TY - JOUR
T1 - Politicisation, business lobbying, and the design of preferential trade agreements
AU - Antoine, Elise
AU - Atikcan, Ece Özlem
AU - Chalmers, Adam William
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank our team of research assistants who helped with various aspects of this project: Ali Atia, Anaïs Julin and Bhavreen Sandhu. This project could not have been completed without generous funding both from the University of Warwick Faculty of Social Sciences and Department of Politics and International Studies, and the King’s College London Social Science and Public Policy (SSPP) Faculty Research Fund.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023/6/8
Y1 - 2023/6/8
N2 - Our paper addresses the question of how governments respond to the politicisation of preferential trade agreements (PTA). How have governments responded to business interest mobilisation while negotiating PTAs? Moreover, if there has been an increase in the salience of a trade agreement, has this changed the government response? First, we assess politicisation in terms of the mobilisation patterns of private sector interests during PTA negotiations. Our central argument is that governments liberalise more when a broad range of business interests involving a large number of sectors mobilise in response to trade negotiations, as this would provide legitimacy to their policy positions. Second, we study governments’ reactions to the level of salience of the trade agreement at hand. We argue that governments liberalise less when the agreement in question is highly salient and provokes increased public debate. We take an actor-centred and comparative approach to our research questions and use a novel dataset of 157 PTAs covering the period from 2005 to 2018. Both of our hypotheses are supported by our analysis. Our results also reveal an important difference between PTA ‘depth’ and ‘rigidity’, which are often perceived as closely correlated in assessing trade openness.
AB - Our paper addresses the question of how governments respond to the politicisation of preferential trade agreements (PTA). How have governments responded to business interest mobilisation while negotiating PTAs? Moreover, if there has been an increase in the salience of a trade agreement, has this changed the government response? First, we assess politicisation in terms of the mobilisation patterns of private sector interests during PTA negotiations. Our central argument is that governments liberalise more when a broad range of business interests involving a large number of sectors mobilise in response to trade negotiations, as this would provide legitimacy to their policy positions. Second, we study governments’ reactions to the level of salience of the trade agreement at hand. We argue that governments liberalise less when the agreement in question is highly salient and provokes increased public debate. We take an actor-centred and comparative approach to our research questions and use a novel dataset of 157 PTAs covering the period from 2005 to 2018. Both of our hypotheses are supported by our analysis. Our results also reveal an important difference between PTA ‘depth’ and ‘rigidity’, which are often perceived as closely correlated in assessing trade openness.
KW - business interests
KW - contestation
KW - issue salience
KW - mobilisation
UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjpp20/current
U2 - 10.1080/13501763.2023.2218413
DO - 10.1080/13501763.2023.2218413
M3 - Article
SN - 1350-1763
JO - Journal of European Public Policy
JF - Journal of European Public Policy
ER -