Free trade agreements through a prism: exploring the making of trade policies from a subcentral government context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Free Trade Agreements (FTA) have become more complicated, complex, and progressive with deeper policy integration over time (Capling and Low 2010b; WTO 2011). Where early FTAs addressed at-the-border trade barriers, such as tariffs, contemporary agreements include non-tariff barriers and social policy obligations. Since the 1990s, FTAs started to include non-tariff barriers including labour, environment, transparency, and public procurement measures. These ‘deep’ obligations are found in most modern FTAs. The impact of the growing complexity and remit of FTAs is that they now include policy matters which are managed by subcentral governments and where they have ultimate jurisdiction on these policies, including in Canada and the UK (Melo Araujo 2017a; Kukucha 2015; 2003; Paquin 2013). As a result, these subcentral jurisdictions have been pulled onto the international stage because they have policy jurisdiction over many FTA obligations. Without formal policy levers at their avail, neither a seat at the negotiation table nor a pen to sign with, subcentral jurisdictions are shaping and influencing the outcomes of FTAs, albeit with varying degrees of success. How this is done and which actors are involved in these FTA policy-making processes is not well-known. My research explores this gap by following the making of the Canada-UK FTA negotiation process from the subcentral government context – with the Canadian provincial and UK devolved governments. To do this, I ask: From the subcentral government context, how are FTAs made and in what ways are subcentral government interlocutors involved in these processes? Theoretically, this research is positioned within the post-human new materialist paradigm leaning on Karen Barad’s (2007) Agential Realism and Bruno Latour’s (2005) Actor-Network Theory as the basis for the development of my Prism Approach. This research brings forward a discussion about the material complexities and nuances involved in the creation of these complex legal promises which occur in conjunction with additional becomings (e.g., trade negotiators, teams, and networks) through these cocreated processes. This research incorporated a multi-phased qualitative research design bringing together methods which organically fit with the research question and philosophical underpinnings. The five phases included: policy literature review, interviews with subcentral government policy professionals, series interviews with subcentral government policy professional key informants, participant observation case study of a devolved government trade policy team incorporating a social network analysis component, and two roundtable workshops bringing together the devolved and provincial government trade policy delegations. This research offers contributions to theoretical discussions building on Barad and Latour’s scholarship by reading them diffractively to generate my Prism Approach, and empirically by providing details of the making of an FTA highlighting the reasons why subcentral governments are involved, the processes involved in these negotiations, and an ethnographic case study of a devolved government trade policy team’s network of interlocutors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,045 |
| Communication savante | 0,026 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».