Reading this update on the possible US-EU trade deal that Sarah and I wrote about previously, I am struck by two things:
1. French film subsidies are not going to ruin the chances of a deal, particularly since the US film industry takes advantage of tax credits and other subsidies as well (albeit at the state level, not the federal level). I have no idea why the FT led with that, except that . The biggest potential roadblock for this deal has always been agriculture, and it remains agriculture. That said, even these issues can be overcome. US agriculture wants to sell GMOs and hormone-pumped meat to Europe. Europe doesn't want that, and is unlikely to change its mind. So? Currently, EU law bans European growth of GMOs, but allows some imports. This is an okay position to be in for American farmers which grow GMOs. So all that has to happen is that the status quo is maintained, and this issue can be resolved as well.
Some of the rest of this just sounds silly. US wants Europe to not insist on "geographical indications" being allowed on cheese? I presume this means labels such as "A Product of France". This, again, is an issue which can be overcome fairly easily: just remind American cattlemen that if this becomes a precedent they won't be able to advertise "U.S. beef" and they'll balance the cheesemakers' right out.
2. Nothing in the proceedings suggests that the ideational turn in IPE studies of trade politics is beneficial for understanding real-world events. Instead, we see interest groups lobbying their representatives to get their concerns on the agenda, while the broader public barely notices. We see these groups forming along factoral and sectoral grounds, just as we'd expect. The standard materialist story works far better than... whatever sociotropic story is supposed to have replaced it.
*Yes, the link in that sentence goes to something called Beef Magazine. No, I wasn't aware that existed until now.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(95)
-
▼
May
(9)
- Was Stalin Necessary for Russia's Economic Develop...
- The 2013 Warwick/RIPE Debate
- US-EU Trade Negotiations Are Not Driven by Ideatio...
- A National Disgrace
- Marginalia
- The Conservative Left
- There Is No Technocracy: Stop Worrying About Aggre...
- Boston Review Forum on Labor Rights and MNCs
- Rogoff: Not An Austerian
-
▼
May
(9)
Friday, May 24, 2013
US-EU Trade Negotiations Are Not Driven by Ideational Factors
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I may be missing something here but aren't the geographical indicators more prominent when used to refer to regions as opposed to states? I'm thinking along the lines of brandy vs. congac but I think some foodies in your readership may be aware of sorts of cheese that are identified with specific regions and thus have become part of the marketing approach. In that sense "made in France" is not as powerful a marketing tool as the regional distinction. Beef vs. cheese isn't a fair comparison, there isn't the sense on the part of consumers that raising beef is a craft like making cheese presumably is.
I'm glad you wrote about this. I saw this story this morning and thought about our previous post. As way of clarification, I'd second Vladimir's point. I think what matters here is that the US market plays fast and loose with labels that in Europe are geographically bound (parmigiano reggiano would be a classic example). That said, I still think this deal will be made. All of this is just bargaining bluster.
Post a Comment