Who controls whom? Dynamics of power delegation and agency losses in EU trade politics

Journal of Common Market Studies

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1107-1126

  Da Conceição, Eugénia ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955744560     PISSN: 00219886     EISSN: 14685965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02086.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baldwin M. EU Trade Politics: Heaven or Hell? Journal of European Public Policy 2006, 13(6):926-42. Vol, No, pp.
2. Clark WR, Duchesne E, Meunier S. Domestic and International Asymmetries in United States-European Union Trade Negotiations. International Negotiation 2000, 5(1):69-95. Vol, No, pp.
3. Conceição E. Domestic Political Institutions and Time Dimension of WTO Agricultural Negotiations: A Comparative Analysis of the EU, US, Brazil and Australia 2009, Berlin, Humboldt University, Habilitationsschrift
4. Conceição-Heldt E. Taking Actors' Preferences and the Institutional Setting Seriously: The EU Common Fisheries Policy. Journal of Public Policy 2006, 26(3):279-99. Vol, No, pp.
5. Damro C. EU Delegation and Agency in International Trade Negotiations: A Cautionary Comparison. JCMS 2007, 45(4):883-903. Vol, No, pp.
6. De Bièvre D, Dür A. Constituency Interests and Delegation in European and American Trade Policy. Comparative Political Studies 2005, 38(10):1271-96. Vol, No, pp.
7. Delreux T. The EU as a Negotiator in Multilateral Chemicals Negotiations: Multiple Principals, Different Agents. Journal of European Public Policy 2008, 15(7):1069-86. Vol, No, pp.
8. Elsig M. The EU's Choice of Regulatory Venues for Trade Negotiations: A Tale of Agency Power? JCMS 2007, 45(4):927-48. Vol, No, pp.
9. WTO-DDA: EU Ready to Go the Extra Mile in Three Key Areas of the Talks. 2004, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction, European Union, Available at «
10. Hawkins DG, Jacoby W. How Agents Matter. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 2006, 199-228. Hawkins DG, Lake DANielson DLTierney MJ., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.
11. Hawkins DG, Lake DA, Nielson DL, Tierney MJ. Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 2006, 3-38. Hawkins DG, Lake DA, Nielson DL, Tierney MJ., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.
12. Hennis M. Globalization and European Integration: The Changing Role of Farmers in the Common Agricultural Policy 2005, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
13. Kerremans B. The European Commission and the EU Member States as Actors in the WTO Negotiating Process: Decision Making Between Scylla and Charibdis? Decision Making within International Organizations 2004a, 45-58. Reinalda BVerbeek B., London/New York, Routledge, pp.
14. Kerremans B. Principal(s) versus Agent: An Analysis of the Impact of Member States' Control on the Commission's Behaviour as Trade Policy Entrepreneur in WTO Negotiations. 2004b, IIEB Working Paper, No. 3
15. Kiewiet DR, McCubbins MD. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process 1991, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press
16. Larsén MF. Trade Negotiations between the EU and South Africa: A Three-Level Game. JCMS 2007, 45(4):857-81. Vol, No, pp.
17. Majone G. Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance. European Union Politics 2001, 2(1):103-22. Vol, No, pp.
18. Meunier S. What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU-US Trade Negotiations. International Organization 2000, 54(1):103-35. Vol, No, pp.
19. Meunier S. Trading Voices: The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations 2005, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
20. Meunier S. Managing Globalization? The EU in International Trade Negotiations. JCMS 2007, 45(4):905-26. Vol, No, pp.
21. Meunier S, Nicolaïdis K. Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the EU. JCMS 1999, 37(3):447-501. Vol, No, pp.
22. Meunier S, Nicolaïdis K. EU Trade Policy: The Exclusive versus Shared Competence Debate. The State of the European Union 2000, 325-46. Green Cowles M, Smith M., Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.
23. Meunier S, Nicolaïdis K. The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power. Journal of European Public Policy 2006, 13(6):906-25. Vol, No, pp.
24. Moe TM. The New Economics of Organization. American Journal of Political Science 1984, 28(4):739-77. Vol, No, pp.
25. Moravcsik A. Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. JCMS 1993, 31(4):473-524. Vol, No, pp.
26. Nicolaïdis K. Minimizing Agency Costs in Two-Level Games: Lessons from the Trade Authority Controversies in the United States and the European Union. Negotiating on Behalf of Others 2000, 87-126. Mnookin R HSusskind L., Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, pp.
27. Nicolaïdis K, Meunier S. Revisiting Trade Competence in the European Union: Amsterdam, Nice, and Beyond. Institutional Challenges in the European Union 2002, 173-201. Hosli MO, van Deemen AWidgrén M., London, Routledge, pp.
28. Patterson LA. Agricultural Policy Reform in the European Community: A Three-Level Game Analysis. International Organization 1997, 51(1):135-65. Vol, No, pp.
29. Paugam J-M. The Road to Cancún: The French Decision-Making Process and WTO Negotiations. Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation: 45 Case Studies 2005, 201-15. Gallagher PLow PStoler AL., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.
30. Pollack MA. Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community. International Organization 1997, 51(1):99-134. Vol, No, pp.
31. Pollack MA. The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU 2003, Oxford, Oxford University Press
32. Pollack MA. Delegation and Discretion in the European Union. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 2006, 165-96. Hawkins DGLake DANielson DLTierney MJ., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.
33. Putnam RD. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 1988, 42(3):427-60. Vol, No, pp.
34. Schelling T. The Strategy of Conflict 1960, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
35. Thatcher M, Stone Sweet A. Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions. West European Politics 2002, 25(1):1-22. Vol, No, pp.
36. Woolcock S. European Union Trade Policy: Domestic Institutions and Systemic Factors. The Politics of International Trade in the Twenty-First Century: Actors, Issues and Regional Dynamics 2005a, 234-51. Kelly DGrant W., Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.
37. Woolcock S. Trade Policy: From Uruguay to Doha and Beyond. Policy-Making in the European Union 2005b, 377-99. Wallace HWallace WPollack M A., Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.
38. Woolcock S, Hodges M. EU Policy in the Uruguay Round. Policy-Making in the European Union 1998, 301-24. Wallace H, Wallace W., Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.
39. Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration. 2001, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e, World Trade Organization, Available at «
40. Young A. Extending European Co-operation: The European Union and the 'New' International Trade Agenda 2002, Manchester, Manchester University Press
41. Young AR. Trade Politics Ain't What It Used to Be: The European Union in the Doha Round. JCMS 2007, 45(4):789-811. Vol, No, pp.