IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v10y2009i1p115-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Common is the Common External Tariff?

Author

Listed:
  • Sean D. Ehrlich

    (Florida State University, USA, sehrlich@fsu.edu)

Abstract

This article examines the role of national-level politics and economics on the setting of supranational trade policy within the European Union (EU). It argues that, though EU member states must have a uniform tariff schedule, significant variation remains in the average, trade-weighted tariff because each country has a different bundle of imports into each country. Thus, some countries import more high-tariff goods than others. This article argues that a significant part of this variation is intentional, because countries know which goods they import. Therefore, countries that prefer protection push for tariffs on products they import whereas countries that prefer free trade push for liberalization on products they import, with these preferences being driven by the amount of institutional access provided to interest groups and the economic conditions in the member states. This argument is tested with regression analyses of a panel of average tariff rates in the EU member states and the tariff schedule agreed to by the EU at the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean D. Ehrlich, 2009. "How Common is the Common External Tariff?," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 115-141, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:10:y:2009:i:1:p:115-141
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116508099763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116508099763
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116508099763?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patterson, Lee Ann, 1997. "Agricultural policy reform in the European Community: a three-level game analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 135-165, January.
    2. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 571-605, July.
    3. Magee,Stephen P. & Brock,William A. & Young,Leslie, 1989. "Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521377003, January.
    4. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    5. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    6. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    7. Davis, Christina L., 2004. "International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(1), pages 153-169, February.
    8. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 203-223, April.
    9. Hanson, Brian T., 1998. "What Happened to Fortress Europe?: External Trade Policy Liberalization in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 55-85, January.
    10. Schuknecht, Ludger, 1991. "The Political Economy of EC Protectionism: National Protectionism Based on Article 115, Treaty of Rome," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 37-50, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alasdair R. Young, 2001. "Extending European Cooperation: The European Union and the 'New' International Trade Agenda," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 12, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    2. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    3. Eugénia Da Conceição, 2010. "Who Controls Whom? Dynamics of Power Delegation and Agency Losses in EU Trade Politics," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1107-1126, September.
    4. Eugénia Da Conceição, 2010. "Who Controls Whom? Dynamics of Power Delegation and Agency Losses in EU Trade Politics," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 1107-1126, September.
    5. Helen V. Milner & B. Peter Rosendorff, 1997. "Democratic Politics and International Trade Negotiations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 117-146, February.
    6. Eugénia da Conceição-Heldt, 2009. "Delegation of Power and Agency Losses in EU Trade Politics," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 18, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    7. Charles R. Hankla, 2013. "Fragmented Legislatures and the Budget: Analyzing Presidential Democracies," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 200-228, July.
    8. Zdenek Kudrna & Patrick Müller, 2017. "Harmonizing Internationally to Harmonize Internally: Accounting for a Global Exit from the EU's Decision Trap," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 815-831, July.
    9. Christian Walter Martin & Nils D. Steiner, 2016. "Economic globalization and the change of electoral rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 355-376, December.
    10. David Lake, 2009. "Open economy politics: A critical review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 219-244, September.
    11. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    12. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    13. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2017. "Political economy of trade protection and liberalization: in search of agency-based and holistic framework of policy change," MPRA Paper 79504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Robert Pahre, 1998. "Reactions and Reciprocity," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(4), pages 467-492, August.
    15. Brian Efird & Gaspare M. Genna, 2002. "Structural Conditions and the Propensity for Regional Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 267-295, September.
    16. Federico Podestà, 2016. "Do Big Governments Promote Trade Liberalization? A Long-Term Analysis of 18 OECD Countries, 1975-2000," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2016-02, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    17. Antràs, Pol & Padró i Miquel, Gerard, 2011. "Foreign influence and welfare," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 135-148, July.
    18. Thibault Darcillon, 2011. "Political Partisanship and Financial Reforms in Advanced Countries," Post-Print halshs-00639840, HAL.
    19. Fattore, Christina, 2013. "Exploring Aviation Rivalries within the Legal Context of the WTO," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17.
    20. Robert Pahre, 2004. "House Rules: Institutional Choice and United States Trade Negotiations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(3), pages 195-213, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:10:y:2009:i:1:p:115-141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.