Explaining Sub‐Federal Variation in Trade Agreement Negotiations: The Case of CETA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sub‐federal units have emerged as increasingly important actors in international trade policy. This is puzzling as they usually have no formal competencies in this area. Using the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union as a case study, this article examines one key driver behind this development ‐ the provisions in new free trade agreements. The article conceptualizes such provisions as instances of negative and positive integration. We show that while the Canadian provinces largely supported both types of provisions, sub‐federal units in Belgium, Germany and Austria resisted unfettered liberalization through negative integration and market‐creating positive integration. At the same time, they demanded stronger market‐correcting positive integration measures. Three categories of sub‐federal interests explain these differences in motivation. The Canadian province's engagement was motivated by (regional) economic interests, whereas bureaucratic self‐interest and political interests mobilized sub‐federal units in the European federations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".