IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v59y2021i5p1069-1085.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limits of Traditional Bargaining under Deep Integration: TTIP Stumbling over Technical Barriers to Trade

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Bürbaumer

Abstract

Removing so‐called technical barriers to trade is a critical aspect of contemporary deep integration trade agreements. Yet, these barriers – standards, regulations, conformity assessment procedures – form a set of institutional complementarities, named technical infrastructure, which performs a central role for the functioning of integrated markets. Drawing on evidence from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) the paper illustrates that this contradiction reduced the negotiators' bargaining leeway. Changing a technical infrastructure comes at the risk of undermining its effectiveness. Therefore, each party could only offer an unacceptable compromise: Transforming the other's technical infrastructure towards one's own technical infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Bürbaumer, 2021. "The Limits of Traditional Bargaining under Deep Integration: TTIP Stumbling over Technical Barriers to Trade," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1069-1085, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:59:y:2021:i:5:p:1069-1085
    DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13165
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jcms.13165?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. Mark A. Pollack, 2005. "The New Transatlantic Agenda at Ten: Reflections on an Experiment in International Governance," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 899-919, December.
    2. Arnold, Jens & Nicoletti, Giuseppe & Scarpetta, Stefano, 2011. "Does Anti-Competitive Regulation Matter for Productivity? Evidence from European Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 5511, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Tim Büthe & Walter Mattli, 2011. "The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9470.
    4. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    5. Egan, Michelle, 2015. "Single Markets: Economic Integration in Europe and the United States," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199280506.
    6. 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.
    7. Bouis, Romain & Duval, Romain & Eugster, Johannes, 2020. "How fast does product market reform pay off? New evidence from non-manufacturing industry deregulation in advanced economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 198-217.
    8. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8526 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Anita Wölfl & Isabelle Wanner & Tomasz Koźluk & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2009. "Ten Years of Product Market Reform in OECD Countries: Insights from a Revised PMR Indicator," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 695, OECD Publishing.
    10. Michael Peneder, 2017. "Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(3), pages 829-858.
    11. Jiang, Fuxiu & Kim, Kenneth A. & Nofsinger, John R. & Zhu, Bing, 2015. "Product market competition and corporate investment: Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 196-210.
    12. Maki Hatanaka & Jason Konefal & Douglas Constance, 2012. "A tripartite standards regime analysis of the contested development of a sustainable agriculture standard," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 65-78, March.
    13. Chan, Alexsia T. & Crawford, Beverly K., 2017. "The puzzle of public opposition to TTIP in Germany," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 683-708, December.
    14. Stefan Renckens & Grace Skogstad & Matthieu Mondou, 2017. "When Normative and Market Power Interact: The European Union and Global Biofuels Governance," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(6), pages 1432-1448, November.
    15. Paul Conway & Richard Herd & Thomas Chalaux & Ping He & Jianxun Yu, 2010. "Product Market Regulation and Competition in China," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 823, OECD Publishing.
    16. Thomas Eger & Hans-Bernd Schäfer (ed.), 2012. "Research Handbook on the Economics of European Union Law," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13923.
    17. Kenji Kushida, 2011. "Leading without Followers: How Politics and Market Dynamics Trapped Innovations in Japan’s Domestic “Galapagos” Telecommunications Sector," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 279-307, September.
    18. Jacques Pelkmans, 2012. "Mutual Recognition: economic and regulatory logic in goods and services," Bruges European Economic Research Papers 24, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.
    19. Antonelli, Cristiano, 1994. "Localized technological change and the evolution of standards as economic institutions," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 195-216, December.
    20. Anabela Correia de Brito & Céline Kauffmann & Jacques Pelkmans, 2016. "The contribution of mutual recognition to international regulatory co-operation," OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers 2, OECD Publishing.
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8526 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Jacques Pelkmans, 2012. "Mutual Recognition: Economic and Regulatory Logic in Goods and Services," Chapters, in: Thomas Eger & Hans-Bernd Schäfer (ed.), Research Handbook on the Economics of European Union Law, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    23. Alasdair R. Young, 2016. "Not your parents' trade politics: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 345-378, May.
    24. Breznitz, Dan & Murphree, Michael, 2013. "Technology Standards in China," ETLA Brief 3, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    25. Sophie Meunier & Kalypso Nicolaidis, 2019. "The Geopoliticization of European Trade and Investment Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(S1), pages 103-113, September.
    26. Cornelia Woll & Alvaro Artigas, 2007. "When Trade Liberalization Turns into Regulatory Reform: The Impact on Business-Government Relations in International Trade Politics," Post-Print hal-01071209, HAL.
    27. Blind, Knut, 2012. "The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 391-400.
    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. Blind, Knut & Müller, Jo-Ann, 2019. "The role of standards in the policy debate on the EU-US trade agreement," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 21-38.
    2. Cai, Dapeng & Jørgensen, Jan Guldager, 2017. "Mutual Recognition for Sale: International Bargaining over Product Standards," Discussion Papers on Economics 1/2017, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    3. Blind, Knut & Petersen, Sören S. & Riillo, Cesare A.F., 2017. "The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 249-264.
    4. Kelly Benetatou & Yannis Katsoulacos & Ekaterini Kyriazidou & Galateia Makri, 2020. "Competition policy and labor productivity growth: some new evidence," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 3035-3076, June.
    5. Raven, Michael & Blind, Knut, 2017. "The characteristics and impacts of scientific publications in biotechnology research referenced in standards," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-179.
    6. Orcalli, Gabriele, 2017. "Market Building through Regional Integration Agreements : The EU and the ASEAN Way," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 32(1), pages 160-192.
    7. Milton Fernando Montoya (Editor), 2017. "Trends and challenges in electricity and oil regulation," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 949, March.
    8. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    9. Blind, Knut & Münch, Florian, 2024. "The interplay between innovation, standards and regulation in a globalising economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122260, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    11. Litina, Anastasia & Makridis, Christos A. & Tsiachtsiras, Georgios, 2021. "Do product market reforms raise innovation? Evidence from Micro-data across 12 countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Cantero Gamito, Marta, 2023. "The influence of China in AI governance through standardisation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10).
    13. Simplice A. Asongu, 2023. "Telecommunications regulation, mobile money innovations and financial inclusion," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 23/017, African Governance and Development Institute..
    14. de Vries, Henk J. & Verhagen, W. Pieter, 2016. "Impact of changes in regulatory performance standards on innovation: A case of energy performance standards for newly-built houses," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 56-68.
    15. Eve Fouilleux & Allison Loconto, 2017. "Voluntary standards, certification, and accreditation in the global organic agriculture field: a tripartite model of techno-politics," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(1), pages 1-14, March.
    16. Jørgensen, Jan Guldager & Schröder, Philipp J.H., 2014. "Harmonization versus Mutual Recognition: Some pitfalls for the coordination of product standards under imperfect competition," Discussion Papers on Economics 23/2014, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    17. Niels Gheyle, 2020. "Huddle Up! Exploring Domestic Coalition Formation Dynamics in the Differentiated Politicization of TTIP," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 301-311.
    18. Zhang, Xiang & Zhou, Han, 2022. "The effect of market competition on corporate cash holdings: An analysis of corporate innovation and financial constraint," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    19. Flora Bellone & Jérémy Mallen-Pisano, 2013. "Is Misallocation Higher in France than in the United States?," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-38, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Stefan Renckens, 2021. "Disaggregating public‐private governance interactions: European Union interventions in transnational private sustainability governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1230-1247, October.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jcmkts:v:59:y:2021:i:5:p:1069-1085. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    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.