IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-168510.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A dialogue of the deaf? Conflicting discourses over the EU and services liberalisation in the WTO

Author

Listed:
  • Amandine Crespy

Abstract

Research Highlights and Abstract: The role of the European Union (EU) in services liberalisation-and the impact thereof on the provision of services of general interest-has been highly contentious both globally and in the EU. Besides other policy issues, services liberalisation contributes to make the EU a 'conflicted trade power' (Meunier and Nicolaïdis 2006). The study of conflicting discourses and, in particular, the EU's responsiveness to criticism towards the conduct of its trade policy can help to understand the legitimacy issues the EU has to face better than approaches focused on negotiating positions shaped. The study finds that the EU's trade policy is characterised by continuity in spite of the a) potentially various ideological profiles of EU Trade Commissioners b) in the face of contention by civil society, c) external events such as the global financial crisis and the EU debt crisis. However, specific institutional settings can prompt political responsiveness from the Commission in a greater extent. In the European arena, unlike in the more loosely structured global arena, the existence of a parliamentary debate and formal as well as informal contacts with organised civil society (NGOs, interest groups and unions) constrain the EU Commission to more discursive responsiveness and provides for better accountability. This article examines interactions between two conflicting discourses over the EU, public services and negotiations during the WTO Doha Round (2001-2012): on the one hand, the discourse of the anti-GATS transnational advocacy network, and on the other, that of the two EU Trade Commissioners. Conducting a frame analysis in a discursive institutionalist perspective, the eventfulness of political interactions is found to be more important than Commissioners' personal views, but differentiated institutional settings are even more crucial: the presence of a parliamentary arena in the EU arena, in particular, constrains Commissioners to engage with the discourse put forward by its critics; whereas in the global arena they tend to stick to their own framing of services liberalisation as a win-win process. The stalling of the Doha Round and the rise of the debt crisis have brought about new ways of framing threats related to the EU's trade policy. © 2013 The Author. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2013 Political Studies Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Amandine Crespy, 2014. "A dialogue of the deaf? Conflicting discourses over the EU and services liberalisation in the WTO," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/168510, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/168510
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/168510/3/Crespy_ServicesWTO_BJPIR.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alasdair R. Young, 2004. "The Incidental Fortress: The Single European Market and World Trade," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 393-414, June.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:905-926 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Andy Smith, 2003. "Why European Commissioners Matter," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 137-155, March.
    4. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Cornelia Woll, 2006. "Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union: Who Captures Whom?," Working Papers hal-00972822, HAL.
    8. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:25-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Woll, Cornelia, 2006. "Trade policy lobbying in the European Union: Who captures whom?," MPIfG Working Paper 06/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niels Gheyle, 2019. "Conceptualizing the Parliamentarization and Politicization of European Policies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 227-236.
    2. Stella Ladi & Dimitris Tsarouhas, 2017. "International diffusion of regulatory governance: EU actorness in public procurement," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 388-403, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Thomas Jacobs & Niels Gheyle & Ferdi De Ville & Jan Orbie, 2023. "The Hegemonic Politics of ‘Strategic Autonomy’ and ‘Resilience’: COVID‐19 and the Dislocation of EU Trade Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 3-19, January.

    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. Galia J. Benítez, 2018. "Business Lobbying: Mapping Policy Networks in Brazil in Mercosur," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-30, October.
    2. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Cornelia Woll, 2009. "Who Captures Whom? Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00972851, HAL.
    4. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m34ikh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m34ikh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m34ikh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:45:y:2007:i::p:905-926 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/f5vtl5h9a73d5ls976m34ikh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Cornelia Woll, 2006. "Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union: Who Captures Whom?," Working Papers hal-00972822, HAL.
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8601 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Cornelia Woll, 2009. "Who Captures Whom? Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union," Post-Print hal-00972851, HAL.
    14. Cornelia Woll, 2006. "Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union: Who Captures Whom?," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00972822, HAL.
    15. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:767-787 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Paola Conconi, 2009. "The EU Common Commercial Policy and Global/Regional Trade Regulation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/13344, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Gerrit Faber & Jan Orbie, 2009. "Everything But Arms: Much More than Appears at First Sight," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 767-787, September.
    18. Höpner, Martin & Schäfer, Armin, 2007. "A New Phase of European Integration: Organized Capitalisms in Post-Ricardian Europe," MPIfG Discussion Paper 07/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    19. Henriette Müller, 2016. "Between Potential, Performance and Prospect: Revisiting the Political Leadership of the EU Commission President," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 68-79.
    20. Thomas Christiansen & Bongchul Kim, 2023. "EU-Korea trade relations in the context of global disruption: political and legal perspectives," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 527-544, December.
    21. Sean D. Ehrlich, 2009. "How Common is the Common External Tariff?," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 115-141, March.
    22. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:46:y:2008:i::p:315-336 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Samia Tavares, 2006. "The political economy of the European customs classification," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 107-130, October.
    24. Olivier Cadot & Douglas Webber, 2001. "Banana Splits and Banana Slips:The European and Trans-Atlantic Politics of Bananas," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 3, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    25. Garz, Marcel & Maaß, Sabrina, 2021. "Cartels in the European Union, antitrust action, and public attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 533-547.
    26. Kassim, Hussein, 2013. "A new model presidency: José Manuel Barroso's leadership of the European Commission," Discussion Papers, Schumpeter Junior Research Group Position Formation in the EU Commission SP IV 2013-502, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    27. 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).
    28. Razvan-Alexandru GENTIMIR, 2015. "A Theoretical Approach On The Strategic Partnership Between The European Union And The Russian Federation," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 7(2), pages 288-295, August.
    29. Toro, Francisco P., 2008. "Agenda Disputes and Strategic Venue Preferences: The Doha Crisis and Europe’s Flight to Regionalism," MERIT Working Papers 2008-048, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    30. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    31. Moo Sung Lee, 2004. "The European Union beyond 2004: Small States and Trade Policy," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 19-35, March.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/168510. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.