The EU’s new trade strategy promises to advance open strategic autonomy that is to balance the benefits of economic interdependence with growing demands to manage Europe’s exposure to the risks it entails. What explains these shifting priorities? This article situates open strategic autonomy in the theoretical debates of International Political Economy (IPE) literature on economic interdependence and geoeconomics to aid our understanding of the debates ensnaring economic strategy in the EU, but also related debates in the United States, China and elsewhere. This framework, the article argues, helps us understand changing strategic priorities in economic policy by reference to wider structural shifts engulfing the global economy. It then identifies four priority targets of EU economic policy in which (new) autonomous policies are forthcoming: (i) tackle economic distortions; (ii) defend against economic coercion; (iii) link with values and sustainability; and (iv) protect critical assets and supply chains. These observations build towards addressing the main research question: Has open strategic autonomy turned a corner on EU principles of openness, liberalization and international cooperation? trade and investment, European Union, geoeconomics, International Political Economy
{"title":"EU Open Strategic Autonomy and the Trappings of Geoeconomics","authors":"T. Gehrke","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022012","url":null,"abstract":"The EU’s new trade strategy promises to advance open strategic autonomy that is to balance the benefits of economic interdependence with growing demands to manage Europe’s exposure to the risks it entails. What explains these shifting priorities? This article situates open strategic autonomy in the theoretical debates of International Political Economy (IPE) literature on economic interdependence and geoeconomics to aid our understanding of the debates ensnaring economic strategy in the EU, but also related debates in the United States, China and elsewhere. This framework, the article argues, helps us understand changing strategic priorities in economic policy by reference to wider structural shifts engulfing the global economy. It then identifies four priority targets of EU economic policy in which (new) autonomous policies are forthcoming: (i) tackle economic distortions; (ii) defend against economic coercion; (iii) link with values and sustainability; and (iv) protect critical assets and supply chains. These observations build towards addressing the main research question: Has open strategic autonomy turned a corner on EU principles of openness, liberalization and international cooperation?\u0000trade and investment, European Union, geoeconomics, International Political Economy","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43579192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Europe breathed a sigh of relief after Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, following a difficult period for transatlantic relations under Donald Trump. Yet, a friendlier tone in Washington has not so far translated into markedly better relations between the US and Europe. This article inquires why Biden – a pro-European President by disposition – is not proving more amenable to transatlantic relations in general, and European strategic autonomy in particular. It suggests that the considerable continuity between Biden and Trump can be explained by an interplay between the historical legacy of transatlantic relations, international and domestic structural factors, and on-going ideational contests over US grand strategy. Considering these factors, the US approach to Europe in the Biden era looks to oscillate between a ‘primacy’ model, marked by a US expectation that it will continue to lead and determine the direction of the transatlantic alliance, as well as ‘benign neglect’ of Europe in an age marked by ‘strategic competition’ with China. Neither approach is particularly conducive to the development of European Union (EU) strategic autonomy. In the meantime, the transition from Trump to the Biden era continues to hold little promise for a mutually negotiated ‘major reform’ of the transatlantic relationship. transatlantic relations – foreign policy – European Union – United States – strategic autonomy, grand strategy – primacy – restraint – Biden – Trump
{"title":"Past as Prologue? The United States and European Strategic Autonomy in the Biden Era","authors":"Ville Sinkkonen, G. Martin","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022013","url":null,"abstract":"Europe breathed a sigh of relief after Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, following a difficult period for transatlantic relations under Donald Trump. Yet, a friendlier tone in Washington has not so far translated into markedly better relations between the US and Europe. This article inquires why Biden – a pro-European President by disposition – is not proving more amenable to transatlantic relations in general, and European strategic autonomy in particular. It suggests that the considerable continuity between Biden and Trump can be explained by an interplay between the historical legacy of transatlantic relations, international and domestic structural factors, and on-going ideational contests over US grand strategy. Considering these factors, the US approach to Europe in the Biden era looks to oscillate between a ‘primacy’ model, marked by a US expectation that it will continue to lead and determine the direction of the transatlantic alliance, as well as ‘benign neglect’ of Europe in an age marked by ‘strategic competition’ with China. Neither approach is particularly conducive to the development of European Union (EU) strategic autonomy. In the meantime, the transition from Trump to the Biden era continues to hold little promise for a mutually negotiated ‘major reform’ of the transatlantic relationship.\u0000transatlantic relations – foreign policy – European Union – United States – strategic autonomy, grand strategy – primacy – restraint – Biden – Trump","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44054915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For all the attention on ‘strategic autonomy’ in the European Union (EU)’s foreign and security policy debate, the academic reflections on the term have so far been limited. Strategic autonomy is a prominent framework through which policy-makers discuss the EU’s response to global challenges, which raises the question to what extent its study can tell us more about the development of the EU as a global actor. This article discusses the evolution of the term ‘strategic autonomy’, the current policy debates that surround it, as well as how its emergence and implications can possibly be analysed through the use of International Relations theory. It argues that strategic autonomy should not be understood as a binary choice between dependence and independence or engagement and decoupling. By accepting the ambiguity of the term and its various meanings in today’s policy debate, it is possible to explore the grey areas of the EU’s struggle to manage its external interdependencies, as well as the implications in diverse policy fields, including foreign policy, security and defence, as well as trade. Strategic Autonomy, European Union, International Relations, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy, Trade and Investment Policy, Realism, Liberal theory of International Cooperation, Constructivism
{"title":"Strategic Autonomy and the EU as a Global Actor: The Evolution, Debate and Theory of a Contested Term","authors":"Niklas Helwig, Ville Sinkkonen","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022009","url":null,"abstract":"For all the attention on ‘strategic autonomy’ in the European Union (EU)’s foreign and security policy debate, the academic reflections on the term have so far been limited. Strategic autonomy is a prominent framework through which policy-makers discuss the EU’s response to global challenges, which raises the question to what extent its study can tell us more about the development of the EU as a global actor. This article discusses the evolution of the term ‘strategic autonomy’, the current policy debates that surround it, as well as how its emergence and implications can possibly be analysed through the use of International Relations theory. It argues that strategic autonomy should not be understood as a binary choice between dependence and independence or engagement and decoupling. By accepting the ambiguity of the term and its various meanings in today’s policy debate, it is possible to explore the grey areas of the EU’s struggle to manage its external interdependencies, as well as the implications in diverse policy fields, including foreign policy, security and defence, as well as trade.\u0000Strategic Autonomy, European Union, International Relations, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy, Trade and Investment Policy, Realism, Liberal theory of International Cooperation, Constructivism","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47249361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The term strategic autonomy has become a major reference point in the debates on the EU as a global actor despite concerns of some Member States that worry about global decoupling signals. What explains the attractiveness and widespread use of the concept in the EU’s policy debates? This article puts forward an explanation grounded in social factors and dynamics. It uses role theory to develop a hypothesis for the proliferation of the strategic autonomy concept in the debate on EU’s global role. Based on this perceptive, the conflict between the EU’s roles as a market-, normative-, and realist power is at the heart of the emergence of the strategic autonomy discourse. Rather than forcing the EU to adapt its role as an international actor, the reference to strategic autonomy allows for ‘role ambiguity’. The article discusses this in light of the current debates on the ‘geopolitical Commission’, qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as well as in the area of defence. Whether the ambiguity – the lack of clarity and certainty the EU as a collective actor faces with regards to the enactment of its role – will prove to be constructive or destructive for its foreign policy remains still open. Strategic Autonomy, European Union, EU’s Global Role, Role theory, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy, Normative Power, Market Power, Realist Power
{"title":"The Ambiguity of the EU’s Global Role: A Social Explanation of the Term ‘Strategic Autonomy’","authors":"Niklas Helwig","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022010","url":null,"abstract":"The term strategic autonomy has become a major reference point in the debates on the EU as a global actor despite concerns of some Member States that worry about global decoupling signals. What explains the attractiveness and widespread use of the concept in the EU’s policy debates? This article puts forward an explanation grounded in social factors and dynamics. It uses role theory to develop a hypothesis for the proliferation of the strategic autonomy concept in the debate on EU’s global role. Based on this perceptive, the conflict between the EU’s roles as a market-, normative-, and realist power is at the heart of the emergence of the strategic autonomy discourse. Rather than forcing the EU to adapt its role as an international actor, the reference to strategic autonomy allows for ‘role ambiguity’. The article discusses this in light of the current debates on the ‘geopolitical Commission’, qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as well as in the area of defence. Whether the ambiguity – the lack of clarity and certainty the EU as a collective actor faces with regards to the enactment of its role – will prove to be constructive or destructive for its foreign policy remains still open.\u0000Strategic Autonomy, European Union, EU’s Global Role, Role theory, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy, Normative Power, Market Power, Realist Power","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49471259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article explains the roots, the essence and the consequences of the Russian approach to the European Union’s idea of strategic autonomy. While the EU’s ambition is treated with a degree of hope for a more balanced world by the Russian academic community, the official attitude is clearly sceptical. Russian understanding of sovereignty leaves little place for such a specific actor as the EU. At the same time, Russia itself is struggling to ensure autonomy and equilibrium on the global level. In spite of the high scepticism with regard to the future of the strategic autonomy, its success would matter for Russia, especially in the field of economy and digitalization. The process of acquiring strategic autonomy would be, on the other hand, influenced by the perception of the Russian challenge. Attention is also paid to the transatlantic bond, which is interpreted very differently – with constant suspicion in Russia and as a helping tool in the West. The new stage of world politics is set in Asia, where the EU and Russia will struggle to ensure their positions in competition with more adapted actors. Overall, the EU’s strategic autonomy discussion is most important for countries that can in some way contribute to achieving it, which Russia is not. Russia, EU, NATO, Sovereignty, Autonomy, Transatlantic Dependency, Asia, Digitalization
{"title":"Suspicious Neighbour: Russia’s Role in the Quest for the EU’s Strategic Autonomy","authors":"S. Utkin","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022014","url":null,"abstract":"The article explains the roots, the essence and the consequences of the Russian approach to the European Union’s idea of strategic autonomy. While the EU’s ambition is treated with a degree of hope for a more balanced world by the Russian academic community, the official attitude is clearly sceptical. Russian understanding of sovereignty leaves little place for such a specific actor as the EU. At the same time, Russia itself is struggling to ensure autonomy and equilibrium on the global level. In spite of the high scepticism with regard to the future of the strategic autonomy, its success would matter for Russia, especially in the field of economy and digitalization. The process of acquiring strategic autonomy would be, on the other hand, influenced by the perception of the Russian challenge. Attention is also paid to the transatlantic bond, which is interpreted very differently – with constant suspicion in Russia and as a helping tool in the West. The new stage of world politics is set in Asia, where the EU and Russia will struggle to ensure their positions in competition with more adapted actors. Overall, the EU’s strategic autonomy discussion is most important for countries that can in some way contribute to achieving it, which Russia is not.\u0000Russia, EU, NATO, Sovereignty, Autonomy, Transatlantic Dependency, Asia, Digitalization","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43710256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geoeconomic competition, supply security vulnerabilities and complex technological dependencies challenge the European Union’s ‘strategic autonomy’. Evolving from more traditional security/ defence notions, a broader definition of strategic autonomy encompasses also economic dimensions. Economic resilience underpins security and defence arrangements. The EU has lacked instruments for protection against ‘predatory’ strategic investments by external actors, and technological dependence on potential strategic rivals. This article analyses two critical hubs, or potential ‘chokepoints’, in the EU’s attempts to achieve strategic autonomy – critical maritime transport infrastructure and 5G – as well as countermeasures developed by the EU. Chinese enterprises have made strategic investments in key EU infrastructure and high-tech industries over the past decade. In response, the EU has established an investment screening framework to screen (authorize, issue condition, prohibit or unwind) inward foreign direct investment (FDI) on security or public order grounds, and activated a mechanism for the enhancement of coordination and cooperation between the Commission and Member States. The EU has also sought to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers by introducing the ‘5G toolbox’. We argue that the EU aims to ‘de-weaponize’ these two potential chokepoints. However, our article concludes that the political goal of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis external actors is hampered by the competence limitations of the Union to act in critical areas. Ultimately, much of the heavy lifting on implementing EU policy goals still falls upon Members States with varied economic and security interests. chokepoint effects, critical hubs, strategic autonomy, interdependence, investment screening, 5G toolbox
{"title":"EU Strategic Autonomy and the Perceived Challenge of China: Can Critical Hubs Be De-weaponized?","authors":"T. Poutala, Elina Sinkkonen, Mikael Mattlin","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022015","url":null,"abstract":"Geoeconomic competition, supply security vulnerabilities and complex technological dependencies challenge the European Union’s ‘strategic autonomy’. Evolving from more traditional security/ defence notions, a broader definition of strategic autonomy encompasses also economic dimensions. Economic resilience underpins security and defence arrangements. The EU has lacked instruments for protection against ‘predatory’ strategic investments by external actors, and technological dependence on potential strategic rivals. This article analyses two critical hubs, or potential ‘chokepoints’, in the EU’s attempts to achieve strategic autonomy – critical maritime transport infrastructure and 5G – as well as countermeasures developed by the EU. Chinese enterprises have made strategic investments in key EU infrastructure and high-tech industries over the past decade. In response, the EU has established an investment screening framework to screen (authorize, issue condition, prohibit or unwind) inward foreign direct investment (FDI) on security or public order grounds, and activated a mechanism for the enhancement of coordination and cooperation between the Commission and Member States. The EU has also sought to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers by introducing the ‘5G toolbox’. We argue that the EU aims to ‘de-weaponize’ these two potential chokepoints. However, our article concludes that the political goal of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis external actors is hampered by the competence limitations of the Union to act in critical areas. Ultimately, much of the heavy lifting on implementing EU policy goals still falls upon Members States with varied economic and security interests.\u0000chokepoint effects, critical hubs, strategic autonomy, interdependence, investment screening, 5G toolbox","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45510150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What shapes Saudi attitudes toward the European Union (EU)? Previous research has only shed some light on attitudes towards the EU in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This article aims to extend this line of research by investigating Saudi perceptions of the EU in the context of Vision 2030s Strategic Partnership Programme that intends to push forward integration between Saudi Arabia and other regional blocs. Combining literature on Arab public opinion and perceptions of the EU, we argue that attitudes towards prominent countries such as Germany and the United States can serve as heuristics in the formation of Saudi EU attitudes. Moreover, traditional cosmopolitan factors may also have an impact. We empirically test our argument using data from the second wave of the Arab Barometer and an original survey carried out at the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Saudi Arabia. Our findings confirm that Saudi EU perceptions seem to be informed by their view of the United States but especially of Germany. Having provided evidence on Saudi attitudes toward the EU, we discuss theoretical and methodological implications emanating from our research. attitudes, European Union, Saudi Arabia, Germany, heuristic, Vision 2030
{"title":"Attitudes Towards the European Union in the MENA Region: The Case of Saudi Arabia","authors":"Mujtaba Isani, Bernd Schlipphak","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022007","url":null,"abstract":"What shapes Saudi attitudes toward the European Union (EU)? Previous research has only shed some light on attitudes towards the EU in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This article aims to extend this line of research by investigating Saudi perceptions of the EU in the context of Vision 2030s Strategic Partnership Programme that intends to push forward integration between Saudi Arabia and other regional blocs. Combining literature on Arab public opinion and perceptions of the EU, we argue that attitudes towards prominent countries such as Germany and the United States can serve as heuristics in the formation of Saudi EU attitudes. Moreover, traditional cosmopolitan factors may also have an impact. We empirically test our argument using data from the second wave of the Arab Barometer and an original survey carried out at the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Saudi Arabia. Our findings confirm that Saudi EU perceptions seem to be informed by their view of the United States but especially of Germany. Having provided evidence on Saudi attitudes toward the EU, we discuss theoretical and methodological implications emanating from our research.\u0000attitudes, European Union, Saudi Arabia, Germany, heuristic, Vision 2030","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46056843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Special Section (Part 2): Perceptions, Narratives and Attitudes: New Perspectives and Geographies in the Study of External Perceptions of the EU","authors":"James Headley, N. Chaban","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44718471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The main goal of this article is to identify which aspect of trade drives positive attitudes towards the trading partner country. Whereas research has shown a positive influence of trade already, it is not clear whether total trade, trade balance, exports or imports is the best variable to predict attitudes. Furthermore, we investigate whether different sorts of the traded good do impact attitudes differently. As attitudes are formed on an individual level, we estimate that goods whose origins are visible to the individual customer do have greater impact than goods with no visible origins. In our analysis we use data from the Global Attitudes Survey from the Pew Research Center to measure attitudes towards the European Union (EU) and data from UN Comtrade to measure trade with the EU. Our results show that imports from and total trade with correlate significantly with attitude towards the EU, whereas exports to the EU and the bilateral trade balance do not. Given that imports are a part of total trade, we argue that imports are the best variable to predict attitudes. Additionally, we found that it is the import of differentiated goods that impacts attitudes whereas the import of homogeneous goods does not. We argue therefore that positive attitudes towards a trading partner are driven by individual experiences of consumers with products from the respective countries. Trade, Attitude, Soft Power, Exports, Peace
{"title":"Trade and Attitude Towards the EU: What Really Matters","authors":"Florian Keller, Benedikt Zoller-Rydzek","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022008","url":null,"abstract":"The main goal of this article is to identify which aspect of trade drives positive attitudes towards the trading partner country. Whereas research has shown a positive influence of trade already, it is not clear whether total trade, trade balance, exports or imports is the best variable to predict attitudes. Furthermore, we investigate whether different sorts of the traded good do impact attitudes differently. As attitudes are formed on an individual level, we estimate that goods whose origins are visible to the individual customer do have greater impact than goods with no visible origins. In our analysis we use data from the Global Attitudes Survey from the Pew Research Center to measure attitudes towards the European Union (EU) and data from UN Comtrade to measure trade with the EU. Our results show that imports from and total trade with correlate significantly with attitude towards the EU, whereas exports to the EU and the bilateral trade balance do not. Given that imports are a part of total trade, we argue that imports are the best variable to predict attitudes. Additionally, we found that it is the import of differentiated goods that impacts attitudes whereas the import of homogeneous goods does not. We argue therefore that positive attitudes towards a trading partner are driven by individual experiences of consumers with products from the respective countries.\u0000Trade, Attitude, Soft Power, Exports, Peace","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44752416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The New Pact on Migration and Asylum: A Strong External and A Weak Internal Dimension?","authors":"Iris GOLDNER LANG","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42741892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：