Book contents
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 European Union Trade Policy and Non-Trade Issues
- 2 The European Union
- 3 Export Credit Agencies
- 4 The Effects of Non-Trade Provisions in Trade Agreements on Bilateral FDI
- 5 How EU Trade and Cooperation Policies Stimulated China to Go Green
- 6 The Role of Domestic Factors in the EU’s Governance of Labour Standards through Trade
- 7 EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives
- 8 Trade, the G20 and the EU
- 9 Enhancement of the European Parliament’s Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and NTPOs
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
2 - The European Union
Soft and Smart Power in Aid and Trade?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2023
Book contents
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade Objectives
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 European Union Trade Policy and Non-Trade Issues
- 2 The European Union
- 3 Export Credit Agencies
- 4 The Effects of Non-Trade Provisions in Trade Agreements on Bilateral FDI
- 5 How EU Trade and Cooperation Policies Stimulated China to Go Green
- 6 The Role of Domestic Factors in the EU’s Governance of Labour Standards through Trade
- 7 EU Trade Agreements and Non-Trade Policy Objectives
- 8 Trade, the G20 and the EU
- 9 Enhancement of the European Parliament’s Monitoring for Better Coherence between Trade Policy and NTPOs
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter draws on Joseph Nye’s original definition of soft power as being the ability of a country or region to influence others by virtue simply of their wish to emulate them. As in the attractiveness of US culture during the cold war, and by the eagerness of post-communist Central and Eastern European countries to adopt the EU model as the basis of their economic and social reforms. The chapter notes however that while soft power is not a policy instrument as such, it can be linked to instruments such as aid or trade preferences to influence the behaviour of partners. The approach is therefore to look at the relationship between the values embodied in aid priorities of the EU institutions and the major donor states. Using a “Finger Kreinin Index” we find that the EU and its Member States are to some extent pulling in the same direction, but that the degree of coherence with the EU institutions varies across the key Member States. The tentative conclusion is that the EU and its Member States have been complementing rather than either replicating or contradicting each other’s actions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Coherence of the European Union Trade Policy with Its Non-Trade ObjectivesWorld Trade Forum, pp. 34 - 60Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abbott, K. W., and Snidal, D. (2000). International Organization. Legalization and World Politics 54(3): 421–456.Google Scholar
Apiko, P., Bilal, S., Holmes, P., Liu, D., Magntorn Garrett, J., and Rollo, J. (2019). I Cannot Fund the UKTPO, ECDPM. RESPECT. http://respect.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/12/RESPECT-Report-WP4–3-EU-trade-and-aid-coherence.pdfGoogle Scholar
Armitage, R., and Nye, J. (2007). CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A Smarter, More Secure America. Washington, DC: The CSIS Press.Google Scholar
Archibugi, D., and Filippetti, A. (2015). The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., and Morlino, L. (2011). International Encyclopaedia of Political Science. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjola, C., and Kornprobst, M. (2018). Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchert, I., Conconi, P., Di Ubaldo, M., and Herghelegiu, C. (2018). Trade Conditionality in the EU and WTO Legal Regimes. http://respect.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/02/EU_conditionality_D2.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brazys, S., and Lightfoot, S. (2016). Europeanisation in Aid for Trade: The Impact of Capacity and Socialisation. European Politics and Society 17(1): 120–135.Google Scholar
Chitty, N., Li, J., Rawnsley, G. D., and Hayden, C. (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1995). White Paper: Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration into the Internal Market of the Union. COM(95) 163 final. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/56d29901–7861-448c-82d8–0d006ba61fc1Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2007). EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour in Development Policy. COM(2007) 72 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0072 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST%2014470%202007%20INIT/EN/pdfGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union (2007). EU Strategy on Aid for Trade: Enhancing EU Support for Trade-Related Needs in Developing Countries. 14470/07. https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2014470%202007%20INITGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union (2017). Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Prosperity through Trade and Investment: Updating the Joint EU Strategy on Aid for Trade. 15573/17. www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32043/st15573en17-2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Commuri, G. (2012). “Are You Pondering What I Am Pondering?” Understanding the Conditions under which States Gain and Lose Soft Power. In Fels, E., Kremer, J., and Kronenberg, K. (eds.) Power in the 21st Century: International Security and International Political Economy in a Changing World. London: Springer, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar
Concord (2012). EU Aid: The Facts. https://concordeurope.org/blog/2012/10/09/eu-aid-the-facts/Google Scholar
Development Solutions (2017). Mid-Term Evaluation of the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences. Final Interim Report for European Commission. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/october/tradoc_157434.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2019). European Union’s GSP+ Scheme. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/development-and-sustainability/generalised-scheme-preferences_enGoogle Scholar
Finger, J. M., and Kreinin, M. E. (1979). A Measure of “Export Similarity” and Its Possible Uses. The Economic Journal 89(356): 905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucher, M. (2013). Puissance et influence: Repère et référence. In Foucher, M. (ed.) Atlas de l’influence française au XXIème siècle. Paris: Robert Laffont/Institut français, pp. 10–17.Google Scholar
Gu, J., Holmes, P., Rollo, J., and Snell, S., with Mendez-Parra, M., and Procopio, M. (2017). China–UK–Africa Trilateral Cooperation on Trade and Investment: Prospects and Challenges for Partnership for Africa’s Development. IDS Evidence Report 218. Brighton: IDS.Google Scholar
HM Government (2013). Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Report. July. www.gov.uk/government/news/final-reports-in-review-of-eu-balance-of-competences-publishedGoogle Scholar
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., and Sapir, A. (2010). Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements. The World Economy 33(11): 1565–1588.Google Scholar
Im, J., Ahn, E., Beck, N., Kim, J. K., and Park, T. (2017). ‘Correlation Estimation with Singly Truncated Bivariate Data’. Statistics in Medicine (36): 1977–1988.Google Scholar
Kavalski, E. (2009). China and the Global Politics of Regionalization. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lawson, S. (2015). Theories of International Relations: Contending Approaches to World Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lechner, L., (2016). The Domestic Battle over the Design of Non-Trade Issues in Preferential Trade Agreements. Review of International Political Economy. 23(5): 840–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., and Bilal, S. (2019). Toward a Structured Approach to Support EU FTA Implementation in Developing Countries: The Case of the West Africa EPA Development Programme (PAPED). In P. Apiko, S. Bilal, P. Holmes, D. Lui, J. Mangtorn Garrett and J. Rollo, Report on the Coherence between Europe’s Trade and Development Policy. https://respect.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/12/RESPECT-Report-WP4-3-EU-trade-and-aid-coherence.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mann, M. (2012). The Sources of Social Power: Volume 4, Globalizations, 1945–2011. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs Books.Google Scholar
Nye, J. (2005). The Rise of China’s Soft Power. Wall Street Journal Asia, 29 December. www.wsj.com/articles/SB113580867242333272Google Scholar
Nye, J. (2008b). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (Public Diplomacy in a Changing World): 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, J. (2009). Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs 88(4): 160–163. www.jstor.org/stable/20699631Google Scholar
Nye, J. (2013). Evidence to The House of Lords Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence. www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/soft-power-uk-influence/c151013Ev10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nye, J. (2017). Soft Power: The Origins and Political Progress of a Concept. Palgrave Communications 3: 17008. www.nature.com/articles/palcomms20178Google Scholar
OECD (2018). Draft Revised Statistical Reporting Directives for DAC Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)9/ADD2. www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)9/ADD2&docLanguage=EnGoogle Scholar
Orbie, J., and Carbone, M. (2016). The Europeanisation of Development Policy. European Politics and Society 17(1): 1–11. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2015.1082688Google Scholar
Ruffini, P. R. (2017). Science and Diplomacy: A New Dimension of International Relations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Spence, M. (2009). Negotiating Trade, Innovation and Intellectual Property: Lessons from the CARIFORUM EPA Experience from a Negotiator’s Perspective. UNCTAD – ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development. Policy Brief Number 4, September.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616(1): 110–124.Google Scholar