A new paradigm in trade policy making of the European Union
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu05.2024.401Abstract
The article examines practical changes in the approaches of the EU to the formation of its’ trade policy between 2004 and 2024. The author formulates a hypothesis about a paradigm shift in the formation of the EU’s foreign economic policy. Testing of this hypothesis is carried out on the basis of four criteria established by J. Orbie and F. De Ville: 1) emergence of a catalyst for such a change; 2) delegitimization of the existing paradigm by government officials; 3) availability of an alternative concept; 4) its support from influential circles. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that a paradigm shift has occurred — from the neoliberal economic, which prevailed in the EU in the early 2000s, towards “strategic autonomy”, which was formalized in 2019 by the new head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. A long-term absence of positive dynamics in the development of the bloc’s international competitiveness relative to its’ key trading partners — the US and China — was determined as the main prerequisite
for such a transformation. A general trend towards increased promotion of the new concept by the EU officials after 2019 and, especially, after the start of a special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, has been identified. In conclusion, the author identifies areas for future research, including the study of the impact of the EU’s strategic autonomy paradigm on international trade processes and the development of multilateral trade regulation, in order to ensure a more effective Russia’s response to the ongoing changes.
Keywords:
European Union, foreign economic activity, trade policy, international competitiveness, strategic autonomy, protectionism
Downloads
References
Арбатова, Н. К. (2021) ‘Нужна ли Европе стратегическая автономия?’. Интерфакс. URL: https://www.interfax.ru/world/768874 (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Арбатова, Н. К. и Кокеев, А. М. (ред.) (2016) Европейский Союз на перепутье: нерешенные проблемы и новые вызовы (политические аспекты). М.: ИМЭМО РАН.
Гордеев, В. А. и Шкиотов, С. В. (ред.) (2009) Национальная конкурентоспособность в условиях глобализации. Ярославль: Изд-во ЯГТУ.
Исаченко, Т. М. (2015) ‘Экономическая дипломатия в условиях политического кризиса’, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Экономика, 3, с. 46–64.
Исаченко, Т. М. (2010) Торговая политика Европейского Союза. М.: ГУ ВШЭ.
Кортунов, А. В. (2019) ‘Под перекрестным огнем: торговая политика ЕС в контексте американо-китайского противостояния’. Российский совет по международным делам. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/pod-perekrestnym-ognem-torgovaya-politikaes-v-kontekste-amerikano-kitayskogo-protivostoyaniya/?sphrase_id=103517834 (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Лицарева, Е. Ю. (2012) ‘Позиции стран ЕС в отношении выхода из экономического кризиса 2008 г.’,Вестник Томского государственного университета, 365, c. 69–76.
Мезинова, И. А. (2018) ‘Международная конкурентоспособность России: концептуальные основы и новые стратегические подходы’, Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России,4, с. 411–412.
Сергеев, Е. А. и Воротников, В. В. (2023) Стратегия Европейского союза в условиях глобальной перестройки: автономия или эвтаназия?’. М.: Изд-во МГИМО-Университет.
Смбатян, А. С. (2020) ‘Новеллы антидемпинговой политики ЕС в свете правил ВТО’, Российский внешнеэкономический вестник, 11, с. 16–35.
Тихонова, К. А., Монин, И. Г. и Данилов, С. С. (2019) ‘Анализ рейтинга глобальной конкурентоспособности России’, Экономика и бизнес: теория и практика, 12-3, c. 98–100.
Чудаев, А. В. (2009) ‘Повышение конкурентоспособности и развитие ключевых ценностей крупного производственного комплекса при использовании системы сбалансированных показателей’, Транспортное дело России, 3, с. 18–22.
Щербак, И. Н. (2020) ‘Стратегическая автономия ЕС и проблемы формирования внешнеполитической повестки в эпоху пандемии’. Современная Европа, 6, с. 29–40.
Энтина, Е. Г. и Давранова, С. Б. (2022) ‘Позиции Европейского парламента по торговым соглашениям «второго поколения»’, Современная Европа, 7 (114), c. 17–29.
Bassot, É. (2020) ‘The von der Leyen Commission’s priorities for 2019–2024’. European Parliament. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646148/EPRS_BRI(2020)646148_EN.pdf (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Beaucillon, C. (2023) ‘Strategic Autonomy: A New Identity for the EU as a Global Actor’, European Papers: A journal on Law and Integration, 8 (2), pp. 417–428.
Bergsteiner, H. and Avery, G. C. (2019) ‘Misleading Country Rankings Perpetuate Destructive Business Practices’, Journal of Business Ethics, 159 (4), pp. 863–881.
Carson, M., Burns, T. R. and Calvo, D. (eds) (2009) Paradigms in Public Policy: Theory and Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the EU. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Demertzis, M. and Fredriksson, G. (2018) ‘The EU Response to US Trade Tariffs’, Intereconomics. Review of European Economic Policy, 53 (5), pp. 260–268.
Di Carlo, D. and Schmitz, L. (2023) ‘Europe first? The rise of EU industrial policy promoting and protecting the single market’, Journal of European Public Policy, 30 (10), pp. 2063–2096.
Eliasson, L. J. and Garcia-Duran, P. (2023) ‘New is old? The EU’s Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’, Global Policy, 14 (S3), pp. 9–18.
Ford, L. (2013) ‘EU Trade Governance and Policy: A Critical Perspective’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9 (4), pp. 578–596.
Foulon, M. (2021) ‘Turbulent Trade: Europe and the Biden Challenge’, Policy Perspectives, 9/1, pp. 1–4.
Ginevičius, R., Žemaitis, E., Šuhajda, K. and Schieg, M. (2023) ‘Assessing the global competitiveness of European countries’, Journal of Competitiveness, 15 (4), pp. 36–52.
Hall, P. A. (1993) ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25 (3), pp. 275–296.
Helwig, N. (2020) ‘EU strategic autonomy: A reality check for Europe’s global agenda’. FIIA Working Paper,119. URL: https://www.fiia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/wp119_strategic_autonomy-2.pdf (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Hoekman, B. and Puccio, L. (2019) ‘EU trade policy: Challenges and opportunities’. RSCAS Policy Paper,6. URL: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/61589/RSCAS%20PP%202019_06.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Lavery, S. (2023) ‘Rebuilding the fortress? Europe in a changing world economy’, Review of International Political Economy, 31 (1). URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2023.2211281?src=recsys (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Orbie, J. and De Ville, F. (2020) ‘Impact of the corona crisis on EU trade policy: Our five cents to the debate’. Policy Brief No. 2. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340807720_Impact_of_the_corona_crisis_on_EU_trade_policy_Our_five_cents_to_the_debate (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Orbie, J. and De Ville, F. (2011) ‘The European Union’s Trade Policy Response to the Crisis: Paradigm Lost or Reinforced?’. European Integration Online Papers, 15 (04), Article 2. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227430805_The_European_Union’s_Trade_Policy_Response_to_the_Crisis_Paradigm_ Lost_or_Reinforced (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Ribeiro, G. C. (2023) ‘Geoeconomic Awakening: The European Union’s Trade and Investment Policy Shift toward Open Strategic Autonomy’. EU Diplomacy Paper 3/2023. College of Europe. Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies. URL: https://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/EDP%203%202023_%20Castro%20Ribeiro.pdf (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Schmucker, C. and Kober, K. (2023) ‘A Turning Point for EU Trade Policy After the Russian Aggression?’. Italian Institute for International Studies. URL: https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/a-turningpoint-for-eu-trade-policy-after-the-russian-aggression-116776 (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Siles-Brügge, G. (2013) ‘The Power of Economic Ideas: A Constructivist Political Economy of EU Trade Policy’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9 (4), pp. 597–617.
Strange, M. (2015) ‘Power in global trade governance: Is the EU a unitary actor, a tool for dominance, or a site of contestation? GATS and the TTIP negotiations’, International journal of public administration, 38 (12), pp. 884–894.
Van den Hoven, A. (2004) ‘Assuming Leadership in Multilateral Economic Institutions: The EU’s “Development Round” Discourse and Strategy’, West European Politics, 27 (2), pp. 256–283.
Vera, C. P. and Rendon, S. (2022) ‘Is the Global Competitiveness Index by the World Economic Forum a reliable tool for the design of labor market policies? Evidence from Latin American countries’, IZA Journal of Labor Policy. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365180593_Is_the_Global_Competitiveness_Index_by_the_World_Economic_Forum_a_reliable tool_for_the_design_of_labor_market_policies_Evidence_from_Latin_American_countries (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Weinhardt, C., Mau, K. and Hillebrand Pohl, J. (2022) ‘The EU as a Geoeconomic Actor? A Review of Recent European Trade and Investment Policies’, in Babić, M., Dixon, A. D. and Liu, I. T. (eds) The Political Economy of Geoeconomics: Europe in a Changing World. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–136.
Young, A. R. and Peterson, J. (2014) Parochial Global Europe: 21st Century Trade Politics. Oxford: Oxford Academic. URL: https://academic.oup.com/book/8237 (дата обращения: 20.05.2024).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Articles of the St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.