DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 14 Regional Integration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 14 Regional Integration CHAPTER 15 REGIONAL INTEGRATION 1. OVERVIEW OF RULES (1) Regional Integration In addition to the global economic regime based on the GATT and IMF systems, which has sustained the world economy since World War II, regionalism, through which neighbouring countries seek to strengthen their economies by entering into some form of “regional integration” has become a major trend. This trend was triggered by the EU market integration. In both developed and developing countries, customs unions and free trade areas (FTAs) continue to increase and expand. Today, they account for a considerable amount of world trade (Figure15-1, 15-2). In the WTO, regional trade agreement (RTAs) is referred to as customs unions, FTAs, and interim agreements. In this chapter, we use the term “regional integration” to signify both RTAs and other forms of regional cooperation. Almost 90 percent of the WTO Members are parties to such RTAs. Japan, Korea and Hong Kong are among the few exceptions. Article XXIV of the GATT allows RTAs to be exempted from the most-favoured-nation principle under certain conditions; RTAs must not raise barriers to trade with countries outside of the region. This is because while RTAs promote trade liberalization within the respective regions, if they raise barriers to trade with countries outside the regions, they would impede trade liberalization as a whole. From this standpoint, the adequate application of Article XXIV should be needed lest the WTO is turned into an empty shell. Moves towards “Regional Integration” In recent years, moves towards regional integration have been more and more active, with countries seeking to strengthen their ties with other countries. In Europe, when the Treaty on the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) took effect in November, 1993, the European Union (EU) was created, which enlarged and built upon the European Community (EC). The enlargement of the EU took place on January 1, 1995 by accession of three new countries, Austria, Sweden and Finland, which were former members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Meanwhile, the September, 1993 signing of the side agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) launched the free trade arrangement in North America in January, 1994. Elsewhere, AFTA (the ASEAN Tree Trade Area) began reducing tariffs among its members in January, 1993. It has continued to expand its range of items covered, and has agreed to make efforts toward the acceleration of the integration process with a view to implementing the AFTA free trade agreement by 2003, and to begin negotiations on access to services area. On the other hand, in the Americas, certain countries in Latin America initiated the Southern Common Market Treaty (MERCOSUR) in January, 1995. One of the trends that have recently been observed is to create mechanisms for broader regional co-operation. This includes: 1) enlargement of existing regional integration, including the FTAs between the EU and the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), the FTA to be set up between the EU and the Mediterranean countries, and the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); 2) linkage between regional integration organizations, such as economic co-operation, including the creation of a future FTA between the EU and MERCOSUR; and 3) continent-based regional co-operation that may not 263 necessarily be seeking to create a FTA or customs union, such as Asia-Pacific Economic Co- operation (APEC) and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). The APEC is some form of regional co-operation that does not immediately seek to establish customs unions or FTAs. The APEC is founded on an open regionalism that seeks not only to reduce the barriers to trade among its member economies but to make the result of these efforts available to other non-region economies as well. In November, 1994, an unofficial summit of the leaders of the APEC economies was held, and a joint declaration was issued “setting a goal of free and more open trade and investment by the year 2010 in the developed countries, and 2020 in the developing countries” (the Bogor Declaration). At the Manila meetings in November, 1996, all members submitted specific Individual Action Plans (IAP). All members (including new participating members in 1998, i.e. the Russian Federation, Vietnam and Peru) submitted revisions of the Plans at the Vancouver meetings held in November, 1997 and at the Kuala Lumpur Meeting in November, 1998. Thus, steps toward liberalization and facilitation have been taken. Japan, like Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, is a WTO member that does not belong to any regional trade agreement. Japanese basic trade policy is to create an environment for free and transparent international economic activities by strengthening common international rules through active participation in the next round of WTO negotiations. At the same time, we also consider that we need to strengthen regional and bilateral ties while they complement international rules. Such efforts will promote multilateral liberalization in the future and will expand the range of economic activities in which Japan enjoys a close economic partnership with Asian countries. From this standpoint, private-sector groups between Japan and Korea are jointly studying the potential for a free trade agreement, and the governments of the two countries are negotiating earnestly with a view to consulting an investment agreement. Last December, Japan reached an agreement with Singapore for a study group composed of industries, governments, and academics to study a free trade agreement as well. <Figure 15-1> Growth in the Value of World Trade by Region, 1990-98 (Trade in Goods) (Unit: Billion Dollars) EXPORT IMPORT 1998 ( % ) 1990-8 1998( % ) 1990-8 World 5270 ( 100) 6 5465 (100) 6 North America 897 (15.4) 7 1152 (21.1) 8 (America) 682(12.9) 7 944(17.3) 8 South America 276( 5.2) 8 340( 6.2) 14 Western Europe 2348(44.5) 5 2367(43.3) 4 Asia 1293(24.5) 7 1086(19.9) 5 (Japan) 388( 7.4) 4 280( 5.1) 2 (China) 184( 3.5) 15 140( 2.6) 13 EU(15) 2181(41.4) 5 2172(39.8) 4 NAFTA(3) 1014(19.2) 8 1280(23.4) 8 MERCOSUR(4) 80( 1.5) 7 99( 1.8) 16 ASEAN(10) 329( 6.2) 11 279( 5.1) 7 (Source) WTO Annual Report 1999(the WTO Secretariat) (NOTE) 1990-8:rate of increase (%) 264 <Figure 15-2> Ratio of Internal to External Trade for Major Regions (Trade in Goods) EXPORT 1998 IMPORT 1998 Total Internal External Total Internal External (billion Exports Exports (billion Imports Imports dollars) (%) (%) dollars) (%) (%) EU(15) 2181 62.7 ( -) 37.3 ( -) 2172 63.1 ( -) 36.9 ( -) NAFTA(3) 1014 51.3 (10) 48.7 ( 5) 1280 39.9 (11) 60.1 ( 7) MERCOSUR(4) 80 24.9 (22) 75.1 ( 5) 99 21.2 (22) 78.8 (15) ASEAN(107) 329 22.0 (12) 78.0 (11) 279 22.6 (12) 77.4 ( 6) (Source) WTO Annual Report 1999 (the WTO Secretariat) (NOTE) 1) Figures in parentheses ( ) for internal/external exports and internal/external imports show the 1990-1998 growth rate (%). 2) Numbers given here may not match those in Figure 15-1 because of the margin for error in the calculations. (2) Legal Framework (i) Existing GATT/WTO Provisions on Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) Tariff reductions applying exclusively to specific countries are prohibited in principle under Article I of the GATT, which requires most-favoured-nation treatment as a basic rule. The WTO, however, under Article XXIV of the GATT, authorizes the establishment of customs unions, FTAs and interim agreements, if their purpose is to facilitate trade within the region, and not to raise barriers to trade with countries outside of the region. The WTO allows these RTAs to be exempted from the most-favoured-nation principle as long as they conform to the following conditions outlined in Figure 15-3. So far, the question of whether most customs unions or FTAs conform to Article XXIV of the GATT has been examined by working parties established separately for each RTA for which notification has been given. However, there is almost always disagreement over how to interpret Article XXIV since the wording is vague: “substantially all the trade between the constituent territories”, “other restrictive regulations of commerce (ORRCs)”, “on the whole....shall not be higher or more restrictive.” Because of this, in almost every case, the claims of the parties to the FTAs and customs unions and those of third countries with competing interests have been given equal weight. Interpretation of Article XXIV became an issue in the review of the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. Indeed, only six of the 69 working parties that had completed reviews by the end of 1994 had been able to reach a consensus on conformity questions. But while there have been conflicts of opinion on Article XXIV interpretation in almost every review of a RTA, the legitimacy of most-favoured-nation treatment for a RTA has only been contested in three panel cases. None of these panel reports has been adopted by the GATT Council. 265 <Figure 15-3> Conditions of Customs Unions, FTAs and Interim Agreements under Article XXIV of the GATT. (Conditions under Article XXIV: 5, 8 of the GATT) - ORCs :other regulations of commerce - ORRCs :other restrictive regulations of commerce Article XXIV:5 Article XXIV:8 Customs Unions (a) The duties and ORCs shall not on (a)(i) The duties and ORRCs (except, the whole be higher or more where necessary, those permitted restrictive than the general incidence under Articles XI, XII, XIII ,XIV, of those previously applicable in the XV and XX) are eliminated with constituent territories prior to the respect to "substantially all the trade" formation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Globalization of Markets and Regional Integration
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Welfens, Paul J. J. Article — Digitized Version The globalization of markets and regional integration Intereconomics Suggested Citation: Welfens, Paul J. J. (1989) : The globalization of markets and regional integration, Intereconomics, ISSN 0020-5346, Verlag Weltarchiv, Hamburg, Vol. 24, Iss. 6, pp. 273-281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02924734 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/140211 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION Paul J. J. Welfens* The Globalization of Markets and Regional Integration The 1980s have witnessed the globalization of markets and an intensified international competition. The rise of the newly industrializing countries and the growth of multinational enterprises - developing parallely to foreign direct investments - have contributed considerably to this trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Role and Function of Regional Blocs and Arrangements in the Formation of the Islamic Common Market
    Journal of Economic Cooperation 21 , 4 (2000) 1-28 ROLE AND FUNCTION OF REGIONAL BLOCS AND ARRANGEMENTS IN THE FORMATION OF THE ISLAMIC COMMON MARKET ∗ Oker Gürler The present study aims to examine the role and function of regional blocs and trade arrangements in the formation of the Islamic Common Market. For this purpose, it provides, first of all, a conceptual background on regional economic groupings. Then, it evaluates the regional economic groupings and trade arrangements formed amongst the member countries of the OIC. Based on this framework, the paper discusses, in detail, the possible role and function of regional economic groupings and trade arrangements in the formation of the Islamic Common Market or any other form of economic integration. At the end, it gives concluding remarks on the topic. 1. INTRODUCTION In the 1990s, regionalisation efforts increased considerably at the global scale. This new wave of regionalisation was mostly affected by the achievements of the European countries in creating first a common market and then a monetary and economic union amongst themselves. Since its establishment, the European Union (EU) has grown greatly in terms of its membership, its economic and political influence, and its organisational infrastructure. Starting with only six member states, its membership has now reached fifteen. Furthermore, more countries are waiting at the doorstep of the Union. On the other hand, the Maastricht Summit (9-10 December 1991) was a very important turning point in the history of the EU. The member countries agreed on the Treaty on the European Union aiming to develop the European Community into an Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and to introduce a single European currency by 1999 at the latest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Key Factors of Economic Integration in Southeast Asia: Case of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand
    The Key Factors of Economic Integration in Southeast Asia: Case of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand Kiki Verico University of Indonesia, Indonesia Abstract The major aim of economic integration in Southeast Asia is to shift economic integration from intra-regional trade to intra-regional investment before it achieves the common market. This article attempts to analyze the two essential factors in Southeast Asia’s economic integration: intra-regional trade and an economic community. In the first analysis, this article observes three selected countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand; while in the second analysis it focuses on Indonesia as a case study. Findings from this article showed that free trade agreement is effective to increase intra-regional trade but not effective to attract investment; therefore suggesting that Southeast Asia needs to amplify its open-regionalism principle. This article also found that the private sector is ready for the economic community; therefore the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is fit for Southeast Asia’s economic integration exemplary. Key words: economic integration, international investment (long-term capital-FDI inflows), ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), Bilateral Free Trade Agreements (BFTA), Asian noodle bowl phenomenon Introduction investment. Intra-regional trade is affected by its regional trade agreement known as The Association of Southeast Asian the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), Nations (ASEAN) is committed to while its impact is expected to attract transform Southeast Asia’s economic long-run investment inflows of Foreign integration in trade, which allows free Direct Investment (FDI). As intra-regional flows of goods to free flows of investment trade analysis is essential for Southeast and services.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons in Regional Integration from the Caribbean
    Lessons in regional integration from the Caribbean 2013 Pacific and PNG Update 316 13,880 31,400 328 22,966 8,400 9,802 51 261 15,800 89 443 18,200 2,889 27,750 10,991 1,300 5 102 8,500 9,100 73 751 14,000 162 616 12,800 104 11,600 389 288 430 23,700 109 344 14,100 1,226 5,128 20,300 Population ‘000 742 Land Area sq km 7,600 214,969 560 GDP per capita 2011US$ PPP 9,600 163,820 CARICOM economies • CARICOM members are typically very open – for CARICOM as a whole, trade in goods and services amounts to 100 per cent of GDP • Services exports (mainly tourism, but also financial services) are very important for many CARICOM members – on average, CARICOM derives around 45 per cent of GDP from exports of services – much more for some smaller island economies – eg 89 per cent for Antigua and Barbuda – much less for natural resource rich economies - eg 10 per cent for Trinidad and Tobago • The US, Canada and the EU are the main trade partners and sources of FDI – Intra-regional trade is relatively small (13 per cent of total goods imports – dominated by imports of petroleum from Trinidad and Tobago) Caribbean regional integration • Regional integration and cooperation long seen as critical to Caribbean development, pre and post independence – Unsuccessful attempt at political union - West Indies Federation (1958-62) – Parallel and intersecting paths of economic integration and institutional pooling/cooperation • Economic integration initiatives – Caribbean Free Trade Association – Common Market initiated along with creation of Caribbean Community
    [Show full text]
  • Caribbean Regional Integration
    Caribbean Regional Integration A Report by the UWI Institute of International Relations (IIR) April 2011 http://sta.uwi.edu/iir/ Matthew Louis Bishop Norman Girvan Timothy M. Shaw Solange Mike Raymond Mark Kirton Michelle Scobie Debbie Mohammed Marlon Anatol With research assistance provided by Zahra Alleyne and Quinnelle-Marie Kangalee This material has been funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development, however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the department’s official policies. ACRONYMS ACCP Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians ACS Association of Caribbean States ALBA Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas BLP Barbados Labour Party BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa CAPE Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examinations CARDI Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute CARICAD Caribbean Centre for Development Administration CARICOM The Caribbean Community CARIFORUM Caribbean Forum of African. Caribbean and Pacific States CARIFTA Caribbean Free Trade Association CARIPASS CARICOM Travel Pass CASSOS Caribbean Aviation Safety and Security Oversight System CBSI Caribbean Basin Security Initiative CCCC Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre CCJ Caribbean Court of Justice CDB Caribbean Development Bank CDEMA Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency CEDA Caribbean Export Development Agency CEHI Caribbean Environment Health Institute CET Common External Tariff CFC Caribbean Food Corporation CFNI Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute CIDA Canadian International Development
    [Show full text]
  • Intra-Gulf Cooperation Council : Saudi Arabia Effect Nasser Al-Mawali Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman, Oman
    Vol.30 No.3, September 2015, 532~552 Nasser Al-Mawali jei http://dx.doi.org/10.11130/jei.2015.30.3.532 Journal of Economic Integration jei Vol.30 No.3, September 2015, 532~552 http://dx.doi.org/10.11130/jei.2015.30.3.532 Intra-Gulf Cooperation Council : Saudi Arabia Effect Nasser Al-Mawali Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman, Oman Abstract The main thrust of this study is to investigate the extent to which Saudi Arabia’s economic growth acts as an engine of growth for the Gulf Co-operation Council region. The estimation results of Gulf Cooperation Council for the last three decades suggest that the growth of Saudi Arabia, along with the growth of United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is positive and statistically significant in explaining the overall growth of the Gulf Cooperation Council region. The main policy implication of these findings is that the positive intra-economic growth of these countries should serve as further motivation for the intra-regional integration of the Gulf Cooperation Council. JEL Classification: F02, F13, F42, F53 Keywords: Economic Growth, GCC, Economic Integration * Corresponding Author: Nasser Al-Mawali; College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman; P.O Box 20, PC 123, Alkhod, Oman; Tel:+968 24141848, Fax: +968 24414043, E-mail: almawali@ squ.edu.om. ⓒ 2015-Center for Economic Integration, Sejong Institution, Sejong University, All Rights Reserved. pISSN: 1225-651X eISSN: 1976-5525 532 Intra-Gulf Cooperation Council: Saudi Arabia Effect jei I. Introduction The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is comprised of six member countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
    [Show full text]
  • The Regional Integration As a Solution to Face the Mediterranean Security Challenges
    05 2 0 1 7 (NOUVELLE SÉRIE- VERSION ÉLECTRONIQUE) THE REGIONAL INTEGRATION AS A SOLUTION TO FACE THE MEDITERRANEAN SECURITY CHALLENGES MARIA DOLORES ALGORA WEBER1 I. THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION IN A GLOBALISED WORLD – II. REASONS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE RISKS AND THE THREATS – III. A RENEWED “SECURITY ARCHITECTURE” TO TACKLE THE MEDITERRANEAN POLICY. IV.- THE IMPACT OF A REGIONAL INTEGRATION FOR SECURITY – V. 5+5 INITIATIVE OF DEFENCE AS A WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN MODEL FOR A REGIONAL INTEGRATION – VI. FINAL BALANCE. ABSTRACT: The aim of this analysis is to do a short review of the Mediterranean Region situation in terms of Security. The regional integration will be tackled as the unique solution to face risks, threats and conflicts inside its frame. The multilateral initiatives which constitute the called “Ar- chitecture of Security” offer models to achieve this aim. The present contribution will be focused on the often unknown 5+5 Initiative of Defense. The scientific intention is not to point out a final solution to the troubling scene of the Mediterranean basin; it is just an approach to highlight the state of art on this issue. KEY WORDS: Mediterranean region, Security Policy Architecture, regional integration and coo- peration, 5+5 Initiative of Defence. LA INTEGRACIÓN REGIONAL COMO SOLUCIÓN PARA HACER FRENTE A LOS DESAFIOS DE LA SEGURIDAD EN EL MEDITERRÁNEO RESUMEN: Este análisis tiene como objetivo una breve revisión de la situación de seguridad en la región del Mediterráneo. Entendiendo la integración regional como la única solución factible para hacer frente a los riesgos, amenazas y conflictos que tienen lugar en este espacio.
    [Show full text]
  • Unu-Cris Unu-Cris
    UNU -CRIS W ORKING PAPER SERIES #02 April 2021 Me UNU -CRIS dite W ORKING PAPER SERIES rran Mediterranean Lasagne of Migration Governance: ean UNU What- isCRIS the Way Forward for theLas Regions in Governing the agn W ORKING PAPER SERIES Euromestic Sphere? An EU- e of Centric Perspective Mig Zane Šime rati UNU -CRIS on W ORKING PAPER SERIES Gov www.cris.unu.edu EU-China Relations onAlice Food Marinelliern Securitywww.cris.unu.edu and Agri -Food anc UNU-CRIS Alice Marinelli Trade e: ORKING www.cris.unu.eduAPER ERIES W P S Alice Marinelli Wha www.cris.unu.edu t is the UNU-CRISwww.cris.unu.edu About the author: Ms Zane Šime did a research internship at UNU-CRIS throughout March 2020 – November 2020. She was working on the Regional Integration Knowledge System (RIKS) project under the supervision of Professors Glenn Rayp and Samuel Standaert. The most recent research interests of Zane Šime revolve around the EU science diplomacy towards the Southern Neighbourhood and the EU-India educational diplomacy in a broader context of the Asia- Europe Meeting. Zane has obtained professional experience as an international civil servant at the Secretariat of the Council of the Baltic Sea States and a national civil servant in Latvia. Zane holds a Master of Science in European Politics and Policies from KU Leuven (Belgium) and a master's degree in Political Science from the University of Latvia. Contact: [email protected] LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/zanesime 2 Acknowledgements: The author gratefully thanks UNU-CRIS Professorial Fellow Samuel Standaert for his supervisory support throughout the preparation of the Working Paper.
    [Show full text]
  • 118775 Otan Colloque Econo
    REGIONAL COOPERATION AND INTEGRATION IN THE BALKANS - A HISTORICAL CHALLENGE FOR A DIFFERENT FUTURE Genc Ruli Professor, Institute for Contemporary Studies, Tirana Regional cooperation in South-Eastern Europe (SEE) has never been so important as today. A multitude of motives, economic and non-economic, now exist to intensify regional cooperation, which in turn would help to induce growth, to strengthen security and political stability and to promote development and modernisation in SEE countries. Why Has Regional Cooperation in SEE Become Imperative Today? • All SEE countries have already entered the same stream of poli- tical and economic processes and are coping with similar challenges such as: democratisation, economic and institutional reform, and modernisation. Many of the problems encountered at present in the region can be resolved only through cooperating with each other, such as ethnic tensions, organised crime, the return of refugees, and the re-establishment of regional communications. None of the region's countries can ensure a sustainable progress, neither in its national programme of reform nor in the bilateral Association Agreements, so long as our region remains unstable and economically backward. • Political, economic and cultural intra-regional cooperation appears to be the unique way to overcome mutual historical distrust, to prevent further escalation of conflicts and disintegration, and to ensure the existence of multi-ethnic societies in the region. • Intra regional cooperation is a natural prerequisite as regards the future integration with Euro-Atlantic Structures. 105 • The main causes of destabilisation and conflict in the peninsula are of a regional character. Sustainable peace and stability, given that international actors remain involved and committed, can only be achieved and guaranteed in a cooperating environment of all regional factors.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 Years of Regional Integration in Latin America
    Debt, Democracy, and Post-Neoliberalism: 30 Years of Regional Integration in Latin America By Isabella Alcañiz Department of Politics and Government University of Maryland Paper prepared for the Penn Program on Democracy, Constitutionalism, and Citizenship (DCC), March 19, 2015. 1 The Southern Common Market, known as the Mercosur, is faltering. For a little over a decade, the largest regional integration scheme of Latin America made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela has been seen as losing its way and exhibiting symptoms more consistent of a process of “disintegration” than of regional integration (Sáenz 2008).1 Since the 2000s, the Mercosur has stagnated and continues to struggle to find a clear mandate and a unified voice as a(n imperfect) customs union and common market. Even as a shared political platform for the subregion to deal with the new trading giants of the Global South (i.e., China, India, and Russia), the Mercosur fails to offer a common strategy. Under the weight of a founding member’s foreign debt crises, the rise of new commercial partners in the global economy, and protracted intra-regional conflicts, South American leaders seem less invested in the Mercosur in the 21st Century than ever. Even the president of Uruguay, in his last days in office, recently declared that “Argentina forgets about integration…as does Brazil.”2 Paradoxically, the conditions hindering the deepening of the Mercosur also existed at the time of its creation. In the second half of 1980s, akin to the 2000s, Latin American economies were shattered by foreign debt crises; country leaders were reeling from political turmoil (albeit, triggered by democratic regime change); early globalization was quickly raising the costs of trade isolation; and the two largest economies of South America –Argentina and Brazil– appeared engulfed in a dangerous competition for nuclear supremacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Political and Economic Integration in the EU: the Case of Failed Tax Harmonization*
    bs_bs_banner JCMS 2013 pp. 1–16 DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12099 Political and Economic Integration in the EU: The Case of Failed Tax Harmonization* FABIO WASSERFALLEN University of Zurich Abstract The European Union (EU) tax mandate remains narrow. That there was only a limited transfer of tax authority to the EU exemplifies the failure of political and fiscal integration. Using a political economy framework, this article analyzes why the heads of state rejected tax harmonization proposals in the intergovernmental conferences. The presented findings of the original data on the Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon negotiations support the main hypothesis derived from the theoretical framework – namely that resistance against tax harmonization came predominantly from low-tax countries. Moreover, the results indicate that after the accession of the central and eastern European countries the prospects of harmonizing tax policy starkly decreased. The analysis shows that tax heterogeneity and the enlargements have negative effects on tax integration. Based on the empirical findings and the theoretical framework, the article concludes by discussing how the creation of the monetary union restructured the politics of tax Europeanization and fiscal integration. Introduction After the euro crisis started at the end of 2009, the following basic question of integration came again to the fore: should more political integration complement the deep economic integration that has culminated in the creation of the European monetary union? Com- pared to the creation of the single market and the European monetary union, which mark historically unprecedented levels of economic integration among nation-states, the achievements of political integration remain modest. Politically salient policy areas, such as taxation and welfare redistribution, are still largely nationalized and many consider the political modes of decision-making on the European level to be ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Multi-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing Regional Integration: Regional Integration Evaluation (RIE) Methodology
    ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration A New Multi-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing Regional Integration: Regional Integration Evaluation (RIE) Methodology Donghyun Park and Mario Arturo Ruiz Estrada No. 49 | May 2010 ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration A New Multi-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing Regional Integration: Regional Integration Evaluation (RIE) Methodology Donghyun Park+ and Mario Arturo +Donghyun Park is Principal Economist, Economics Ruiz Estrada++ and Research Department, Asian Development Bank, 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines. No. 49 May 2010 Tel +63 2 632 5825, Fax +63 2 636 2342, [email protected] ++Mario Arturo Ruiz Estrada is Lecturer and Researcher, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya. [email protected] The ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration focuses on topics relating to regional cooperation and integration in the areas of infrastructure and software, trade and investment, money and finance, and regional public goods. The Series is a quick-disseminating, informal publication that seeks to provide information, generate discussion, and elicit comments. Working papers published under this Series may subsequently be published elsewhere. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. The Asian Development Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Use of the term ―country‖ does not imply any judgment by the authors or the Asian Development Bank as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity.
    [Show full text]