Search

Despite a framework of bilateral agreements governing cooperation in competition policy since 1991, the European Union (EU) and United States of America (US) established a new Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue in 2021, which was different from previous cooperation and separate from the transatlantic Trade and Technology Council. Drawing from the principal-agent literature, this article argues that the choice to establish the new Joint Dialogue can be understood as an exercise of discretionary authority by agents in different jurisdictions with similar preferences who responded similarly to the common external factor of digitalisation. Facing new and shared challenges arising from the digital economy, the EU and US competition authorities undertook a new effort at cooperation – the Joint Dialogue – through which regulatory agents at various levels can interact, exchange information and improve enforcement in a rapidly changing business environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zooming in on the European Union's international identity, this paper argues that maturation, and the achievement of a solid international identity, may result from a process in which different identity traits are integrated, even strategically incorporated. It frames this hybridisation argument in terms of Dragon Power Europe and proceeds in two steps. In a first step, the paper develops an integrated analytical framework for studying the European Union's international identity by comparing the Normative Power Europe and Market Power Europe conceptualisations along three dimensions, namely drivers, actions and impact. In a second step, the paper demonstrates the framework's empirical value through an exploration of the European Union's functioning in relation to health information standardisation, investigating the logics behind the inclusion of a new chapter on diagnoses and syndromes associated with Traditional (Chinese) Medicine in the eleventh revision of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases in 2019. The involvement of the European Union and its member states in this specific case of health (information) standardisation shows initial but compelling evidence of NPE-MPE dynamics shaping the EU's international functioning, in particular its drivers, actions and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trading actors like the European Union (EU) are increasingly seen as geopoliticising trade policy, but such assertions may not capture the extent to which the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade) uses this policy to achieve security objectives. This article investigates changes over time in justifications for trade policy by differentiating between how the EU and DG Trade use frames – articulated in four EU trade strategies with two DG Trade strategic plans and 10 annual management plans – to propose solutions in response to the geoeconomic turn. This article finds that, whilst DG Trade's discourse continues to reflect the dominant market liberal frame, geopoliticising pressures are encouraging the emergence of an EU counter‐frame linking trade to non‐trade issues and a reframing of the counter‐frame that increasingly links trade and security policy. As a result, the EU's framing of trade policy resembles deep geopoliticisation, whilst DG Trade's framing resembles reluctant geopoliticisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent times, the European Union's external engagement has expanded in originally internal policy areas. This process is particularly intriguing in areas where the EU possesses only supplementary competences. Examining the case of EU higher education policy, this contribution sets out to understand and explain EU external engagement in such areas. To this end, it employs an explanatory framework that argues that EU external action emerges when a structural policy window of external 'opportunity' and domestic 'presence' opens, which is exploited by 'policy entrepreneurs'. The contribution compares two pillars of EU higher education policy – the Tempus and Erasmus Mundus programmes – which it sets in relation to the emergence of external action in other EU higher education initiatives. Offering an explanation of why the EU engages externally in higher education, the contribution concludes by discussing the broader generalizability of its findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00752.x Byline: CHAD DAMRO (1) Abstract: Abstract The principal-agent (PA) approach is increasingly used to explain how and why the EU formulates its trade policy and engages in international trade negotiations. This article evaluates the utility of PA in trade policy through a comparative analysis of the EU's participation in two different international negotiations: the International Competition Network and World Trade Organization (2001-06). The comparison of EU institutions and activities in these two empirical cases suggests that while PA seems well suited to explain international negotiations in regulatory policies (competition), it seems less suited to explain developments in distributive policies (trade). The findings, which reveal potential problems of multiple agents and a greater likelihood of observational equivalence in trade policy, advise caution when using PA to explain the EU's behaviour in international trade negotiations. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Edinburgh Article note: Chad Damro, Politics, University of Edinburgh, Adam Ferguson Building, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL, UK, email chad.damro@ed.ac.uk

Despite its increasing importance for European integration, there remains a lack of scholarly attention to the growth of EU external action in originally internal policy areas. This article advances a comprehensive framework for understanding and explaining the emergence of EU external engagement in such areas. It combines insights from two sets of literatures: the EU external relations literature offers useful concepts – particularly 'actorness' – as building blocks for explanatory purposes, while the public policy literature provides relevant insights regarding policy entrepreneurship and agenda-setting. The article contends that EU external engagement results from a favourable interplay between an external 'opportunity' and the EU's 'presence' in a given domain, which is identified and capitalized upon by a set of policy entrepreneurs, who are driven by interest-based and/or ideational motives. To evaluate the salience of the framework, the article applies it across several policy areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new environmental policy instrument(NEPI), held at the Kyoto summit, faced severe disagreements between the European union (EU) and the US, where the EU stood in opposition but later switched to designing a domestic emissions trading system. This change also known as policy transfer is studied alongwith its importance and contours.