Search

Begin New Search Topic Trade Author Vanika Sharma

1. Calling on the EU-US Trade and Technology Council: How to Deliver for the Planet and the Economy

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Vanika Sharma, Philipp Lamprecht, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief proposes the establishment of an agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US that covers machinery and electrical equipment. The initiative aims to increase the number of European and US conformity assessment bodies authorized to test and certify EU and US machinery and electrical equipment for exports into each other’s markets, without recognizing the equivalency or otherwise altering the product requirements in regulation, standards, or other normative documents on either side. While this study focuses on the economic effects of an agreement on conformity assessment that includes machinery and electrical equipment, the scope of such an agreement could potentially be extended to several additional product categories, particularly those that are subject to requirements for mandatory third-party conformity assessment in both the EU and the US. The increase in the number of conformity assessment bodies is expected to reduce the costs and the time required to demonstrate conformity. If this policy succeeds as expected in achieving a reduction in trade costs between 2 and 6 percent, US exports to the EU are projected to increase between US$ 11 billion and US$ 32.5 billion while EU exports to the US are estimated to grow by between US$ 13.8 billion and US$ 42.2 billion. In percentage terms, US firms are anticipated to experience a larger increase in exports of machinery and electrical equipment than their EU counterparts. The increase in trade flows as a result of this agreement is estimated to be larger than the rise in trade flows achieved in other Free Trade Agreements signed by the EU or the US. Moreover, as an increasing number of EU regulations begin to mandate third-party conformity assessment, US firms will increasingly benefit from this agreement when exporting to the EU. Given China’s status as the largest supplier of machinery and electrical equipment to both the EU and the US, the implementation of an EU-US agreement on conformity assessment would not only improve conditions for transatlantic trade but also lead to reduced trade dependence for the EU and the US on China. The reduction in trade costs between the EU and the US on machinery and electrical equipment due to the agreement could lower Chinese exports to the EU and the US by between US$ 6.5 billion and US$ 19.4 billion. Importantly, machinery and electrical equipment are crucial inputs for some of the key technologies in which the EU and the US Administrations have identified trade dependencies on China. However, in contrast with other policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese imports, an agreement on conformity assessment for machinery and electrical equipment will not require public subsidies or impose any financial burden on taxpayers. This agreement also has the potential to benefit the environment. Machinery and electrical equipment are essential inputs for green technologies. Therefore, a reduction in the cost and time of conformity assessment in these industries will accelerate the adoption of green technologies. An agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US covering green goods and clean technologies could increase transatlantic exports between US$ 3.1 billion and US$ 9.2 billion. While this increase in exports is significant, broadening the scope of the agreement to include the entirety of machinery and electrical equipment, rather than just a subset, is projected to lead to trade effects eight times larger. Moreover, as green technologies rapidly evolve, an agreement on conformity assessment has the potential to serve as a dynamic instrument that evolves to accommodate future regulatory and economic developments on climate and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

2. European Economic Security and Access to Critical Raw Materials: Trade, Diversification, and the Role of Mercosur

Author:
Oscar Guinea and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Access to secure and stable supply of critical raw materials (CRMs) is vital for Europe’s economic security. These raw materials, which are indispensable inputs for Europe’s modernisation, are supplied by a handful of countries. Among them, China and Russia are two of the most important European suppliers of CRMs. This dependency leaves the EU exposed to Chinese and Russian policies that may harm Europe’s economic and political interests. The European Commission has recently proposed a Critical Raw Materials Act with the objective of increasing domestic production of strategic raw materials (SRMs) – a subset of CRMs vital for the energy and digital transitions. However well-intentioned, most of the policies in the Act – which aim at producing more SRMs in Europe – are a red herring. While the EU needs to reduce its vulnerable dependence on some countries, the politics about the supply of CRMs have become hostage to manufacturing fetish, import-substitution ideas, and companies who want governments to subsidise their investments and growth. In reality, getting substantial amounts of Europe-produced SRMs to market will take years – if not decades – and new mines will face significant legal and environmental resistance. It is simply not realistic to expect that higher domestic production in the EU will reduce Europe’s current dependency on imported SRMs anytime soon. If it is economic security and reduced vulnerabilities that Europe wants, a different strategy is needed. There is a better alternative. Trade dependencies of CRMs can only be fought with more trade. One option exist already: the EU could diversify its supplies of CRMs away from China and Russia by trading more with other exporters of CRMs. Mercosur is an obvious partner to achieve this goal. Brazil, a member of Mercosur, is the largest supplier of SRMs to the EU by volume and the Mercosur countries are democratic market economies that are seeking deeper relations with Europe. To encourage trade and investment in CRMs across both regions, the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement includes binding provisions that will place the bilateral trade and investment relations under a more certain institutional arrangement. Other policies, such as those included in the EU’s CRM Act, can only complement but not substitute for a trade-oriented strategy to improve the structure of SRM supply.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Trade, Economic Security, Mercosur, and Raw Materials
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Online Platform Regulation and Investment Attractiveness: A Look at the EU, the UK and Impacts on Small Open Economies

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Vanika Sharma, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Small trade- and investment-oriented economies like the United Kingdom (UK) should carefully consider whether to regulate online platform services based on presumptions rather than evidence that consumers are being harmed. Flimsily enforced platform regulation can have a chilling effect on investments in business expansion and innovation, particularly in technology-adopting industries. Several countries around the world are designing new competition policies that specifically target large digital platforms. The theory behind these policies is grey. There are political concerns about the impact of various aspects of platforms on society, especially regarding the collection and safety of data. However, practices that harm consumers – traditionally a key motivation of competition enforcement – are very rare. Indeed, the success stories of large tech platforms demonstrate that they offer strong benefits and conveniences to millions of business users across a wide range of industries. Marginal costs of supply, high-quality services, continuous technological advancements, and platforms’ ability to drive productivity growth have enabled especially small businesses to thrive and compete in domestic and international markets. Against this background, it is highly questionable why some governments, with the backing of power-seeking competition regulators, are aiming to legally interfere in services provided by large technology companies. An important consequence that has so far received little attention from policymakers and competition authorities is the impact of platform regulation on a country’s investment attractiveness. It is obvious that bans and restrictions on corporate conduct cause regulated companies to abstain from investments and establish new business elsewhere. What is less clear is the effect of regulation on investments by companies that extensively adopt platform services to reduce costs, speed-up innovation, and expand market opportunities. In this policy brief, we argue that access to integrated and internationally traded platform services is increasingly important for a country’s investment attractiveness, even more so for smaller countries. Access to advanced technologies and the utilisation of network effects create a virtuous cycle of economic opportunities, investments, value creation, and trade. Discretionary and presumption-based competition enforcement, as adopted in the EU, risks hurting smaller countries in particular. The EU has chosen the path of proscriptive and protective policymaking with the DMA to achieve industrial and trade policy goals rather than defending competition in the Single Market. UK competition policy risks being driven by institutional interests and ideological considerations, which could potentially lead to the adoption of a regulatory landscape that is even more restrictive than that of the EU, undermining Britain’s ambitions for economic and innovation leadership.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Regulation, Economy, Investment, Trade, and Online Platforms
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

4. The New Wave of Defensive Trade Policy Measures in the European Union: Design, Structure, and Trade Effects

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, Philipp Lamprecht, Vanika Sharma, and Renata Zilli
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This study undertakes a comprehensive review of proposed and adopted defensive trade policy instruments in the EU, with the purpose of better understanding their design, functioning, and implications. The study covers eight policy instruments at different stages of development. These are: Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), International Procurement Instrument (IPI), Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), Foreign Subsidy Instrument (FSI), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (DD), Level Playing Field Provisions in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (LPF), Enforcement Regulation (ER), and the Deforestation Initiative (DI). It is understandable that the EU seeks both redressive and retaliatory measures in its trade policy. However, these measures would have the total effect of Europe producing more for itself and being less dependent on imports. This is a significant policy shift, because in their totality the defensive trade policies make the EU more inward-looking. This can lead to major negative consequences. An extensive distortion of trade and markets would reduce the gains from trade and prompt a reallocation of European resources. Notably, the EU is a larger supplier of goods and services than it is a buyer, and an inward-looking policy that leads to retaliation from EU’s trading partners can harm its exports and trade surplus. There are also potential strategic consequences that could follow, and their importance has increased considerable as a result of the Russian war against Ukraine. Under these measures, the EU could introduce new trade frictions with friends and allies, and with countries that the EU seeks closer cooperation with to provide for a safer geopolitical environment. For each of these defensive measures, the study takes an extensive look at the objectives of the instruments, their legality, proportionality, and subsidiarity, the working of the instruments and the division of labour between institutions, as well as their enforceability in conjunction with existing multilateral and bilateral rules affecting the EU. It also attempts to capture the impact and potential for retaliation for the EU and its partners as a result of the implementation of the instruments. The study highlights the areas where the instruments lack clarity, particularly in the implementation of the instrument, the division of labour between the EU and EU member states, and the compliance of the instruments with WTO rules and bilateral FTA provisions. The instruments share some general characteristics. Many of the instruments have been created as retaliatory measures against coercion and unfair trade practices by partner countries. Very often, the partner countries most affected by the instruments are also the same. The United States, China, Russia, the UK, and Turkey are likely to be on the receiving end of the instruments due to the significant volumes of trade and economic interdependence with the EU, but also because they either do not follow the same trade rules as the EU, or the EU wants to maintain with them the current level of competitiveness. Most instruments also use restrictions to the EU market as the main policy lever. The objective is not just about creating an equal playing field but also ensuring that the rest of the world follows EU rules. Particularly, the EU aims at regulating non-EU companies directly and unilaterally through EU policies, which increases the risk of retaliation against the EU. At the same time, there are also important areas of departure in the specifics of each instrument, as illustrated by the varying objectives, measures, compatibility with international obligation, affected sectors, and whether the measures apply automatically or at the discretion of the EU.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Political Economy, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe

5. EU and Mercosur in the Twenty-First Century: Taking Stock of the Economic and Cultural Ties

Author:
Oscar Guinea and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This policy brief examines the latest developments in the EU-Mercosur economic relationship and outlines the existing non-economic relationship in order to contextualise the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement and its potential for strengthening common bonds between both regions. Trade between the EU and Mercosur is significant, with both regions holding an important place as large markets for each other’s exports. Currently, trade between the two is dominated by trade in machinery, agriculture, and chemicals. As relevant as these traditional sectors are, their trade is also increasingly supported by trade in services, which unlike trade in traditional agricultural products such as soya, beef and sugar that are either stable or declining, is rapidly increasing. In addition to trade, EU and Mercosur economic bonds are also supported by investments. EU member states hold a large stock of investment in the Mercosur countries while investment flows from Mercosur into the EU are also increasing. This increase has been particularly marked in high-tech sectors like R&D and computer software, emphasising again the changing economic relationship between the EU and Mercosur from traditional to advanced sectors. These trade and investment dynamics are complemented by changes in the EU-Mercosur supply chains. Over the past ten years, the effects one region has on the competitiveness of the other have increased and will continue to do so into the future. The EU is the largest contributor to Mercosur exports, meanwhile Mercosur countries provide the biggest value-added to EU agricultural products. A primary underlying trend found across all dimensions of the EU-Mercosur economic relationship has been the rise of China. In trade, it takes two to tango, and since 2015, it has been China, rather than the EU, that has risen to become Mercosur’s main trading partner. Over the past nine years, the amount of Chinese value-added embedded in Mercosur exports has more than tripled. Moreover, China has ramped up its investment into Mercosur countries, while also receiving increased investments from Mercosur. So, although the EU-Mercosur relationship is changing and bonds have deepened, the EU faces constant competition from China in its relationship with Mercosur. Despite these changes, the EU and Mercosur share a long history of close non-economic relationships. Both have been at the receiving end of large migration flows from each other. This has led to the development of kindred cultures, shared languages, and strong non-economic ties. These similarities have long supported the establishment of deep economic bonds through meaningful collaborations in science and technology, ease of doing business, and provisions for working professionals through various cooperation agreements. However, with the rapidly changing nature of their commercial relationship, these cultural links might not be enough to sustain the economic relationship between the two. These ties need to be complemented by the ratification of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement to nurture their changing relationship.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Trade, South American Union (UNASUR), and Mercosur
Political Geography:
Europe and South America