Exploring National Trade Administrations

  • Johan Adriaensen
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)


How do countries formulate a position in international trade negotiations? Existing state-centric approaches have focused extensively on variation within the legislative power. A contemporary, comparative study of the administration itself is still missing. Using a most-diverse-case selection, this chapter explores the organisation and functioning of national trade administrations in Spain, Belgium, Estonia, and Poland. Through extensive interviews, a mapping was made along four dimensions: the number of public actors involved in the policy process, the coordination methods applied, the available human capital within the administration, and the relationship between state and society. The resulting findings raise new questions regarding the constitutive role of mobilised interests in trade policy while identifying several avenues for further research.


Member State Trade Policy Public Actor Business Association Coordination Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison, G. T. & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics, 24(1), 40–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alons, G. C. (2010). Against the Grain. French and German preference formation on agricultural trade during the GATT Uruguay Round. Ede: Ponsen & Looijen.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, M. M. & Coleman, W. D. (1989). Strong states and weak states : Sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British Journal of Political Science, 19(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, M. A., Goldstein, J., & Weingast, B. R. (1997). The institutional roots of American Trade Policy. World Politics, 49(3), 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin, R. E. (1985). The Political Economy of U.S. Import Policy. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, R. H. (1997). Open-economy politics: The political economy of the world coffee trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chase, K. A. (2003). Economic interests and regional trading arrangements : The case of NAFTA. International Organization, 57(1), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifford, G. (1990). Bureaucratic politics. The Journal of American History, 77(1), 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copeland, D. D. C. (1996). Economic interdependence and war: A theory of trade expectations. International Security, 20(4), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union. (2013) 3245th Council meeting Foreign Affairs Trade, 14 June 2013 Press Release, Document 10862/13, PRESSE 250Google Scholar
  11. Damonte, A., & Giuliani, M. (2012). On compliance again. In Paper prepared for the Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on the European Union, Tampere, 13–15 September 2012 (pp. 13–15).Google Scholar
  12. De Ville, F. & Siles-Brügge, G. (2015). The transatlantic trade and investment partnership and the role of computable general equilibrium modelling: An exercise in ‘managing fictional expectations.’. New Political Economy, 20(5), 653–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Destler, I. (1986). Protecting Congress or protecting trade? Foreign Policy, 62(62), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dimitrova, A. & Toshkov, D. (2007). The dynamics of domestic coordination of EU Policy in the New Member States : Impossible to lock in ? West European Politics, 20(5), 961–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dür, A. (2007). EU Trade Policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 833–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Dutt, P. & Mitra, D. (2005). Political Ideology and Endogenous Trade Policy: An empirical investigation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckhardt, J. (2013). EU Unilateral Trade Policy-Making: What role for import-dependent firms? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(6), 989–1005.Google Scholar
  19. Elsig, M. (2010). European Union trade policy after enlargement: Larger crowds, shifting priorities and informal decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 781–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, P. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, P. (1997). The eclipse of the state? World Politics, 50(1), 62–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falke, A. (2005). German trade policy: An Oxymoron. In D. Kelly & W. Grant (Eds.), The Politics of International Trade in the Twenty-First Century. Actors Issues and Regional Dynamics (pp. 252–272). Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  23. Frennhoff Larsén, M. (2007). Trade Negotiations between the EU and South Africa: A three-level game. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 857–881.Google Scholar
  24. Gärtner, L., Hörner, J., & Obholzer, L. (2011). National Coordination of EU Policy: A Comparative Study of the Twelve “New” Member States. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 7(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  25. Gawande, K., Krishna, P., & Olarreaga, M. (2009). What Governments maximize and why: The view from trade. NBER Working Paper 14953.Google Scholar
  26. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Giuliani, M. (2003). Europeanization in comparative perspective: Institutional fit and national adaptation. In K. Featherstone & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization (pp. 134–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossman, G. M. & Helpman, E. (1994). Protection for sale. American Economic Review, 84(4), 833–850.Google Scholar
  29. Halperin, M. H. & Clapp, P. (2006). Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  30. Hankla, C. R. (2006). Party strength and International Trade: A cross-national analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 39(9), 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, J. P. (1993). Making trade policy in the European Community. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hiscox, M. J. (2001). Class versus industry cleavages: Inter-industry factor mobility and the politics of trade. International Organization, 55(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hocking, B. (2004). Changing the terms of trade policy making: From the club to the multistakeholder model. World Trade Review, 3(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian public administration, 52(5), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansson, K. M. & Raunio, T. (2010). Organizing the core executive for European Union Affairs: Comparing Finland and Sweden. Public Administration, 88(3), 649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jordana, J. & Ramio, C. (2003). Trade policy institutions: Comparative analysis. In R. Devlin & A. Estevadeordal (Eds.), Bridges for development: Policies and institutions for trade and integration (pp. 179–205). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  37. Kassim, H. (2003). Meeting the demands of EU membership: The Europeanization of national administrative systems. In C. Radaelli & K. Featherstone (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kassim, H., Peters, G., & Wright, V. (Eds.) (2000). The national co-ordination of EU policy: The domestic Leven. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kassim, H., Menon, A., Peters, B. G., & Wright, V. (Eds.) (2001). The national co-ordination of EU Policy: The european level. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ladewig, J. W. (2006). Domestic Influences on International Trade Policy: Factor Mobility in the United States, 1963 to 1992. International Organization, 60(01), 69–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lake, D. A. (2009). Open economy politics: A critical review. The Review of International Organizations, 4(3), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levermore, R., Gibb, R., & Cleary, M. (2000). The SA-EU TDCA: An analysis of decision-making procedures and processes in South Africa. The South African Institute of International Affairs Reports, 15.Google Scholar
  43. Lohmann, S. & O’Halloran, S. (1994). Divided government and US trade policy. International Organization, 48(4), 595–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manger, M. S. (2009). Investing in protection: The politics of preferential trade agreements between north and south. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGillivray, F. & Smith, A. (1997). Institutional determinants of trade policy. International Interactions, 23(2), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McMenamin, I. (2002). Polish business associations: Flattened civil society or super lobbies? Business and Politics, 4(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meunier, S. & Nicolaidis, K. (2006). The European Union as a conflicted trade power. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milner, H. V. & Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization, 59(01), 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ozdem, M. I., & Struett, M. J. (2009). Government agencies in commercial diplomacy: Seeking the optimal agency structure for foreign trade policy. Unpublished Manuscript, 1–33.Google Scholar
  51. Panke, D. (2010a). Good instructions in no time? Domestic Coordination of EU Policies in 19 Small States. West European Politics, 33(4), 770–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Panke, D. (2010b). Small states in the European Union: Structural disadvantages in EU policy-making and counter-strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 799–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Panke, D. (2011). Small states in EU negotiations: Political dwarfs or power-brokers? Cooperation and Conflict, 46(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peters, G. B. (1998). Managing horizontal Government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Radaelli, C. (2009). Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(8), 1145–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rogowski, R. (1987). Political cleavages and changing exposure to trade. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1121–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rudra, N. (2002). Globalization and the decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed Countries. International Organization, 56(2), 411–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schout, A. & Jordan, A. (2005). Coordinated European Governance: Self-organizing or centrally steered? Public Administration, 83(1), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schout, A. & Jordan, A. (2008). The European Union’s governance ambitions and its administrative capacities. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Seawright, J. & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sepos, A. (2005). The national coordination of EU Policy: Organisational efficiency and European Outcomes. Journal of European Integration, 27(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sissenich, B. (2010). Weak states, weak societies: Europe’s east-west gap. Acta Politica, 45(1-2), 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Skocpol, T. & Finegold, K. (1982). State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Political Science Quarterly, 97(2), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tussie, D. (2009). Process drivers in trade negotiations: The role of research in the path to grounding and contextualizing. Global Governance, 15, 335–342.Google Scholar
  66. Woll, C. (2009). 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. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Yi, K.-M. (2003). Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade ? The Journal of Political Economy, 111(1), 52–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Young, A. R. (2007). Trade politics ain’t what it used to be: The European Union in the Doha Round. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 789–811.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Adriaensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations