«THE IMPACT OF POLICY NETWORKS IN THE GATT URUGUAY ROUND: THE CASE OF THE US-EC AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS HEIDI KAREN ULLRICH LONDON SCHOOL OF ...»
THE IMPACT OF POLICY NETWORKS
IN THE GATT URUGUAY ROUND:
THE CASE OF THE US-EC AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS
HEIDI KAREN ULLRICH
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF LONDONUMI Number: U174118 All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing UMI U174118 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 r:^ POLITICAL & AN° 4 f Zou 9fe^7o) ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the membership, activities and policy impact of three distinct groups of policy networks operating within and between the agricultural policy environments of the US and EC as well as at the multilateral level during the preparation for and negotiations of the GATT Uruguay Round between 1980 and 1993. Briefly defined, these three groups are: 1) epistemic communities - networks of professionals who share both specialized knowledge and expertise in a specific issue area; 2) advocacy coalitions - policy actors from various levels of the policy process who share common policy beliefs and work together to turn these policy beliefs into government policy; and 3) elite transnational networks - incorporating political leaders, political appointees and senior government and international institutional officials, these elite level networks are formed through regular contact in either an official or unofficial capacity.
The contention of this thesis is that various networks of actors within the distinct policy networks of epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and elite transnational networks contributed significantly to bringing about the reform of agricultural policy that occurred within the EC and the US between 1980 and 1993 allowing for the establishment of consensus on the liberalization of agricultural trade policy at the multilateral level of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade during the Uruguay Round. The hypothesis of this thesis is that these three policy networks varied in their impact according to the specific stage of negotiations due to changing policy needs.
I argue that in general: 1) epistemic communities exhibited the most impact during the agenda-setting stage owing in part to their expertise in agricultural trade issues, the existence of a common framework for discussion and their work in creating analytical tools that allowed agricultural liberalization to be politically and economically viable; 2) advocacy coalitions had the most significant role during the second, or policy-making stage, due to their ability to work within the policy environment and shape domestic policy development; and
3) elite transnational networks, due to their ability to provide the necessary political pressure, had the greatest impact in the third, or breakthrough stage.
TABLE OF CONTENTSTitle Page
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Appendix A Selected List of Members of the Agricultural Policy Reform Epistemic Community During the Uruguay Round
Appendix B Selected List of Studies and Associations Advocating Agricultural Liberalization During the Uruguay Round
Appendix C Comparison of US and EC Agricultural Proposals During the Uruguay Round
Appendix D Research Notes
This thesis would not have been possible without the support and patience of many individuals. The guidance, knowledge and friendship of my joint supervisors, Dr. Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey and Professor Paul Taylor, have been a source of great inspiration. Their continuous encouragement of my intellectual growth and academic experience has had an overwhelming impact on my personal and professional development. They have my most sincere respect and heartfelt thanks. The LSE Departments of Government and International Relations deserve commendation for providing superb administrative support during the process of preparing this study as well as financial support in the form of travel grants for various conferences.
The experience gained through research positions has added significantly to my thesis. For showing me that the formulation of both US and multilateral trade policy is based as much on personal dedication as on professional expertise, I owe a debt of gratitude to the staff of the US Mission to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, particularly former Ambassador Rita Hayes, Andrew Stoler, Bob Kasper and Gene Philhower. Through involving me in the process of preparing the 1999 WTO Ministerial Draft Text, representing the US in Trade Policy Reviews and carrying out research on agricultural markets, they provided insights into the intricacies of trade policy few academic accounts could hope to match. Serving as a research assistant to Member of the European Parliament Alan Donnelly on two separate occasions between 1993 and 1998 was instrumental in the development of this thesis. I am grateful to Alan for introducing me to the activities of the Group of Seven/Eight, expanding my knowledge of the political and economic issues surrounding transatlantic relations and granting me the flexibility necessary to carry out my empirical research. I would also like to give a word of thanks to my colleagues at the University of Toronto’s G8 Research Group, specifically its director Professor John Kirton, for encouraging my interest in elite transnational networks and providing endless opportunities to broaden my horizons.
Throughout my time at the LSE, friends and colleagues have provided not only useful advice but also much needed humor, perspective and emotional support. I am thankful for the special friendship of Anne Corbett, Jubin Goodarzi, Christina Lin, Elisa Roller, Nidhi Trehan and Michele Wollstonecroft.
Without them, this thesis would consist merely of words rather than a coherent whole.
The encouragement of my family to pursue my goals has been of paramount importance in the realization of this thesis. In particular, I have benefited enormously from my mother’s enthusiasm for knowledge, history and political debate. Her recognition that I was happiest surrounded by books gave me the courage and confidence necessary to conclude this thesis. Finally, I owe great thanks to my husband, Roger Oelke, for his unending supply of patience in my obsession with agricultural liberalization and policy networks as well as for showing me the world beyond academia.
ATAC Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee (within the US) Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service ASCS ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CG18 Consultative Group of Eighteen of the GATT COPA-COGECA Committee of Agricultural Organizations in the European Union COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives C.P.s Contracting Parties of the GATT
CTA Committee on Trade in Agriculture (within the GATT) Directorate General (within the European Commission) DG EAGGF European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund
ECU European Currency Unit EEC European Economic Community EEP Export Enhancement Program EP European Framework EU European Union (name for EC post 1 November 1993) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAS Foreign Agricultural Service G7 Group of Seven including: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States (the European Commission is a participant) G8 Group of Eight consisting of the G7 + Russia GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GNG Group of Negotiations on Goods GNS Group of Negotiations on Services IATRC International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium ITO International Trade Organization MFN Most-Favored Nation MTN Ministerial Trade Mandate (within the OECD) MTR Mid-Term Review (of the Uruguay Round) NCFAP National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy NFU National Farmers Union OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OMB Office of Management and Budget PSE Producer Subsidy Equivalent QUAD Trade Ministers Quadrilateral consisting of Canada, the EU, Japan and the US Quint Agricultural Ministers of the Quad plus Australia RTAA Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act SCA Special Committee on Agriculture (within the Council of the EU) SMU Support Measurement Unit STR Special Trade Representative (in the US before 1974) TNC Trade Negotiating Committee (within the GATT) UK United Kingdom UR The GATT Uruguay Round URAA Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement US The United States of America USDA United States Department of Agriculture USTR United States Trade Representative (also the Office of the USTR) WTO World Trade Organization
Introduction Following eight years of contentious negotiations, the Uruguay Round (UR) was completed on 15 December 1993. The UR Agricultural Agreement (URAA) symbolized the first significant move toward the liberalization of global agricultural trade since the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947. Concessions made in the URAA as well as the Blair House II Accord between the United States (US) and European Community (EC)1embody radical changes in approaches to agricultural policy, particularly between these two protagonists.
The complex nature of agricultural policy, and much more critically, its reform, is a matter that requires knowledge and understanding of extremely complex and technical issues. However, the ideological aspects and the resultant
In order for reform to occur and agricultural policy to be liberalized, the elements involved in the process of determining agricultural trade policy need to be reconciled. These changes in approach, as well as the manner in which the 1During the course of its evolution, the EU has had several official names: 1) European Communities (1957-1967), consisting of the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom); 2) European Community (1967-1993) in which these three communities were merged;
and 3) European Union (November 1993 - present). I will use the term most appropriate for the context throughout this thesis.
In terms of trade policy in general, Warley (1976) makes an interesting distinction in stating that “trade theory is expressed in economic terms, trade policy has additional social and political dimensions” (292; emphasis added).
accompanying necessary changes in perceptions among actors3 in the agricultural policy process between 1980 and 1993, specifically within and between the US and EC, were affected by the activities of distinct types of policy networks are the primary focus of this thesis.
As a necessary introduction to the issues being investigated, this chapter incorporates both empirical and theoretical elements that serve as a framework for the study being undertaken. The objectives of this chapter are: 1) to outline the significance of the URAA and the Blair House II Accord; 2) to establish the position of agriculture in the GATT, including its almost complete exemption from previous negotiating rounds and reasons why it was deemed necessary to include agriculture in the Uruguay Round; 3) to set out the argument, aims and relevance of the thesis including its theoretical approach; and 4) to lay out the plan of the thesis.
1. The UR Agricultural Agreement
1.1 The Protected Position of Agriculture Agricultural policy in the US and Europe, as well as many other developed states, has enjoyed a uniquely protected existence since the inter-war period. The exceptional aspect of domestic agricultural policy is due to several factors including: 1) unpredictable supply and demand; 2) immobility of labor; 3) great political influence of interest groups; 4) rapid structural changes due to the pace of technological advances; and 5) great differences in productivity among states (Warley; 1976: 294).4 In addition to these features, Josling points out that In this study, I use the terms actor, decision-maker and policy actor interchangeably.
More recently, farm labor has increased in mobility, particularly in the case of particularly within agricultural exporting countries, the more general assumption of government responsibility for economic management in place over the last four decades served to “complement, reinforce, underwrite and facilitate
domestic programs of price support and market guarantees” (Josling; 1977:
262). As a result of these elements, agricultural trade policy has historically been highly regulated which in turn has created deeply entrenched policy processes.5 Although US and EU agricultural policies differ in many key respects, outlined in chapters three and four, they have in common both an inordinate amount of regulation as well as broad objectives of internal6 agricultural policy.