Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Transatlantic Trade Relations Be Institutionalised After Trump? Prospects for EU-US Trade Governance in the Era of Antiglobalist Populism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 10))

Abstract

This chapter assesses prospects for EU–US trade governance under the Trump administration, considering the dominance of political debate by plutocratic and populist extremes. It will explore how right populist resurgence is a backlash against global governance systems that have been indifferent to the impact of transnational integration on marginalised workers in post-industrial states. Transatlantic trade institutionalisation is undermined by a global system that enhances inequality, undermines job security and causes precarious living standards for many—a constituency ripe for protectionist, nationalist policies. However, Donald Trump’s use of populist rhetoric conceals his plutocratic motivations. The US’s move towards trade bilateralism—should it survive the chaotic beginnings of the administration—may undermine institutionalised mega-deals with Europe and elsewhere. But it will be motivated by plutocratic ambitions to escape constraining multilateral deals to impose US interests via bilateral trading arrangements where the US is the stronger partner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Inglehart and Norris (2016).

  2. 2.

    Stratmann (2005), pp. 135–156.

  3. 3.

    Finbow (2016), pp. 62–76; Finbow (2017).

  4. 4.

    Kruse (2015).

  5. 5.

    Fraser (2016), pp. 281–284.

  6. 6.

    Mayer (2016), pp. 178–185.

  7. 7.

    Mudde (2004), p. 543.

  8. 8.

    Mudde and Kaltwasser (2013), p. 151.

  9. 9.

    Gabbit (2015).

  10. 10.

    Gilens and Page (2014), p. 565.

  11. 11.

    Finbow (2016).

  12. 12.

    Piketty (2016).

  13. 13.

    Tussie and Saguier (2011).

  14. 14.

    Von der Burchard (2015).

  15. 15.

    EU Business, “The EU’s Trade Relationship with the United States”. Available at www.eubusiness.com/topics/trade/usa (2011); European Commission 2015.

  16. 16.

    Interviews with business, labour and academic institutes, 2016.

  17. 17.

    White House, Office of the Press Secretary “Fact Sheet: U.S.-German Bilateral Economic Ties” Press Release June 07 (2011), <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/07/fact-sheet-us-german-bilateral-economic-ties>, accessed 1 June 2017.

  18. 18.

    Introduction to this volume.

  19. 19.

    Bendini (2014).

  20. 20.

    European Commission (2006), p. 6.

  21. 21.

    Lloyd and MacLaren (2006), p. 431.

  22. 22.

    See Finbow (2013), pp. 45–64.

  23. 23.

    European Commission DG Trade (2015).

  24. 24.

    Akhtar and Jones (2013).

  25. 25.

    Akhtar and Jones (2013).

  26. 26.

    Bartl and Fahey (2014).

  27. 27.

    Bartl (2016).

  28. 28.

    Bartl and Fahey (2014).

  29. 29.

    Interviews with author, 2015–16.

  30. 30.

    Gardels (2013), p. 2.

  31. 31.

    See Gardels (2013).

  32. 32.

    Teney et al. (2013).

  33. 33.

    Autor et al. (2016), p. 44.

  34. 34.

    Autor et al. (2016), p. 45.

  35. 35.

    Kolko (2016).

  36. 36.

    Monnat (2016), p. 5.

  37. 37.

    Mastel (2016), pp. 60–61, 88.

  38. 38.

    Dutton et al. (2016).

  39. 39.

    Pew Research Center “Top voting issues in 2016 election” July 7 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Ojeda (2016).

  41. 41.

    Autor et al. (2017).

  42. 42.

    Autor et al. (2013), pp. 2121–2168.

  43. 43.

    Kolko (2016)—emphasis added.

  44. 44.

    Stokes (2017).

  45. 45.

    Smith and Santucci (2016).

  46. 46.

    O’Brien (2016).

  47. 47.

    Mastel (2016).

  48. 48.

    De Ville and Siles-Brügge (2015).

  49. 49.

    United States Trade Representative (USTR) The President’s Trade Policy Agenda Washington (2017).

  50. 50.

    USTR, ibid, 2017.

  51. 51.

    Economist 2016 “Dealing with Donald: Donald Trump’s trade bluster” Economist Dec. 2017.

  52. 52.

    Guvenen et al. (2017).

  53. 53.

    Alden (2017).

  54. 54.

    Welch (2017).

  55. 55.

    Egan (2017).

  56. 56.

    Fidler (2017).

  57. 57.

    Piketty (2016).

  58. 58.

    Freund (2017), pp. 63–64.

  59. 59.

    Harmes (2017).

  60. 60.

    Fulton (2016).

  61. 61.

    European Commission DG Trade “Press release: EU finalises proposal for investment protection and Court System for TTIP” Brussels, 12 November (2015).

  62. 62.

    United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2015), “Investment” Trans Pacific Partnership: Made in America.

  63. 63.

    Interview with US business association, 2016.

  64. 64.

    Interviews with US business and labour associations 2016.

  65. 65.

    Moore (2016).

  66. 66.

    McNamara (2017).

  67. 67.

    Hughes (2017).

  68. 68.

    Oliver and Williams (2017).

  69. 69.

    Goodwin and Heath (2016), pp. 323–331.

  70. 70.

    Dorling (2016).

  71. 71.

    Hübner (2016), p. 7.

  72. 72.

    Buncombe (2016).

  73. 73.

    Merrick (2016).

  74. 74.

    Lester (2017).

  75. 75.

    Stephens (2017).

  76. 76.

    Macdonald (2017).

  77. 77.

    Egan (2017).

  78. 78.

    Smart and Schneider-Petsinger (2017).

  79. 79.

    Smith (2017), pp. 83–87.

  80. 80.

    Hamilton (2017).

  81. 81.

    Mead (2017), p. 2.

  82. 82.

    USTR, op cit. 2017.

  83. 83.

    Gastinger (2017).

References

  • Akhtar SI, Jones VC (2013) Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Brief Congressional Research Service

    Google Scholar 

  • Alden E (2017) Trump’s 2017 trade agenda: signs of a sensible direction. ‘Renewing America’, Council on Foreign Relations, March 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G (2013) The China Syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. Am Econ Rev 103(6):2121–2168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K (2016) Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure. NBER Working Paper, 22637, p 45

    Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K (2017) A note on the effect of rising trade exposure on the 2016 presidential election. [Appendix to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi “Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure”] Available online at http://www.ddorn.net/papers/ADHM-President2016.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017

  • Bartl M (2016) Making transnational markets: the institutional politics behind the TTIP (November 3, 2016). Postnational Rulemaking Working Paper No. 2016-12; Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2016-64

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartl M, Fahey E (2014) The postnational market place: negotiating the transantlantic trade and investment partnership. In: Fahey E, Curtin D (eds) A transatlantic community of law: legal perspectives on the relationship between the EU and US legal orders. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendini R (2014) The European Union’s trade policy, five years after the Lisbon Treaty. European Parliament DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2014_76

    Google Scholar 

  • Buncombe A (2016) Brexit: Donald Trump says British people have ‘taken back their country’. Independent, June 24

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ville F, Siles-Brügge G (2015) TTIP: the truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorling D (2016) Stuart, Ben and Stubbs, Joshua Brexit, inequality and the demographic divide. LSE British Politics and Policy Blog, Dec. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton S et al (2016) Poll: Trump and Clinton voters on immigration, economy, trade. CBS News, July 14. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-voters-on-race-the-economy-trade-immigration/. See also the CBS polling data posted at https://www.scribd.com/document/318340026/Trump-Clinton-voter-toplines-on-issues-CBS-News-NYT-poll-7-14-16#from_embed

  • Egan M (2017) For President Trump, tearing up trade agreements may be easier said than done. LSE US Centre Blog, Jan. 13

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission DG Trade (2006) Global Europe: competing in the world. A contribution to the EU’s growth and jobs strategy. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/october/tradoc_130380.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2011

  • European Commission DG Trade (2015) Trade for all: towards a more responsible trade and investment policy. trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/153846.htm

  • Fidler DP (2017) President Trump, trade policy, and American grand strategy: from common advantage to collective carnage. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 12(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Finbow R (2013) The Eurozone crisis and the social dimension: prospects for democratic practice in a reconstituted fiscal union. In: Laursen F (ed) The EU and the Eurozone crisis: policy challenges and strategic choices. Ashgate, pp 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Finbow R (2016) Restructuring the state through economic and trade agreements: the case of investment disputes resolution. Polit Gov Special Issue “Supranational Institutions and Governance in an Era of Uncertain Norms”. Cogitatio Press 4(3):62–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finbow R (2017) Rethinking state theories for the ‘Deconsolidation of Democracy’: the rise of pluralist plutocracies? Presented to the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Ryerson University, Toronto, June 1. Available online at <https://cpsa-acsp.ca/documents/conference/2017/Finbow.pdf.>, accessed 1 June 2017

  • Fraser N (2016) Progressive neoliberalism versus reactionary populism: a choice that feminists should refuse. NORA-Nordic J Fem Gender Res 24(4):281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund C (2017) Trump’s confrontational trade policy. Intereconomics 52(1):63–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton D (2016) Angela Merkel sounds death knell for TTIP—but don’t thank Donald Trump. Common Dreams, November 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbit A (2015) Former occupy Wall Street protesters rally around Bernie Sanders campaign. The Guardian, Sept. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardels N (2013) The rise of plutocracy. (Report). New Perspect Q 30:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastinger M (2017) Donald Trump’s flawed plan to strong-arm other countries into “one-on-one” trade deals. LES Blogs, March 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilens M, Page BI (2014) Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect Polit 12(03):564–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin MJ, Heath O (2016) The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: an aggregate-level analysis of the result. Polit Q 87(3):323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guvenen F, Kaplan G, Song J, Weidner J (2017) Lifetime incomes in the United States over six decades. NBER Working Paper No. 23371

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton DS (2017) Next steps in the ‘Special Relationship’ – impact of a US-UK free trade agreement testimony to the Joint Hearing by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives, February 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmes A (2017) Neoliberalism, populism and Brexit. Paper prepared for Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meetings, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, June 1, 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Hübner K (2016) Understanding Brexit. Eur Policy Anal 2(2):4–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes L (2017) Senior Donald Trump aide warns European Union it can expect ‘hostility’ after Brexit. Telegraph, Feb. 22

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart R, Norris P (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolko J (2016) Trump was stronger where the economy is weaker. Fivethirtyeight Politics Blog, Nov. 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse K (2015) One nation under God: how Corporate America invented Christian America. Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester S (2017) Written Statement of Simon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittees on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, and Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Next Steps in the “Special Relationship” – Impact of a US-UK Free Trade Agreement. February 1, 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd PJ, MacLaren D (2006) The EU’s new trade strategy and regionalisation in the world economy. Aussenwirtschaft. 61(4):423–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald A (2017) EU relieved but wary after Trump endorses it as ‘wonderful’. Reuters, Feb. 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastel G (2016) Trump on trade. Int Econ; Washington 30(4):60–61, 88

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer J (2016) Dark money: the hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. Doubleday, pp 178–185

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara K (2017) Trump takes aim at the European Union. Foreign Affairs, January 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead WR (2017) The Jacksonian revolt: American populism and the liberal order. Foreign Aff 96:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick R (2016) Brexit MPs hail Donald Trump’s shock win as ‘positive’ trade opportunity. Independent, Nov. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Monnat SM (2016) Deaths of despair and support for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Pennsylvania State University Department of Agricultural Economics Research Brief, 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J (2016) What President Trump’s victory means for the most important trade deal in the world. The Independent, Nov. 9, 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde C (2004) The populist zeitgeist. Gov Oppos 39:542–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (2013) Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Gov Oppos 48:47–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K (2016) Uprising in the Rust Belt. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/coal-country-democrats-donald-trump-2016-213988. Accessed 4 Oct 16

  • Ojeda RH (2016) Donald Trump’s false narrative on Mexican migration and trade: a geopolitical economic analysis. UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Available online at http://www.naid.ucla.edu/uploads/4/2/1/9/4219226/trumptrade_execsum_v16.pdf

  • Oliver T, Williams M (2017) Making the ‘Special Relationship’ great again? LSE IDEAS Strategic Update 17.1. http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/Strategic-Updates/SUpdf/IDEAS-SU1701-US-UK-WEB.pdf

  • Piketty T (2016) We must rethink globalization, or Trumpism will prevail. Guardian, Nov. 16, 2016. Available online at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty. Accessed 1 June 2017

  • Poulsen L, Bonnitcha J, Yackee J (2015 ) Transatlantic Investment Treaty Protection. Paper No. 3 in the CEPS-CTR Project on “TTIP in the Balance” Centre for European Policy Studies Special Report No. 102. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/events/materials/20150430_TTIP_Workshop/Poulsen_et_al_ISDS_and_TTIP_report

  • Smart C, Schneider-Petsinger M (2017) A U.S.-UK trade agreement and the Trump re-election campaign. Real Clear World, April 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KE (2017) The European Union in an illiberal world. Curr Hist 116(788):83–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C, Santucci J (2016) Trump calls on working class to ‘Strike Back’ in final day of campaigning. ABC News Nov. 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens P (2017) Why Britain may not want a US trade deal. Financial Times (March 16)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes B (2017) Views of NAFTA less positive – and more partisan – in U.S. than in Canada and Mexico. Pew Research Center FactTank, May 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratmann T (2005) Some talk: money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. In: Shughart II WF, Tollison RD (eds) Policy challenges and political responses. Springer, pp 135–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Teney C, Lacewell OP, De Wilde P (2013) Winners and losers of globalization in Europe: attitudes and ideologies. Eur Polit Sci Rev, November

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tussie D, Saguier M (2011) The sweep of asymmetric trade negotiations: overview. In: Bilal S, de Lombaerde P, Tussie D (eds) The sweep of asymmetric trade negotiations: problems, processes and prospects. Ashgate, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Von der Burchard H (2015) Oh, Canada: surprise loser in US-EU trade deal controversy over TTIP threatens to delay ratification on a smaller pact with Canada. Politico, April 29. Available at http://www.politico.eu/article/canada-may-be-loser-in-us-eu-trade-deal/

  • Welch T (2017) Despite deal with Trump, carrier cutting more than 600 American jobs from U.S. factory. Sacramento Bee, May 23

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Robert G. Finbow

Authors
  1. Robert G. Finbow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Finbow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL), The City Law School, City University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Elaine Fahey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Finbow, R.G. (2018). Can Transatlantic Trade Relations Be Institutionalised After Trump? Prospects for EU-US Trade Governance in the Era of Antiglobalist Populism. In: Fahey, E. (eds) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50220-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50221-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation