Advertisement

Outside Lobbying and the Politicization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

  • Niels GheyleEmail author
  • Ferdi De Ville
Chapter

Abstract

After more than 3 years of negotiations, talks between the EU and the USA for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have eventually been put on ice. While this is partly the result of the inherently difficult nature of the negotiations, traditional business-oriented explanations of EU trade policy have difficulties explaining this outcome. What is more, many commentators and political actors have attributed a large part of the standstill to civil society contestation, an unexpected player in terms of political power. An initially small group of civil society organizations has vigorously voiced their grievances and claims and, while doing so, has persuaded numerous other organizations, movements, and citizens to join this battle. In this chapter, we argue that insights from the literatures on “outside lobbying” and, especially, “politicization” are necessary to understand the origins, dynamics, and (possibly far-reaching) consequences of this broad contestation of TTIP.

References

  1. Adam, S., Antl-Wittenberg, E.-M., Eugster, B., Leidecker-Sandmann, M., Maier, M., & Schmidt, F. (2016). Strategies of pro-European parties in the face of a Eurosceptic challenge. European Union Politics, 18(2), 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belloc, M., & Guerrieri, P. (2008). Special interest groups and trade policy in the EU. Open Economies Review, 19(4), 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.  https://doi.org/10.2307/223459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhagen, P., & Bräuninger, T. (2005). Structural power and public policy: A signaling model of business lobbying in democratic capitalism. Political Studies, 53(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. (2004). Voice and access – Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., & Kerremans, B. (2007). The press coverage of trade issues: A comparative analysis of public agenda-setting and trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(2), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, Y., De Ville, F., & Gheyle, N. (2016). From nada to Namur: National parliaments’ involvement in trade politics, the case of Belgium. Paper presented at the State of the Federation, Ghent. Retrieved August 7, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311650291_From_nada_to_Namur_national_parliaments%27_involvement_in_trade_politics_the_case_of_Belgium
  9. Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culpepper, P. D. (2010). Quiet politics and business power: Corporate control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Bièvre, D., & Dür, A. (2005). Constituency interests and delegation in European and American trade policy. Comparative Political Studies, 38(10), 1271–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Bièvre, D., & Eckhardt, J. (2011). Interest groups and EU anti-dumping policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Grauwe, P. (2016, November 3). How far should we push globalisation? Social Europe. Retrieved August 7, 2017, from https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/11/far-push-globalisation/
  14. De Ville, F. (2012). Subsidiarity and EU trade policy: Overview of the (complex) discussion, treaty of Lisbon, and implications for Flanders. In Subsidiarity and multi-level governance (pp. 125–136). Ghent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.Google Scholar
  15. De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2015). TTIP: The truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2016). Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. De Wilde, P. (2007). Politicisation of European integration: Bringing the process into focus. University of Oslo ARENA Working Paper (2007/18).Google Scholar
  18. De Wilde, P. (2011). No polity for old politics? A framework for analyzing the politicization of European integration. Journal of European Integration, 33(5), 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Wilde, P., Leupold, A., & Schmidtke, H. (2015). Introduction: The differentiated politicisation of European governance. West European Politics, 39(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dür, A. (2007). EU trade policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 833–855.Google Scholar
  21. Dür, A. (2008). Bringing economic interests back into the study of EU trade policy-making. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dür, A. (2015). Interest group influence on public opinion: A survey experiment on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275520617_Interest_group_influence_on_public_opinion_A_survey_experiment_on_the_Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership
  23. Dür, A., & De Bièvre, D. (2007). Inclusion without influence? NGOs in European trade policy. Journal of Public Policy, 27(01), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eliasson, L. J. (2015). The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Interest groups and public opinion. Paper presented at the European Union Studies Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2013). Trade cross-cutting disciplines and Institutional provisions. Initial EU position paper. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151622.pdf
  27. European Commission. (2015a). Trade for all: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. (2015b). TTIP and regulation: An overview. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/february/tradoc_153121.pdf
  29. Gheyle, N., & De Ville, F. (2016). How Much Is Enough? Explaining the Continuous Transparency Conflict in TTIP. Politics & Governance, 5(3), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gotev, G. (2016, August 29). Germany says TTIP dead in the water. EurActiv. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/germany-says-ttip-dead-in-the-water/
  31. Hocking, B. (2004). Changing the terms of trade policy making: From the ‘club’ to the ‘multistakeholder’ model. World Trade Review, 3(01), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2004). Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration? Political Science and Politics, 37(3), 415–420.Google Scholar
  33. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(01), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howse, R., & Nicolaidis, K. (2003). Enhancing WTO legitimacy: Constitutionalization or global subsidiarity? Governance, 16(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hurrelmann, A., Gora, A., & Wagner, A. (2015). The politicization of European integration: More than an elite affair? Political Studies, 63(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutter, S., & Grande, E. (2014). Politicizing Europe in the national electoral arena: A comparative analysis of five West European countries, 1970–2010. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(5), 1002–1018.Google Scholar
  37. Hutter, S., Grande, E., & Kriesi, H. (2016). Politicising Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imig, D., & Tarrow, S. (2001). Mapping the Europeanization of contention: Evidence from a quantitative data analysis. In D. Imig & S. Tarrow (Eds.), Contentious Europeans: Protest and politics in an emerging polity (pp. 27–49). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, O. (2014, September 14). The TTIP deal hands British sovereignty to multinationals. The Guardian. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/ttip-deal-british-sovereignty-cameron-ukip-treaty
  40. Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klüver, H., Braun, C., & Beyers, J. (2015). Legislative lobbying in context: Towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (2010). The making of a European public sphere: Media discourse and political contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kriesi, H. (2012). The political consequences of the financial and economic crisis in Europe: Electoral punishment and popular protest. Swiss Political Science Review, 18(4), 518–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kriesi, H., Tresch, A., & Jochum, M. (2007). Going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of Western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 48–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kwak, J. (2014). Cultural capture and the financial crisis. In D. Carpenter & D. A. Moss (Eds.), Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it (pp. 4–98). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mahoney, C. (2007). Networking vs. allying: The decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meunier, S. (2005). Trading voices: The European Union in international commercial negotiations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Milner, H. (1988). Trading places: Industries for free trade. World Politics, 40(03), 350–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pérez-Rocha, M. (2015). TTIP: Why the world should beware. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://www.tni.org/files/download/ttip_world_beware.pdf
  53. Rasmussen, M. K. (2015). The battle for influence: The politics of business lobbying in the European Parliament. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(2), 365–382.Google Scholar
  54. Rauh, C. (2016). A responsive technocracy? EU politicisation and the consumer policies of the European Commission. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rixen, T. (2009). Politicization and institutional (non-) change in international taxation. Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2008-306. Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).Google Scholar
  56. Rodrik, D. (2007). How to save globalization from its cheerleaders. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6494.Google Scholar
  57. Rodrik, D. (2016, April 13). A progressive logic of trade. Project syndicate. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/progressive-trade-logic-by-dani-rodrik-2016-04?barrier=accessreg
  58. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schattschneider, E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidtke, H. (2014, July). Explaining the politicization of international institutions. Paper presented at the 23rd World Congress of Political Science, Montréal.Google Scholar
  61. Schwartzkopff, J. (2009). The influence of interest groups on EU Trade Policy. Berlin Working Paper on European Integration, 12.Google Scholar
  62. Statham, P., & Trenz, H. J. (2013). How European Union politicization can emerge through contestation: The constitution case. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 965–980.Google Scholar
  63. Statham, P., & Trenz, H.-J. (2015). Understanding the mechanisms of EU politicization: Lessons from the Eurozone crisis. Comparative European Politics, 13(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Summers, L. (2016, April 10). Global trade should be remade from the bottom up. Financial Times. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://www.ft.com/content/5e9f4a5e-ff09-11e5-99cb-83242733f755
  65. Thrall, T. (2006). The myth of the outside strategy: Mass media news coverage of interest groups. Political Communication, 23(4), 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winslett, G. (2016). How regulations became the crux of trade politics. Journal of World Trade, 50(1), 47–70.Google Scholar
  67. Woll, C. (2007). Trade policy lobbying in the European Union: Who captures whom? In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying in the European Union: Institutions, actors and issues (pp. 277–297). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Woll, C., & Artigas, A. (2007). When trade liberalization turns into regulatory reform: The impact on business–government relations in international trade politics. Regulation & Governance, 1(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wonka, A. (2015). The party politics of the Euro crisis in the German Bundestag: Frames, positions and salience. West European Politics, 39(1), 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, A. (2016). Not your parents’ trade politics: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations. Review of International Political Economy, 1–34.Google Scholar
  71. Young, A., & Peterson, J. (2006). The EU and the new trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zürn, M. (2004). Global governance and legitimacy problems. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zürn, M. (2015). Opening up Europe: Next steps in politicisation research. West European Politics, 39(1), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory, 4(01), 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for EU StudiesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations