Intergovernmental policy makes transnational politics?

This article is part of a wider project that has been funded with support from the European Union Erasmus+(Jean Monnet Chair Award 2012–3121 and Jean Monnet Center of Excellence Award 2014–1842). It reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein. I am grateful to Aarij Abbas, Simeon Bruce, Ha Young (Henry) Choi, Joshua Jacobs, Meghan Lowther, Jon Schmid and Daniel Yoon for their research assistance and to the government officials and interest groups representatives who took time out of their busy schedules to discuss these matters with me. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the ‘Transnational Relations and the Transatlantic Relationship Workshop’, at Georgetown University, 4–5 February 2016; the International Studies Association’s 57th Annual Convention in Atlanta, GA, 16–19 March 2016; the 23rd International Conference of Europeanists, Philadelphia, PA, 14–16 April 2016; and to the ‘21st Century Trade Politics: TTIP as a Test Case?’ Jean Monnet Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology, 29–30 April 2016. I am grateful to the participants—particularly Na-Kyung (Haillie) Lee, Sophie Meunier, Abraham Newman, Mark Pollack, Christilla Roederer-Rynning and Gabriel Siles-Brügge—for their comments. I would also like to thank the three anonymous referees for their extremely rigorous, but constructive comments and Adam Lerner for his editing. I claim sole ownership of all errors and omissions.

The unusually transnational politics of TTIP

Abstract

When the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations were underway, its politics were distinctively transnational. Numerous alliances between European and American industry associations advocated an ambitious agreement to mitigate the effects of conflicting rules. Some civic interest groups also closely cooperated to shape the agreement, while a broad, loose transatlantic coalition of civic interest groups opposed it. The extent of transnationalism in TTIP was greater than what had come before in the transatlantic relationship and what is evident in contemporaneous analogous trade negotiations. This article argues that while the salience of a trade negotiation affects whether societal actors mobilize, it is not sufficient to prompt transnational cooperation. Rather transnational cooperation stems primarily from what the actors are seeking to achieve and whether they have a motive and opportunity to work together. By clarifying the conditions under which transnational cooperation is more likely, this article informs the emerging literature on the new politics of trade. By making the case that the motives to mobilize and cooperate require distinct analysis, it contributes to the literature on transnationalism.

Notes

This article is part of a wider project that has been funded with support from the European Union Erasmus+(Jean Monnet Chair Award 2012–3121 and Jean Monnet Center of Excellence Award 2014–1842). It reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein. I am grateful to Aarij Abbas, Simeon Bruce, Ha Young (Henry) Choi, Joshua Jacobs, Meghan Lowther, Jon Schmid and Daniel Yoon for their research assistance and to the government officials and interest groups representatives who took time out of their busy schedules to discuss these matters with me. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the ‘Transnational Relations and the Transatlantic Relationship Workshop’, at Georgetown University, 4–5 February 2016; the International Studies Association’s 57th Annual Convention in Atlanta, GA, 16–19 March 2016; the 23rd International Conference of Europeanists, Philadelphia, PA, 14–16 April 2016; and to the ‘21st Century Trade Politics: TTIP as a Test Case?’ Jean Monnet Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology, 29–30 April 2016. I am grateful to the participants—particularly Na-Kyung (Haillie) Lee, Sophie Meunier, Abraham Newman, Mark Pollack, Christilla Roederer-Rynning and Gabriel Siles-Brügge—for their comments. I would also like to thank the three anonymous referees for their extremely rigorous, but constructive comments and Adam Lerner for his editing. I claim sole ownership of all errors and omissions.

¹ “Transatlantic” in this article refers to EU–US relations. This choice follows the common practice reflected in the names of major EU–US initiatives, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the New Transatlantic Agenda.

² On the issue of resources and the transatlantic “people-to-people” dialogues see Peterson et al. (2005, 55).

³ The name of the EU–Japan agreement has shifted over time. In any event, a search for “Japan” should have turned up any relevant documents.

⁴ In 2012 only eight of the 30 2005 members remained. Analysis conducted using cache versions of the TABD websites (www.tabd.org and www.tabd.com), accessed using archive.org.

⁵ During the organization’s first seven years (1999–2005), the TACD issued 32 press releases; in the subsequent seven years (2005–2012) it issued just 12. Pre-2008 press release counts from the 22 December 2008 version of tacd.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20081222011428/http://www.tacd.org/cgi-bin/db.cgi?page=list&config=admin/press.cfg). Post-2008 counts from 21 July 2013 version of page tacd.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20130721020931/http://tacd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=5&id=24&Itemid=43).

⁶ Searches were conducted on the website of the association listed first for the name of the association listed second.

⁷ Search of beuc.eu for “Consumers Union”; “Consumer Federation of America” and “Public Citizen”. Conducted 3 March 2016.

⁸ Based on a search of ETUC’s website for press releases prior to 2013 that refer to “Transatlantic Dialogue” (https://www.etuc.org/issue/transatlantic-dialogue?type=All&field_document_type_tid=All&page=2; accessed 18 January 2016).

⁹ Searches were conducted on the sites of Friends of the Earth (USA) and Sierra Club for “European Environmental Bureau”, “Transport&Enviornment” and ’Friends of the Earth Europe” and vice versa. Search conducted 3 March 2016.

¹⁰ Interviews with representatives of US consumer and environmental groups, 18 and 20 May 2015.

¹¹ Interviews with representatives of American consumer and environmental groups, 18, 20 and 26 May 2015.

¹² Positions available at: http://test.tacd.org/ttip-policy-statements/; accessed 29 March 2016.

¹³ Interview, 26 May 2015.

¹⁴ Interview with a US labour representative, 21 May 2015.

¹⁵ See https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/; accessed 19 May 2016.

¹⁶ Available at: https://corporateeurope.org/news/no-excessive-corporate-rights-canada-eu-trade-deal; accessed 5 October 2017.

¹⁷ Available at: https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/stop_the_corporate_giveaway_-_a_transatlantic_plea_for_sanity_in_the_eu-canada_ceta_negotiations.pdf; accessed 5 October 2017.

¹⁸ Based on a review of “External Relations by geographical area” on the ETUC website. Available at: https://www.etuc.org/issue/transatlantic-dialogue?type=All&field_document_type_tid=All&page=2; accessed 18 January 2016.

¹⁹ Based on searches for “CETA” on eeb.org on 15 December 2015 and archive.eeb.org on 5 October 2017.

²⁰ Based on searches for “CETA” on beuc.eu on 15 December 2015 and on 5 October 2017.

²¹ Based on searches for “Japan” on beuc.eu on 15 December 2015 and 5 October 2017.

²² Based on searches for “Japan” on eeb.org on 15 December 2015 and on archive.eeb.org on 10 March 2018.

²³ Interviews with US consumer, environmental and labour representatives, 18, 20, 21 May 2015.

²⁴ Based on searches for “TPP”, “Canada” and “Japan” on the websites of the AFL-CIO, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Friends of the Earth (USA), Public Citizen and Sierra Club. Searches conducted 1 March 2016. In addition, the Public Citizen site was searched for Canadian and Japanese groups that cooperated with EU groups: “Council of Canadians”, “Trade Justice Network”, “People’s Action Against TPP Japan”, “Pacific Asia Resource Center”, “MAMADEMO”. Search conducted 6 October 2017. The only hits related to TPP were to the Council of Canadians. Public Citizen incorporated anti-TPP material produced by the Council of Canadians, but there were no joint positions.

²⁵ The submissions to the Commission’s consultation on CETA are no longer available (based on a search of the Commission’s consultation website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en) for “Canada” and browsing all consultations on trade).

²⁶ The list of organizations making submissions is available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/february/tradoc_147583.pdf; accessed 6 October 2017.