Contestation: The politicization of trade policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TTIP negotiations have provoked unprecedented engagement by civic interest groups in trade policy and unique levels of popular opposition, particularly in Europe. The vigour and breadth of this opposition caught political leaders by surprise. Their lack of preparation for such a coordinated and vocal response could hardly be considered a failing, given that previous preferential trade agreements had attracted little, if any, public attention. The political significance of the popular opposition in Europe was amplified by the likelihood that any agreement would have to be ratified by each EU member state and, depending on the governance structure of the states, even some subnational parliaments, in addition to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament (see Chapter 6). The European Commission countered the popular opposition by increasing transparency, enhancing consultation and modifying its negotiating position, particularly with respect to ISDS. Opposition to TTIP spilled over to threaten the EU’s agreement with Canada (CETA). In addition, the EU’s new position on ISDS in TTIP has become the template for its trade agreements with other countries, including those with Canada and Vietnam. Popular opposition to TTIP, therefore, has had far-reaching consequences. Although public opposition to TTIP was unusually intense, it was far from uniform. Only a few EU member states witnessed intense public opposition. TTIP was also almost entirely absent from public debate in the US. Interestingly, there has been almost no opposition in Europe to the EU–Japan FTA, which has been negotiated in parallel to TTIP and and for which a political agreement was reached in July 2017. The contrast between the opposition to TTIP and that to prior and contemporary negotiations prompts the question: what was so special about TTIP? Here I make a three-step argument: First, as developed in Chapter 3, TTIP was uniquely ambitious in its efforts to address behind-theborder measures that affect trade. These measures have more direct implications for citizens than do tariffs. Moreover, because the US and EU are near peers, neither could dictate terms to the other. This raised the prospect that each might have to modify its rules.
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 | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".