The Institutionalization of Trans-Atlantic Trade

Flag_of_the_United_States.svg Flag_of_Europe.svg

 

 

 

 

In an earlier post, I highlighted the United States’ efforts to establish formal trade alliances with the European Community (EC), which is the present-day European Union (EU),[1] during the 1960s and 1970s. Trade disputes between the two economies continued into the 1980s, thus hindering progress toward economic cooperation.

By the 1990s, the United States and the EC were more successful because of the institutionalization of their relationship.

However, even with the established institutional framework, the challenges that the US-EC trade relationship faced during this period continue to offer lessons for these two economic partners as they anticipate the start of free trade negotiations by June 2013.

U.S.-EC Trade 

Trade between the United States and the EC grew by 1990 compared to a decade earlier. Two-way trade between the United States and the EC increased from a little over US$90 billion in 1981 to close to US$200 billion in 1990. The EC represented 21 percent of U.S. total trade with the world in 1990, up from 19 percent in 1981.

Furthermore, U.S. imports from and exports to the EC showed significant growth during the same time period. U.S. imports from the EC jumped from about US$40 billion (17 percent of total U.S. imports) to almost US$91 billion (18 percent of total U.S. imports). U.S. exports to the EC increased from almost US$51 billion (24 percent of total U.S. exports) to about US$93 billion (25 percent of total US exports) (Table 1).

Table 1: U.S.-EC Trade,1981 and 1990 (US$billion)

 
Two-way Trade
U.S. imports from EC
U.S. exports to EC
198192.941.450.6
1990183.990.893.1
Source: Featherstone and Ginsberg (1996) pp. 138-9

 

Additionally, the U.S. trade balance with the EC improved greatly from the mid-1980s to 1990. Whereas the United States carried a trade deficit with the EC of US$25.3 billion in 1986, it reported a trade surplus of US$2.3 billion four years later.

Trans-Atlantic Institutional Framework

As a result, it became even more important to overcome the challenges of earlier efforts to deepen bilateral economic ties. Both economies addressed those challenges by institutionalizing relations. Institutionalization, in this sense, does not necessarily refer to the establishment of formal organizations. Rather, it “is a process whereby a coordination and pattern of behaviour between actors is established and developed,” writes Steffenson (2005, 5).

Throughout the 1990s, three initiatives took effect (Table 2).

Table 2: Institutionalization of Transatlantic Relations

 
1990
1995
1998
Initiative Transatlantic Declaration
New Transatlantic Agenda
Transatlantic Economic Partnership
OutcomeUS-EC maintain regular consultations but still must defer to multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) for rules governing bilateral trade relationship

establishes an institutional framework to manage trade tensions

maintained institutional framework

What We Can Learn 

Two proposals failed to take effect during this decade–the New Transatlantic Marketplace and the Transatlantic Free Trade Area.

The New Transatlantic Marketplace (NTM) was first proposed in 1995 and then again in 1998.  The NTM was approved in March 1998 by the European Commission. Its objectives were to remove trade and investment barriers between the United States and the EU and establish a transatlantic marketplace in 2010.

However, concerns about the NTM arose. France reportedly opposed the NTM because of its concern that it would be harmful to the interests of its agricultural and communication sectors.  Furthermore, France and the Netherlands felt that the NTM would undermine the rules established under the World Trade Organization. Finally, the Netherlands opposed and the United States was less enthusiastic about the NTM, because it did not include agricultural liberalization, according to several reports at that time.

The Transatlantic Free Trade Area was proposed in 1995 by former German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel. Trade tensions and concerns about what a bilateral deal would mean for the multilateral WTO resulted in the TFTA remaining merely an idea.

Liberalization of the agriculture trade remains a sticking point today. Negotiators will have to go in with serious intentions to promote trade liberalization in agriculture to avoid stalled negotiations that resulted in the collapse of the Free Trade of the Area of the Americas (FTAA) and an inability to complete the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations eight years later.

**Come back for Part 3 of the Series: US-EU Trade in the 21st Century


[1] The European Union was established in 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty.

 

Sources:

Kevin Featherstone and Roy H. Ginsberg. The United States and the European Union in the 1990s: Partners in Transition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

Rebecca Steffenson. Managing EU-US Relations: Actors, Institutions and the New Transatlantic Agenda. New York: Manchester University Press, 2005.

Other recommended reports:

New Transatlantic Marketplace: France Keeps Brittan’s Ship at Bay,” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, 4 May 1998

EU-U.S. work to reach agreement on transatlantic issues,” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, 18 May 1998

European Commission backs New Transatlantic Marketplace,” IP/98/237 Brussels, 11 March 1998

Denman, Roy. “A Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area?“ New York Times 21 June 1995

Kern, Soeren. “Why the New Transatlantic Agenda Should, But Won’t, Be Reformed.”

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

Protected by Copyscape Originality Checker

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

Corporations, Labor Rights and Free Trade

In one of my classes this semester, I showed a documentary titled, The Corporation. The goal was to help students to understand the meaning of a corporation and its functions at the sub-national, national and international levels. Following the film, a group of students engaged the rest of the class in a discussion as to whether or not they agreed with the film’s main points about corporations.

Some responses criticized corporations for exploiting workers, especially in developing countries, and harming the environment. Their arguments were based off of what they saw in the documentary. Other responses highlighted the role of consumers in giving indirect consent to corporations to engage in such practices through the purchase of products from the same companies that were being criticized.

Because the activity was successful in getting students to think critically and analytically about this issue on their own, I could only play the role of the observer. Now, with the recent development of the labor case between the United States and Guatemala, I can express my viewpoint here about corporations, international trade and labor.

While it is easy to point to the negative aspects of corporations, many discussions about their role in the global economy are often narrowly focused. In other words, criticisms of the practices of corporations may be warranted. However, the rules of international trade that push for the protection of labor rights should also be presented and examined in such discussions.

On April 11, 2013, the United States and Guatemala signed an agreement to resolve its labor dispute that initially began in April 2008. (For more, see my 2011 post, “Free trade at what cost?“) The agreement is a step-by-step  plan for Guatemala to enforce its labor laws and ensure that it complies with the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

According to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative:

Under the Enforcement Plan, which was the result of extensive engagement and resolve by both governments, Guatemala has committed to strengthen labor inspections, expedite and streamline the process of sanctioning employers and ordering remediation of labor violations, increase labor law compliance by exporting companies, improve the monitoring and enforcement of labor court orders, publish labor law enforcement information, and establish mechanisms to ensure that workers are paid what they are owed when factories close.

This case represents the first time that the United States filed a labor complaint against a trade partner under the dispute settlement of a free trade agreement.

Free trade agreements include provisions protecting the rights of workers to form unions, bargain collectively, and receive a decent wage, among other protections. As the US-Guatemala labor dispute illustrates, dispute settlement procedures are put in place to address any violation of the terms of a free trade agreement by any member and enforce compliance. Rules exist within the international market to govern the behavior of both governments and corporations.

The criticisms of corporations presented in The Corporation and during my in-class debates are definitely noteworthy. However, when “exposing the truth,” the truth must actually be told. The only way to tell the truth is by presenting both sides of the story equally.

As one who studies free trade negotiations and free trade agreements, the question that should be raised is whether or not the dispute settlement procedures to ensure compliance with labor rules are effective. If the answer is no, then a useful discussion would focus on how to make sure that the mechanisms to enforce compliance with the labor chapter within a free trade agreement are truly effective.

What do you think?

Keep up with these discussions through a free subscription (see top right corner to follow), Facebook and twitter (@intltradexaminr).

 

Protected by Copyscape Originality Checker

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

The Significance of the Race for Next WTO Director General

042798-black-inlay-steel-square-icon-sports-hobbies-people-runningOn Friday, the five remaining candidates for the WTO director-general post were narrowed down to only two–Herminio Blanco of Mexico and Roberto Carvalho de Azevedo of Brazil.

In either case, this will be the first time that the director-general of the WTO will be from a Latin American country. Furthermore, it will be only the second from a developing country. (Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand served as the first WTO director-general from a developing country.)

The selection process for the third and final round begins on Wednesday, May 1st.

Earlier related posts:

The Race for a New Leader

A New Leader to Emerge in 2013

 

Keep up with these discussions through a free subscription (see top right corner to follow), Facebook and twitter (@intltradexaminr).

 

Protected by Copyscape Originality Checker

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License