Open Economies Review

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 457–478 | Cite as

Special Interest Groups and Trade Policy in the EU

Research article

Abstract

The aim of this work is to employ theoretical and empirical analysis on the role of special interest groups in the determination of the EU trade policy. We build a two-stage game model of trade policy formation in a multisector-multicountry framework. We obtain the level of protection as a function of industry characteristics, in addition to political and economic factors at member state and European levels. The model is then tested by 2SLS estimation using data for 15 countries and 41 sectors. The econometric output suggests empirical support to model’s predictions as it highlights an important role for both national and European groups in trade policy making.

Keywords

Lobbying Policy making Trade policy European Union 

JEL Classification

D71 D78 F13 F15 

References

  1. Balaoing A, Francois J (2006) The political economy of protection in a customs union: what drives the tariff structure of the EU? Mimeo, Tinbergen Institute, Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Belfrage C-J (2004) Special interest politics and trade policy—an empirical challenge. Mimeo, Department of Economics, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Broscheid A, David C (2003) Insider and outsider lobbying of the European commission an informational model of forum politics. Eur Union Polit 4(2):1465–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadot O, de Melo J, Olarreaga M (1999) Regional integration and lobbying for tariffs against non-members. Int Econ Rev 40(3):635–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen D (1997) The European business lobby. Bus Strateg Rev 8(4):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crombez C (2002) Information, lobbying and the legislative process in the European Union. Eur Union Polit 3(1):7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eurostat Industry, Trade and Services (2006) http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/url/page/SHARED/PER_INDCOM
  8. Gawande K, Bandyopadhyay U (2000) Is protection for sale? Evidence on the Grossman–Helpman theory of endogenous protection. Rev Econ Stat 82(1):139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gawande K, Krishna P (2003) The political economy of trade policy: empirical approaches. In: Kwan Choi E, Harrigan J (eds) Handbook of international trade, vol I. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 213–250Google Scholar
  10. Goldberg P, Maggi G (1999) Protection for sale: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 89(5):1135–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grossman GM, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Am Econ Rev 84(4):833–850Google Scholar
  12. Grossman GM, Helpman E (1995a) Trade wars and trade talks. J Polit Econ 103(4):675–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman GM, Helpman E (1995b) The politics of free trade agreements. Am Econ Rev 85: 667–690Google Scholar
  14. Global Trade Analysis Project (2005) GTAP version 6 database. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  15. Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Hufbauer GC, Clyde B, Elliott KA (1986) Trade protection in the US, 31 case studies. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Karacaovali B, Limão N (2005) The clash of liberalizations: preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union. World Bank WP 3493Google Scholar
  18. Mazey S, Richardson J (1993) Transference of power, decision rules, and the rules of the game. In: Mazey S, Richardson J (eds) Lobbying in the European community. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  19. McCalman P (2004) Protection for sale and trade liberalization: an empirical investigation. Rev Int Econ 12(1):81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitra D, Thomakos DD, Ulubaşoğlu MA (2002) Protection for sale in a developing country: democracy vs. dictatorship. Rev Econ Stat 84(3):497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Persson T (1998) Economic policy and special interest politics. Econ J 108(447):310–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shea J (1997) Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev Econ Stat 2(49):348–352Google Scholar
  24. Stern PM (1988) The best congress money can buy. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Staiger D, Stock JH (1997) Instrumental variable regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 5(65):557–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Busi Econ Stat 20(4):518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tavares S (2006) Deeper integration and voting on the common European external. MPRA Paper 960, University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and CIDEISapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations