The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Role of Computable General Equilibrium Modelling: An Exercise in ‘Managing Fictional Expectations’

References

• Abdelal, R., Blyth, M. and Parsons, C. (eds.) (2010), Constructing the International Economy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, F. (2004), ‘Still Dead after all these Years: Interpreting the Failure of General Equilibrium Theory’, in F. Ackerman and A. Nadal (eds), The Flawed Foundations of General Equilibrium: Critical Essays on Economic Theory (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 14–32.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, F. and Gallagher, K. (2004), ‘Computable Abstraction: General Equilibrium Models of Trade and Environment’, in F. Ackerman and A. Nadal (eds), The Flawed Foundations of General Equilibrium: Critical Essays on Economic Theory (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 168–80.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, F. and Gallagher, K. (2008), ‘The Shrinking Gains from Global Trade Liberalization in Computable General Equilibrium Models: A Critical Assessment’, International Journal of Political Economy, 37 (1), pp. 50–77. doi: 10.2753/IJP0891-1916370103
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, F. and Nadal, A. (eds.) (2004), The Flawed Foundations of General Equilibrium: Critical Essays on Economic Theory (Abingdon: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Akerlof (1970), ‘The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (3), pp. 488–500. doi: 10.2307/1879431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AK Europa (2013), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): A Critical Orientation Guide for the Better Understanding of the Economic Impact Assessments of the Trade and Investment Agreement between the USA and the EU, December (Brussels: Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (Brussels Office)). Available from: http://www.akeuropa.eu/_includes/mods/akeu/docs/main_report_en_325.pdf [accessed 12 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. and Debreu, G. (1954), ‘Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy’, Econometrica, 22 (3), pp. 265–90. doi: 10.2307/1907353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC News (2013), ‘EU and US “In Biggest Trade Deal”’, BBC News, 17 June. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22943170 [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (1996), ‘What is Sociological about Economic Sociology? Uncertainty and the Embeddedness of Economic Action’, Theory and Society, 25 (6), pp. 803–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00159817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (1997), Grenzen des Marktes: Die Sozialen Grundlagen Wirtschaftlicher Effizienz (Frankfurt a.M.: Campus).
   Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (2013a), ‘Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations in the Economy’, Theory and Society, 42 (2), pp. 219–40. doi: 10.1007/s11186-013-9191-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (2013b), ‘Capitalism as a System of Expectations: Toward a Sociological Microfoundation of Political Economy’, Politics and Society, 41 (3), pp. 323–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S.D. (2011), ‘Do We Really Need a New “Constructivist Institutionalism”?’ British Journal of Political Science, 41 (4), pp. 883–906. doi: 10.1017/S0007123411000147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertelsmann and IFO (2013), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Who Benefits from a Free Trade Deal (Bertelsmann Stiftung and IFO Institute). Available from: http://www.bfna.org/publication/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-who-benefits-from-a-free-trade-deal [accessed 25 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Bieler, A. and Morton, A.D. (2008), ‘The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: Turning Base Metal into Gold?’ International Studies Quarterly, 52 (1), pp. 103–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00493.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blyth, M. (2002), Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Political Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Blyth, M. (2009), ‘Torn Between Two Lovers? Caught in the Middle of British and American IPE’, New Political Economy, 14 (3), pp. 329–36. doi: 10.1080/13563460903087458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blyth, M. (2010), ‘Ideas, Uncertainty and Evolution’, in D. Béland and R.H. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 83–100.
   Google Scholar
• Böhringer, C. and Löschel, A. (2006), ‘Computable General Equilibrium Models for Sustainability Impact Assessments: Status Quo and Prospects’, Ecological Economics, 60 (1), pp. 49–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEE Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory, European Public Health Alliance, European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe, Health and Environmental Alliance, Nature Friends International, Transport and Environment and World Wide Fund for Nature (2014), ‘TTIP Puts the EU's Environmental and Social Policies on the Line’, EurActiv, 13 January. Available from: http://www.euractiv.com/trade/ttip-puts-eus-environmental-soci-analysis-532724 [accessed 23 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• CEPII (2013), Transatlantic Trade: Whither Partnership, Which Economic Consequences? Policy Brief No.1, September. Available from: http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/fr/publications/pb/abstract.asp?NoDoc=6113 [accessed 25 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• CEPR (2013), Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment (London: CEPR).
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, K. (2014), ‘Press on to a Trans-Atlantic Trade Pact’, Wall Street Journal, 18 February. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702303945704579390652699572572 [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, B.J. (2007), ‘The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE So Different?’ Review of International Political Economy, 14 (2), pp. 197–219. doi: 10.1080/09692290701288277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Convert, B. and Heilbron, J. (2005), ‘La Réinvention Américaine de la Sociologie Économique’, L'Année Sociologique, 55 (2), pp. 329–64. doi: 10.3917/anso.052.0329
   Google Scholar
• Cypher, J.M. (1993), ‘The Ideology of Economic Science in the Selling of NAFTA: The Political Economy of Elite Decision-Making’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 25 (4), pp. 146–64. doi: 10.1177/048661349302500412
   Google Scholar
• DeCanio, S.J. (2005), ‘Descriptive or Conceptual Models? Contributions of Economics to the Climate Policy Debate’, International Environmental Agreements, 5 (4), pp. 415–27. doi: 10.1007/s10784-005-8333-z
   Google Scholar
• De Gucht, K. (2013), ‘A European Perspective on Transatlantic Free Trade’, speech delivered to the European Conference at Harvard Kennedy School, 2 March. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13--178_en.htm [accessed 25 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• De Gucht, K. (2014), ‘Towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Stepping up a Gear’, speech delivered to the Atlantic Council, Washington DC, 18 February. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/february/tradoc_152197.pdf [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• De Ville, F. and Orbie, J. (2014), ‘The European Commission's Neoliberal Trade Discourse since the Crisis: Legitimising Continuity Through Subtle Discursive Change’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16 (1), pp. 149–67. doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ville, F. and Siles-Brügge, G. (2014), ‘As Smokescreen Clears, Time for More Honesty on EU-US Trade Pact’, Manchester Policy Blogs, 27 January. Available from: http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/other/2014/01/as-the-smokescreen-clears-time-for-more-honesty-on-eu-us-trade-pact/ [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, P.B. and Rimmer, M.T. (2010), ‘Johansen's Contribution to CGE Modelling: Originator and Guiding Light for 50 Years’, paper presented to the Symposium in Memory of Professor Leif Johansen and to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of his ‘A Multi-Sectoral Study of Economic Growth’, The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, 20–21 May.
   Google Scholar
• ECORYS (2009), Non-tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – An Economic Analysis (Rotterdam: Ecorys Nederland BV).
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2004), ‘Priorities for Bilateral/Regional Trade Related Activities in the field of Mutual Recognition Agreements for Industrial Products and Related Technical Dialogue’, SEC(2004)1072, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013a), ‘European Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment Report on the future of EU-US trade relations’, SWD(2013) 68 final, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013b), ‘Note for the Attention of the Trade Policy Committee: Initial Position Papers on: Regulatory Issues – Cross-Cutting Disciplines and Institutional Provisions; Technical Barriers to Trade; Regulatory Cluster: Automotive Sector, Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals; Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues (SPS); Trade and Sustainable Development; Anti-Trust & Mergers, Government Influence and Subsidies; Trade and Investment in Raw Materials and Energy’, m.d. 238/13, 20 June. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013c), ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: The Economic Analysis Explained’, September 2013. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/september/tradoc_151787.pdf [accessed 13 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013d), ‘Issues paper Communicating on TTIP – Areas for cooperation between the Commission services and Member States’, 7 November, Brussels: European Commission. Available from: http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/11/leaked-european-commission-pr-strategy-communicating-ttip [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013e), ‘Questions and Answers: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, last updated 20 December. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/ [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013f), ‘Independent Study Outlines Benefits of EU-US Trade Agreement’, press release, 12 March. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13--211_en.htm [accessed 3 October 2014].
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2014), ‘Mission Letter: Commissioner for Trade’, 10 September. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/malmstrom_en.pdf [accessed 3 October 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, K. and Ginsberg, R. (1996), The United States and the European Community in the 1990s (London: Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Fine, B. (1999), ‘A Question of Economics: Is It Colonizing the Social Sciences?’ Economy and Society, 28 (3), pp. 403–25. doi: 10.1080/03085149900000011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fioramonti, L. (2014), How Numbers Rule the World: The Use and Abuse of Statistics in Global Politics (London: Zed).
   Google Scholar
• Francois, J., van Meijl, H. and van Tongeren, F. (2005), ‘Trade Liberalization in the Doha Development Round’, Economic Policy, 20 (42), pp. 349–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2005.00141.x
   Google Scholar
• Fröhlich, S. (2012), The New Geopolitics of Transatlantic Relations (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press).
   Google Scholar
• George, C. (2010), The Truth About Trade: The Real Impact of Liberalization (London: Zed).
   Google Scholar
• Grahl, J. and Teague, P. (1990), The Big Market: The Future of the European Community (London: Lawrence and Wishart).
   Google Scholar
• Grassini, M. (2007), ‘Rowing along the Computable General Equilibrium Modelling Mainstream’, Studi e Note di Economia, 12 (3), pp. 315–43.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, D. and Laitner, J.A. (2004), ‘An Integrated Analysis of Policies that Increase Investments in Advanced Energy-Efficient/Low-Carbon Technologies’, Energy Economics, 26 (4), pp. 739–55. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, C. and Rosamond, B. (2002), ‘Globalisation, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (2), pp. 147–67. doi: 10.1080/13501760110120192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HLWG (2013), ‘Final Report: High Level Working Group on Growth and Jobs’, 11 February. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/february/tradoc_150519.pdf [accessed 17 May 2014].
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords (2013), Inquiry on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Evidence Session No. 2 (Questions 9–22), Thursday 31 October, 2013, 10.30am (London: The Stationery Office).
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords (2014), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, European Union Committee, 14th Report of Session 2013–14 (London: The Stationery Office).
   Google Scholar
• Johansen, L. (1960), A Multi-Sectoral Study of Economic Growth (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company).
   Google Scholar
• Kemfert, C. (2002), ‘An Integrated Assessment Model of Economy-Energy-Climate – The Model WIAGEM’, Integrated Assessment, 3 (4), pp. 281–98. doi: 10.1076/iaij.3.4.281.13590
   Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, C., Lee, N. and Morrissey, O. (1999), ‘WTO New Round: Sustainability Impact Assessment Study, Phase One Report’, Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester: University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Kishore, V. (2014), Ricardo's Gauntlet: Economic Fiction and the Flawed Case for Free Trade (London: Anthem Press).
   Google Scholar
• Lester, S. and Barbee, I. (2013), ‘The Challenge of Cooperation: Regulatory Trade Barriers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’, Journal of International Economic Law, 16 (4), pp. 847–67. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgt026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lütz, S. (2011), ‘Back to the Future? The Domestic Sources of Transatlantic Regulation’, Review of International Political Economy, 18 (4), pp. ii–xxii. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2011.638607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKitrick, R. (1998), ‘The Econometric Critique of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: The Role of Functional Forms’, Economic Modelling, 15 (4), pp. 543–73. doi: 10.1016/S0264-9993(98)00028-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaïdis, K. (1996), ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaïdis, K. and Shaffer, G. (2005), ‘Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 68 (2), pp. 263–317.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G. and Houlder, V. (2013), ‘EU-US Trade Talks Launched Amid French Fury at Brussels’, Financial Times, 17 June. Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a785d93c-d73d-11e2--8279--00144feab7de.html#axzz2uvJiaw1v [accessed 3 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. (1996), Europe and America: The Prospects for Partnership (London: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J., et al. (2004), ‘Review of the Framework for Relations between the European Union and the United States: An Independent Study (Final Report)’, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Piermantini, R. and Teh, R. (2005), ‘Demystifying Modeling Methods for Trade Policy’, WTO Discussion Papers, No. 10. Geneva: WTO.
   Google Scholar
• Poiares Maduro, M. (2007), ‘So Close and Yet So Far: The Paradoxes of Mutual Recognition’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (5), pp. 814–25. doi: 10.1080/13501760701428506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, M.A. (2005), ‘The New Transatlantic Agenda at Ten: Reflections on an Experiment in International Governance’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43 (5), pp. 899–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2005.00601.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, M.A. and Shaffer, G.C. (2001), Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, M.A. and Shaffer, G.C. (2009), When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Raza, W., et al. (2014), ‘Assess TTIP: Assessing the Claimed Benefits of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Vienna: Austrian Foundation for Development Research).
   Google Scholar
• Rollo, J., et al. (2013), ‘Potential Effects of the EU-US Economic Integration on Selected Developing Countries’, GREAT Insights, 2 (8), pp. 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. (2002), The Futures of European Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, S.K. (2007), ‘Mutual Recognition as a New Mode of Governance’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (5), pp. 667–81. doi: 10.1080/13501760701427797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2008), ‘The Use and Misuse of Trade Negotiation Simulations’, Journal of World Trade, 42 (1), pp. 87–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. and Wilkinson, R. (2012), ‘Changing of the Guard: Expert Knowledge and “Common Sense” in the Doha Development Round’, Brookes World Poverty Institute Working (BWPI) Paper No. 166, Manchester: BWPI.
   Google Scholar
• Scrieciu, S.S. (2007), ‘The Inherent Dangers of Using Computable General Equilibrium Models as a Single Integrated Modelling Framework for Sustainability Impact Assessment. A Critical Note on Böhringer and Löschel (2006)’, Ecological Economics, 60 (4), pp. 678–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shikher, S. (2012), ‘Predicting the Effects of NAFTA: Now We Can Do It Better!’ Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, 5 (2), pp. 32–59.
   Google Scholar
• Siles-Brügge, G. (2014), Constructing European Union Trade Policy: A Global Idea of Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. (2009), ‘Transatlantic Economic Relations in a Changing Global Political Economy: Achieving Togetherness but Missing the Bus’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11 (1), pp. 94–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00351.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanford, J. (2003), ‘Economic Models and Economic Reality: North American Free Trade and the Predictions of Economists’, International Journal of Political Economy, 33 (3), pp. 28–49.
   Google Scholar
• Steffenson, R. (2005), Managing EU-US Relations: Actors, Institutions and the New Transatlantic Agenda (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. and von Arnim, R. (2006), ‘Modelling the Impact of Trade Liberalisation: A Critique of Computable General Equilibrium Models’, Oxfam Research Report, July. Oxford: Oxfam International.
   Google Scholar
• Thissen (1998), ‘A Classification of Empirical CGE Modelling’, SOM Research Report 99C01, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Trachtman, J.P. (2007), ‘Embedding Mutual Recognition at the WTO’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (5), pp. 780–99. doi: 10.1080/13501760701428373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underhill, G. (2009), ‘Political Economy, the “US School”, and the Manifest Destiny of Everyone Else’, New Political Economy, 14 (3), pp. 347–56. doi: 10.1080/13563460903087482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Harten, G. (2005), ‘Private Authority and Transnational Governance: The Contours of the International System of Investor Protection’, Review of International Political Economy, 12 (4), pp. 600–23. doi: 10.1080/09692290500240305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Harten, G. (2014), ‘Comments on the European Commission's Approach to Investor-State Arbitration in TTIP and CETA’, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper nr 59, Osgoode Hall Law School. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2466688 [accessed 5 October 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Watson, M. (2014), Uneconomic Economics and the Crisis of the Model World (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Watson, M. and Hay, C. (2003), ‘The Discourse of Globalisation and the Logic of No Alternative: Rendering the Contingent Necessary in the Political Economy of New Labour’, Policy & Politics, 31 (3), pp. 289–305. doi: 10.1332/030557303322034956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A.R. and Peterson, J. (2014), Parochial Global Europe: 21st Century Trade Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar