IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i1p2158244017748235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Common Is the East African Community’s Common External Tariff Really? The Influence of Interest Groups on the EAC’s Tariff Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Bünder

Abstract

Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda founded a Customs Union in 2004 and apply a Common External Tariff (CET) on imports to the region. However, the CET has been increasingly destabilized by countries using unilateral exemptions on a wide range of strongly traded goods. This instability undermines progress in regional integration and creates an uneven playing field for business. The article discusses evidence for the influence of interest groups on the observed instability. This study takes a political economy perspective and tracks lobbying behavior from the domestic to the regional level. It looks at the influence of business membership organizations and other interest groups on CET negotiations. The article applies an exploratory, qualitative approach predominantly drawing on data gathered by the author in 25 interviews with experts in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda in January 2016.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Bünder, 2018. "How Common Is the East African Community’s Common External Tariff Really? The Influence of Interest Groups on the EAC’s Tariff Negotiations," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440177, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:1:p:2158244017748235
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244017748235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017748235
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244017748235?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. Hainmueller, Jens & Hiscox, Michael J., 2006. "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 469-498, April.
    2. Bombardini, Matilde, 2008. "Firm heterogeneity and lobby participation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 329-348, July.
    3. Nguyen Manh Hung & Nguyen Van Quyen, 2007. "Endogenous Trade Policies in a Developing Economy," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 291-299, May.
    4. Mayda, Anna Maria & Rodrik, Dani, 2005. "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1393-1430, August.
    5. Hall, Richard L. & Deardorff, Alan V., 2006. "Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(1), pages 69-84, February.
    6. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    7. Baldwin, Robert E, 1989. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 119-135, Fall.
    8. Busse, Matthias & Shams, Rasul, 2003. "Trade Effects of the East African Community: Do We Need a Transitional Fund?," Discussion Paper Series 26290, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    9. Nauro F. Campos & Francesco Giovannoni, 2008. "Lobbying, Corruption and Other Banes," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp930, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    10. Mansfield, Edward D. & Mutz, Diana C., 2009. "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 425-457, July.
    11. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    12. Eising, Rainer, . "Interest groups in EU policy-making," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    13. Weymouth, Stephen, 2012. "Firm lobbying and influence in developing countries: a multilevel approach," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, December.
    14. David Lake, 2009. "Open economy politics: A critical review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 219-244, September.
    15. Philip Keefer, 2007. "Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 804-821, October.
    16. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494, Elsevier.
    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. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2021. "How issue framing shapes trade attitudes: Evidence from a multi-country survey experiment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    3. Conconi, Paola & Facchini, Giovanni & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2014. "Policymakers' horizon and trade reforms: The protectionist effect of elections," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 102-118.
    4. Stefano Barbieri & Kai A. Konrad & David A. Malueg, 2020. "Preemption contests between groups," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(3), pages 934-961, September.
    5. Cevat G. Aksoy & Sergei Guriev & Daniel S. Treisman, 2018. "Globalization, Government Popularity, and the Great Skill Divide," NBER Working Papers 25062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2008. "The Dracula effect: voter information and trade policy," Economics Working Papers 1296, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2020.
    7. Giacomo Ponzetto, 2008. "Asymmetric information and trade policy," Economics Working Papers 1253, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2010.
    8. Enrico Marvasi, 2013. "Protection for Sale, Monopolistic Competition and Variable Markups," Working Papers - Economics wp2013_11.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    9. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto H. & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2019. "Trade Attitudes in Latin America: Evidence from a Multi-Country Survey Experiment," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9603, Inter-American Development Bank.
    10. Ahmed Waqar Qasim & Jun-ichi Itaya, 2019. "Heterogeneous Firms and Lobby Participation Decision," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2415-2422.
    11. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Protection for sale or surge protection?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 675-688, August.
    12. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Is protection really for sale? A survey and directions for future research," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 181-191, March.
    13. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2011. "Heterogeneous Information and Trade Policy," 2011 Meeting Papers 189, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    15. Paola Conconi & Giovanni Facchini & Max F. Steinhardt & Maurizio Zanardi, 2020. "The political economy of trade and migration: Evidence from the U.S. Congress," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 250-278, July.
    16. Elena Paltseva, 2014. "Protection for Sale: The case of oligopolistic competition and interdependent sectors," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 1195-1216, November.
    17. Do, Quy-Toan & Levchenko, Andrei A., 2009. "Trade, inequality, and the political economy of institutions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1489-1520, July.
    18. K. H. O'Rourke & R. Sinnott, 2001. "The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence," Trinity Economics Papers 200110, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    19. Facchini, Giovanni & Mayda, Anna Maria & Mishra, Prachi, 2011. "Do interest groups affect US immigration policy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 114-128, September.
    20. Aleksandra Sojka & Jorge Diaz-Lanchas & Federico Steinberg, 2019. "The Politicization of Transatlantic Trade in Europe: Explaining Inconsistent Preferences Regarding Free Trade and the TTIP," JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis 2019-09, Joint Research Centre.

    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:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:1:p:2158244017748235. 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.