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Goetz, K., & Hix, S. (2001). Europeanized politics? European integration and national political systems. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green Cowles, M., Caparoso, J., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2001). Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and domestic change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grugel, J. (2000). Romancing civil society: European NGO’s in Latin America. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(2), 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Harmsen, R., & Wilson, T. (2000). Introduction: Approaches to Europeanization. Yearbook of European Studies, 14, 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escape from deadlock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Inter-American Developmental Bank. (2011, March). MercosurReport N°15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iturriza, J. (2006, November). Secretaria de Agricultura de Argentina (Mercosur-EU), interviewed by author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Katzenstein, P. (2005). A world of region. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konold, D. (2010). Farm interests as bargaining chips: France in the EU-Mercosur free trade negotiations. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 321–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, M. (1997). The European Union and the South. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1992). Regulatory federalism in the European Community. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10, 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mally, R. (2006, September 11). EU Delegation Argentina, First Secretary Cooperation, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politic. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín, G. P. (2006, October 15). EU ambassador to Argentina, speech given at IDB conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín, F., & Toral, P. (2005). Latin America’s quest for globalization: The role of Spanish firms. Burlington: Ashgate Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Peters, B. G. (2005). Theory in political science: The ‘new institutionalism’. New York: Ashford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 123–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., & Burney, J. (2002). Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO—legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulido, S. (2006, September 11). EU Delegation Argentina, EU-Mercosur Relations, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repsol. (2012). Retrieved March 15, 2012 from http://www.repsol.com/es_en/corporacion/conocer-repsol/quienes-somos/

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European Integration. Public Administration, 66, 239–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simiele, O. A. (2006, November 8). Director General, Sociedad Rural Argentina, interviewed by author, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • USAID. (1999–2008). Budget justification, 1999–2008. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from http://www.usaid.gov

  • 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 

  • WTO. (2001). Market access: An unfinished business-post Uruguay round inventory? (WTO Special Studies 6). Geneva: WTO.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Latin America Regional Strategy Document: 2002–2006 programming. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and European Studies, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA

    Carolyn Marie Dudek

Authors
  1. Carolyn Marie Dudek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn Marie Dudek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Union Center, University of Miami, Memorial Drive 1000, Coral Gables, 33146, Florida, USA

    Astrid Boening

  2. Center for Global Studies, Institute for Political Science, Bonn University, Walter-Flex Str. 3, Bonn, 53113, Germany

    Jan-Frederik Kremer

  3. , Chair for International Politcs, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, Bochum, 44780, Germany

    Aukje van Loon

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Graph 1: EU FDI in Mercosur

Sources: European Commission, DG Trade, EU Bilateral Trade and Trade with the World, January 18, 2011

Eurostat, European Commission, European Union foreign direct investment yearbook 2008: Data 2001–2006, 2008

1.2 Mercosur’s Trade with Main Partners (2010)

Mercosur major import partners

Rank

Partner

Mio euro

%

1

EU 27

41,471.6

20.0

2

USA

30,910.4

14.9

3

China

28,895.7

13.9

Mercosur’s major export partners

Rank

Partner

Mio euro

%

1

EU27

43.044.5

20.6

2

China

29,017.7

13.9

3

USA

17,697.0

8.5

  1. Source: European Commission, DG Trade, “Mercosur EU Bilateral Trade and Trade with the World,” June 8, 2011

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dudek, C.M. (2013). Shaping EU-Mercosur Relations. In: Boening, A., Kremer, JF., van Loon, A. (eds) Global Power Europe - Vol. 2. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32416-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation