IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ewp/wpaper/321web.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficient multilateralism or bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Garcia-Duran

    (Facultat d'Economia i Empresa; Universitat de Barcelona (UB))

  • Montserrat Millet

    (Facultat d'Economia i Empresa; Universitat de Barcelona (UB))

Abstract

The EU bilateral trade strategy since 2006, including the TTIP, has been justified by the European Commission on the bases that deep and comprehensive trade agreements are compatible with efficient multilateralism. The Commission argument is the following: in a context marked by international supply-chains, preferential agreements that allow for progress on what has been achieved at the multilateral level (topics WTO +) and in areas not already covered by the WTO (items WTO- X) may be considered as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for multilateral liberalization. In other words, EU recent bilateral negotiations and agreements should be seen at worst as complementary to multilateral negotiations and at best as promoters.This paper challenges this argument by pointing out that the multilateralization potential of a bilateral agreement may not be a sufficient condition for compatibility between the bilateral and multilateral approaches. Their complementarity may also be influenced by what is happening at the multilateral level. Content analysis of a primary source of information - the Bridges Weekly reports - shows that there has been a change in EU actions in the Doha Round towards Brazil, India and China since 2009. Though the EU did not preclude the inclusion of these emerging powers in the high table of negotiations at any time and was in favour of the Bali agreement of 2013, its willingness to respond to their demands reached a plateau in 2008. That may signal a change in the nature of its bilateral strategy. Indeed, from 2006 until 2009 the EU may have sought bilateral partners among new important trade players (India, ASEAN and South Korea) to complement or even facilitate a multilateral agreement. Since then, however, the EU may have focused on reaching agreements with even more important trade partners: the old Quad members (Canada, Japan and the USA) as a way to ensure the market access opportunities that it cannot longer expect to obtain from the Doha Round. Following this analysis, the TTIP should be read, at least in the short time, as an example of efficient bilateralism.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Garcia-Duran & Montserrat Millet, 2015. "Efficient multilateralism or bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy perspective," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2015/321, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ewp:wpaper:321web
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ub.edu/ubeconomics/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/321WEB1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henrik Horn & Petros C. Mavroidis & André Sapir, 2010. "Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1565-1588, November.
    2. Orbie, Jan & De Ville, Ferdi, 2011. "The European Union's Trade Policy Response to the Crisis: Paradigm lost or reinforced?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 15, April.
    3. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Joseph Francois & Miriam Manchin & Hanna Norberg & Olga Pindyuk & Patrick Tomberger, 2013. "Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment," IIDE Discussion Papers 20130401, Institue for International and Development Economics.
    5. Richard Blackhurst & David Hartridge, 2004. "Improving The Capacity Of Wto Institutions To Fulfil Their Mandate," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 705-716, September.
    6. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:905-926 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Peter Van den Bossche & Iveta Alexovičová, 2005. "Effective Global Economic Governance by the World Trade Organization," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 667-690, September.
    8. Sophie Meunier, 2007. "Managing Globalization? The EU in International Trade Negotiations," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 905-926, November.
    9. Richard Baldwin, 1993. "A Domino Theory of Regionalism," NBER Working Papers 4465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Simon J. Evenett, 2003. "The Failure of the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun: Implications for Further Research," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 4(03), pages 11-17, 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. NAGEL Daniel, 2017. "The Fate of 21st Century Multilateralism," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 02, June.
    2. Ali Arbia, 2013. "Templates for Trade: Change, Persistence and Path Dependence in U. S. and EU Preferential Trade Agreements," KFG Working Papers p0051, Free University Berlin.
    3. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1139, May.
    4. Bureau, Christophe & Guimbard, Houssein & Jean, Sebastien, 2016. "What Has Been Left to Multilateralism to Negotiate On?," Conference papers 332753, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. John Ravenhill, 2012. "The Numbers Game in Asia-Pacific Cooperation," Chapters, in: Christopher M. Dent & Jörn Dosch (ed.), The Asia-Pacific, Regionalism and the Global System, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1130, May.
    7. Scott L. Baier & Jeffrey H. Bergstrand & Matthew W. Clance, 2015. "Heterogeneous Economic Integration Agreement Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 5488, CESifo.
    8. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:1329-1349 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Elisa Borghi & Rodolfo Helg & Lucia Tajoli, 2014. "Trade effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," LIUC Papers in Economics 279, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    10. Pedro Esteban Moncarz & Manuel Flores & Sebastian Villano & Marcel Vaillant, 2021. "Evolución de la integración económica de América Latina: una perspectiva comparada de las dos últimas décadas," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4493, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    11. Eddy Bekkers & Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, 2018. "Non-tariff Measure Estimations in Different Impact Assessments," RSCAS Working Papers 2018/40, European University Institute.
    12. Baccini, Leonardo & Dür, Andreas & Elsig, Manfred & Milewicz, Karolina, 2011. "The design of preferential trade agreements: A new dataset in the Making," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2011-10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    13. Matthew Shearer & Kati Suominen & Antoni Estevadeordal, 2009. "Multilateralising RTAs in the Americas: State of Play and Ways Forward," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9300, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. David Vines & Monika Mrazova, 2008. "Is the WTO's Article XXIV Bad?," Economics Series Working Papers 417, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Houssein Guimbard & Sébastien Jean, 2016. "Competing Liberalizations: Tariffs and Trade in the 21st Century," CESifo Working Paper Series 5962, CESifo.
    16. Altay, Serdar, 2018. "Associating Turkey with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: A costly (re‐) engagement?," MPRA Paper 87454, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H. & Clance, Matthew W., 2018. "Heterogeneous effects of economic integration agreements," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 587-608.
    18. Shearer, Matthew & Suominen, Kati & Estevadeordal, Antoni, 2009. "Multilateralising RTAs in the Americas: State of Play and Ways Forward," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2522, Inter-American Development Bank.
    19. Xuepeng Liu, 2016. "Trade Agreements and Economic Growth," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(4), pages 1374-1401, April.
    20. Pedro Esteban Moncarz & Manuel Flores & Sebastián Villano & Marcel Vaillant, 2023. "Intra‐ and extra‐regional trade costs: A comparative approach to Latin‐American performance," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 2248-2284, August.
    21. Jafari, Yaghoob & Britz, Wolfgang, 2018. "Modelling heterogeneous firms and non-tariff measures in free trade agreements using Computable General Equilibrium," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 279-294.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EU; TTIP; Trade policy; multilateralism; bilateralism; regional agreements.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • N44 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - Europe: 1913-

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ewp:wpaper:321web. 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: University of Barcelona School of Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feubaes.html .

    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.