Francesco Duina

The Social Construction of Free Trade: The European Union, NAFTA, and Mercosur

List of Figures and Tables ix A Note on Translations xi Acknowledgments xiii Abbreviations xvii Part I: Introduction and Theoretical Framework Chapter One: Visions of Free Trade 3 Chapter Two: Institutions, Politics, and the Making of Regional Markets 29 Part II: The Evolution of Law and Society in the EU, Mercosur, and NAFTA Chapter Three: The Use of Regional Law to Standardize Reality 63 Chapter Four: The Targets and Content of Regional Law 101 Chapter Five: Societal Adjustments to Integration 148 Part III: Conclusion Chapter Six: Reflections on the Present and Future 185 Appendix 211 References 217 Index 241

The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: further marginalization or new opportunities?

Abstract Legislatures are central to national democracy. Yet, scholars examining the impact of the EU on national parliaments have concluded that integration undermines domestic legislatures. We call for a more nuanced analysis. We turn to the EUs new forms of governance and, specifically, the OMC. Our analysis reveals a complex picture. On the one hand, with regard to participation, by empowering governments through executive federalism the OMC risks further marginalizing national parliaments. On the other hand, when we consider its output, the OMC provides national legislators with opportunities that the traditional Community method of legislation cannot offer. First, the OMC gives national legislators access to insights and tools for producing successful laws. Second, the OMC gives those legislators grounds for criticizing the policies of government officials. The empirical record suggests that some of these contradictory effects are already at work. The conclusion reflects on whether national parliaments should, or if given the opportunity would in fact, opt to participate in the OMC.

Nation-states and common markets: the institutional conditions for acceptance

The polarized debate on the future of the nation-state in common markets singularly focuses on who controls supra national decision making. Scholars of the European Union, for instance, have for long disagreed over the extent to which nation-states control the European Commission. We believe that common markets can erode the authority of the nation-state through a second venue: with the promulgation of rules that, upon proper implementation, reach deep into national legislative and administrative authority and strip the nation-state of its ability to regulate important aspects of social life. When viewed from this perspective, the nation-state appears strangely positioned. In the European Union and Mercosur states at times yield to and at times refuse transnational rules. We propose an explanation for these implementation patterns. The explanation will, in our view, contribute more to a genuine understanding of current state-market conditions than any additional claim for or against the hegemony of common...

Regional market building as a social process: an analysis of cognitive strategies in NAFTA, the European Union and Mercosur

Regional market building is a social process. Market officials pursue integration objectives in the midst of unique institutional, cultural and economic contexts. Influenced by those contexts, they design markets with similar objectives but remarkably different architectures. This article offers a comparative analysis of the use of law for cognitive standardization in three regions: NAFTA, the European Union and Mercosur. In NAFTA, officials have adopted a minimalist approach, relying on external organizations for standard setting and case-by-case resolutions in case of conflict. By contrast, in the European Union and Mercosur, officials have developed extensive secondary legal systems rich with ontological and normative notions about the world. Those cognitive notions vary significantly, however, across the two markets in terms of targets and content. A historical institutionalist framework is developed to account for the observed differences across the three regions. Two variables are posited as being especially influential: the pre-existing legal traditions of the member states and the powerful interest groups that have flourished in those traditions. The empirical analysis centres on laws and cognitive notions in three areas: economics, the environment and public health. The findings improve our understanding of regional integration efforts and have implications for the literature on globalization and standards.

Varieties of Regional Integration: The EU, NAFTA and Mercosur

Abstract The closing of the twentieth century witnessed the proliferation of regional trade areas: a reinvigorated EU became one of almost 170 integration efforts. The first comparative analyses have suggested that these RTAs, despite sharing broadly similar objectives, are remarkably different projects. This article contributes to these works by examining two under‐explored dimensions of variation: the laws of RTAs and how organizations – in particular interest groups, businesses and national administrations – have adjusted to their new legal environments. The article then suggests that the observable variation is likely to endure: the legal systems of RTAs reflect institutional realities in the member states, especially local legal traditions and power arrangements. The analysis focuses on the EU, NAFTA and Mercosur, using evidence from three realms: working women, dairy products and labour rights. The article concludes with some reflections on cross‐RTA trade and the possibility of future convergence, competitiveness and the function of regulation in RTAs.

Regional trade agreements and the pursuit of state interests: institutional perspectives from NAFTA and Mercosur

Abstract Are regional trade agreements (RTAs) carefully crafted projects that systematically advance their member states’ interests or do they instead generate outcomes that frustrate those interests? Works on the most prominent RTA – the European Union – have traditionally been split over this question. New research on international organizations parallels that literature. Combining rational choice and historical institutionalism, this article makes a middle-ground case: the limited rationality of national representatives and the complexity of RTAs ensure both the advancement and frustration of national interests. The focus is on shifting national preferences, the unpredictable implications of decisions over time and the pursuit of short-term gains to the benefit of some constituents but not others. Evidence from NAFTA and Mercosur supports these claims while highlighting, in line with recent scholarship, the need to include politics in institutionalist accounts of integration. The conclusion reflects on the findings and explores whether alternative, more flexible designs for RTAs might satisfy more fully the interests of the member states.

Learning in International Governmental Organizations The Case of Social Protection

There exists considerable research on how national policy makers learn from abroad. A significant amount examines the processes and actors at work at the international level. In that strand, relatively little attention has gone to international governmental organizations (IGOs), aside from the European Union (EU)’s Open Method of Coordination. In this article, we carry out a comparative study of learning in three IGOs: the EU, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Our policy area is social protection. We investigate what is being learned, and the factors that promote or block learning. Our methodology involves an analysis of the formal design of those IGOs and face-to-face interviews with high-ranking bureaucrats from each organization. We observe, first, that the most important learning in IGOs concerns matters that are not part of formal agendas — governance and epistemic issues above all. Second, we see that very different factors promote or block learning in different organizations. We reflect on the implications of these findings for both theory and practice. Apprentissage dans les Organismes Gouvernementaux Internationaux: Le Cas de la Protection Sociale Il y a beaucoup de recherche aux responsables des politiques à l’échelon national s’inspirer de l’expérience d’autres pays. Beaucoup des études examinent les processus et les personnes qui travaillent au niveau international. Dans cette égard, relativement peu d’attention est accordée pour organismes gouvernementaux internationaux (OGI), sauf pour l’ ‘Open Method of Coordination’ de l’EU. Dans cette article, on fait une étdue comparative pour l’apprentissage dans trois OGIs: l’EU, l’OECD, et le Conseil de Ministres nordique. Notre domaine d’action est la protection sociale. On étudie les connaissances acquises, et les facteurs qui favorisent ou bloquent l’apprentissage. Notre méthodologie implique une analyse de la conception formelle de ces OGIs et entrevues face à face avec des hauts fonctionnaires de chaque organisation. Premièrement, on observe que l’apprentissage le plus important pour les OGIs concerne les sujets qui sont indépendant des ordres du jour formels — le gouvernement et issues de l’epistémologie partout. Deuxiémement, nous voyons que les éléments très différents favorisent ou bloquent l’apprentissage pour des organismes différents. Les implications de ces résultats pour la théorie et la pratique sont discutées. El Aprendizaje en las Organizaciones Gubernamentales Internacionales: El Caso de la Protección Social Existen muchas investigaciones sobre la manera en que los encargados de la política nacional aprenden del exterior. La mayoría de estas investigaciones se centran en los procesos y los protagonistas que trabajan a nivel internacional. En ese hilo, poca atención ha sido prestado a las organizaciones gubernamentales internacionales (las OGI), aparte del ‘método abierto de coordinación’ de la UE. En el presente documento, se realiza un estudio comparativo sobre el aprendizaje en tres OGI: la UE, la OCDE y el Consejo de Ministros Nórdico. Nuestra área de política es la protección social. Se examina lo que está siendo aprendido, y los factores que promueven o impiden el aprendizaje. Nuestra metodología supone un análisis del diseño formal de esas OGI e incluye entrevistas caraa-cara con burócratas de alta jerarquía en cada organización. Se observa, en primer lugar, que el aprendizaje más importante en las OGI concierne los asuntos que no forman parte de las agendas formales — la gobernabilidad y los asuntos epistémicos sobre todo. En segundo lugar se observa que son muy distintos los factores que promueven o impiden el aprendizaje en diferentes organizaciones. Se reflexiona sobre las consecuencias de estas conclusiones tanto para la teoría como para la práctica.

Regionalism and diffusion revisited: From final design towards stages of decision-making

An emerging research programme on diffusion across regional international organisations (RIOs) proposes that decisions taken in one RIO affect decision-making in other RIOs. This work has provided a welcome corrective to endogenously-focused accounts of RIOs. Nevertheless, by focusing on the final design of policies and institutional arrangements, it has been conceptually overly narrow. This has led to a truncated understanding of diffusion’s impact and to an unjustified view of convergence as its primary outcome. Drawing on public policy and sociological research, we offer a conceptual framework that seeks to remedy these weaknesses by disaggregating the decision-making process on the ‘receiving’ side. We suggest that policies and institutional arrangements in RIOs result from three decision-making stages: problematisation (identification of something as a political problem), framing (categorisation of the problem and possible solutions), and scripting (design of final solutions). Diffusion can affect any combination of these stages. Consequently, its effects are more varied and potentially extensive than is currently recognised, and convergence and persistent variation in scripting are both possible outcomes. We illustrate our framework by re-evaluating research on dispute settlement institutions in the EEC, NAFTA, and SADC. We conclude by discussing its theoretical implications and the conditions that likely promote diffusion.

Boom, Bust and Crisis: Labour, Corporate Power and Politics in Canada

work (pp. 107, 299), interventionism alone would not distinguish a developmental state from a neoliberal state. Furthermore, bottomup democratic demands, such as regional equity, are not necessarily an integral part of developmentalism, especially its authoritarian variant. More evidence of persistent developmentalism can be found in the other cases presented in the book. In Taiwan, for example, the national government still largely retains control over urban development, and ‘‘seemingly neoliberal policies are actually the result of pragmatic planning and local politico-economic dynamics’’ (p. 189). Taiwan’s housing policy, while encouraging more private-sector involvement and public-private partnership, continues on the developmentalist path of direct state intervention in the real estate market. Housing is the area of intense state control in Hong Kong and Singapore, the two city-states with high population density. Not only is the state a main provider for housing, but also for healthcare in both Hong Kong and Singapore—a British colonial legacy that has been strengthening over decades despite the ‘‘neoliberal’’ reform efforts to reduce the fiscal burden of rising health care costs. In their concluding remarks, the editors summarize the contributors’ differing views on East Asian neoliberalization into three categories: ‘‘postdevelopmental change’’ that is more congruous with developmentalism than neoliberalism; ‘‘developmental neoliberalism’’ that stresses East Asia’s neoliberal turn after the economic crisis; and, finally, ‘‘diverse hybridities’’ mixing the two ideological forms for the practical purposes of the state. The differences here are largely a matter of degree, and in the end they converge on the consensus that the state is still very much in charge of ‘‘selective’’ liberalization of political economy. While I do not dispute this consensus, it makes me wonder if developmentalism has ever mounted a serious challenge to the hegemony of liberal capitalism, be it the classical, Keynesian, or neoliberal version. I would argue that East Asian developmentalism had been tolerated as a junior partner of the ‘‘embedded liberalism’’ regime until the Anglo-American neoliberal project began pushing back against the rise of Japan and the NIEs in the 1980s. As a political-economic project, developmentalism has been subordinate to the international regime of liberal capitalism, which is also reflected upon the aforementioned asymmetry between neoliberalism and developmentalism as ideologies. On the whole, this book does a solid job of underlining the statist character of neoliberal spatial policies in East Asia. It would be even better, however, if it explored the opposite direction: neoliberal influences on the quintessentially developmentalist spatial policy instrument of large-scale public works. Japan’s infamous ‘‘construction state’’ (doken kokka) and South Korea’s shoveling (sapjil) politics would be two such examples worthy of further investigation for those interested in the same subject.

Constructing Common Cultures: The Ontological and Normative Dimensions of Law in the European Union and Mercosur

Existing research suggests that the European Union (EU) has avoided the formal construction of a supranational culture. Theories in economic sociology predict that market building should entail the concomitant articulation of basic cultural material, above all of ontological and normative notions about the world. In this article we confirm that the EU has formally engaged in cultural construction. Through its system of secondary laws, the EU has in fact produced complex webs of ontological notions about the essence of objects, activities and agents, and of normative notions about the desirability of various situations. Analysis of the content of EU directives and regulations in the areas of working conditions, flora and fauna, and honey supports this claim. Analysis of national reactions and cultural contexts highlights the salience and distinctiveness of the emerging supranational culture. Evidence that Mercosur too has engaged in the production of ontological and normative notions suggests that, in line with the expectations of economic sociology, the EU is not unique, though the two markets can construct different notions when addressing identical subject matters. The implications of the findings for European enlargement and the comparative study of common markets are discussed.