The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

European Union (EU) Trade Policy

  • Stephen Woolcock
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2993

Abstract

The European Union’s (EU) role in international trade has evolved from a defensive position during the 1960s and 1970s, to being a firm supporter of a rule-based multilateral trading system as a member of the Quad (US, EU, Japan and Canada) in the 1980s and to a role in which it aspires to leadership. Shifts in relative market power with the rise of emerging markets has, however, undermined the EU’s ability to shape outcomes. Thanks to a well-developed internal acquis, the EU has developed common policies on all trade and trade-related topics, but the normative power this provides has had little discernable impact on multilateral trade outcomes. The decision-making procedures of the EU have functioned tolerably well up to now thanks to Member States having confidence and trust in the way decisions are made and the way the Commission, as agent, is controlled. The need to integrate the European Parliament (EP) into decision-making procedures following the Lisbon (TFEU) Treaty is, however, likely to result in a period of uncertainty.

Keywords

European community European Union GATT International trade Multilateralism WTO 

JEL Classifications

F10 F13 F20 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Bartels, L. 2007. The trade and development policy of the European Union. European Journal of International Law 18(4): 715–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Damro, C. 2006. The new trade politics and EU competition policy: Shopping for convergence and co-operation. Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 867–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2009. Ideas, institutions, and trade: The WTO and the curious role of EU farm policy in trade liberalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Bièvre, D., and A. Duerr. 2007. Interest group influence on policymaking in Europe and the United States. Special Issue of the Journal of Public Policy 27(1). Cambridge University Press (February).Google Scholar
  5. Duer, A. 2008. Bargaining power and trade liberalization: European external trade policies in the 1960s. European Journal of International Relations 4: 645–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dür, A., and H. Zimmermann, eds. 2007. Introduction: The EU in international trade negotiations. Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4): 771–787.Google Scholar
  7. Elsig, M. 2007. The EU’s choice of regulatory venues for trade negotiations: A tale of agency power? Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4): 927–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. 2006. Global Europe: competing in the world. A contribution to the EU’s growth and jobs strategy. COM(2006) 567 final.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2010. Trade growth and world affairs: Trade policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy. COM (2010) 612 October 2010.Google Scholar
  10. European Parliament. 2010. Directorate-General for external policies. The EU approach to international investment policy after the Lisbon treaty. INTA PE 433.854-855-856.Google Scholar
  11. Evenett, S. 2007. ‘Global Europe’ an initial assessment of the European commission’s new trade policy. http://www.evenett.com/articles.htm
  12. Faber, G., and J. Orbie, eds. 2007. European Union trade politics and development: Everything but arms unravelled. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Heydon, K., and S. Woolcock. 2009. The rise of bilateralism: Comparing American, European and Asian approaches to preferential trade agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hodges, M., K. Schreiber, and S. Woolcock. 1991. Britain, Germany and 1992: The limits of deregulation. London: RIIA.Google Scholar
  15. Holmes, P. 2006. Trade and ‘domestic’ policies: The European mix. Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 815–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerremans, B. 2006. Proactive policy entrepreneur or risk minimizer? A principal-agent interpretation of the EU’s role in the WTO. In The European Union’s Roles in International Politics, ed. O. Elgström and M. Smith. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Lamy, P. 2004. Trade policy in the prodi commission, 1999–2004. European commission. An assessment. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_120087.pdf
  18. McGuire, S. 2006. No more Euro-champions? The interaction of EU industrial and trade policies. Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 887–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meunier, S. 2000. What single voice? European institutions and EU–U.S. trade negotiations. International Organization 54(1): 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meunier, S., and K. Nicolaidis. 2006. The European Union as a conflicted trade power. Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turner, L., N. McMullen, and S. Woolcock. 1982. The newly industrialising countries: Trade and adjustment policies, with, George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Woolcock, S. 2003. The Singapore issues in Cancun: A failed negotiation ploy or a litmus test for global governance. Intereconomics, December.Google Scholar
  23. Woolcock, S. 2010. The treaty of Lisbon and the European Union as an actor in international trade. ECIPE working paper no 1/2010, January.Google Scholar
  24. Young, A.R., and J. Peterson. 2006. The EU and the new trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy 13(6): 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Woolcock
    • 1
  1. 1.