Efficient bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EU bilateral trade strategy since 2006, including the TTIP, has been justified by the European Commission on the bases that deep and comprehensive trade agreements are compatible with efficient multilateralism. The Commission argument is the following: in a context marked by international supply-chains, preferential agreements that allow for progress on what has been achieved at the multilateral level (topics WTO +) and in areas not already covered by the WTO (items WTO- X) may be considered as a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for multilateral liberalization. In other words, EU recent bilateral negotiations and agreements should be seen at worst as complementary to multilateral negotiations and at best as promoters. This paper challenges this argument by pointing out that there has been a change in EU actions in the Doha Round since 2009 that may signal a change in the nature of its bilateral strategy. Content analysis of a primary source of information - the Bridges Weekly reports - shows that though the EU did not preclude the inclusion of new actors in the high table of negotiations at any time and was in favour of the Bali agreement of 2013, its willingness to make concessions reached a plateau in 2008. As complementarity between bilateralism and multilateralism may be influenced by the degree of progress at multilateral level negotiations, this shift from concessions to a stagnant position in the Doha Round may be indicative of a change in the nature of EU bilateral strategy. Indeed, from 2006 until 2009 the EU sought bilateral partners among new important trade players (India, ASEAN and South Korea). Since then, the EU has focused on reaching agreements with the old Quad members (Canada, Japan and the USA). Assuming that the EU is not playing a double game and therefore there is a consistency between its actions at the multilateral and bilateral levels, its bilateral agreements may have gone from being a complement to being a replacement of multilateralism. We conclude that the TTIP may be read, at least in the short time, as an example of efficient bilateralism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".