Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorBroschek, Jörgde
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-15T13:32:06Z
dc.date.available2023-11-15T13:32:06Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn2183-2463de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/90504
dc.description.abstractWallonia’s refusal to ratify CETA in October 2016 suggests that multilevel trade politics may increasingly be subject to the pitfalls of joint decision-making, or even a joint-decision trap. This article, however, presents a more nuanced perspective that builds on a comparative analysis of intergovernmental configurations that underpinned constituent units’ participation in CETA in the four formal federations Canada, Belgium, Germany, and Austria. It shows, firstly, that joint decision-making is only one mode of intergovernmental trade policy coordination that needs to be distinguished from others. Second, joint decision-making rarely leads to a joint decision trap as actors seek to bypass the institutional constraints entailed in this mode of intergovernmental coordination. The study has implications beyond the field of trade policy as it contributes to the comparative analysis of intergovernmental relations in Canada and Europe.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcInternationale Beziehungende
dc.subject.ddcInternational relationsen
dc.subject.otherCETA; intergovernmental relations; joint decision‐makingde
dc.titleMultilevel Trade Policy in the Joint‐Decision Trap? The Case of CETAde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/6800/3315de
dc.source.journalPolitics and Governance
dc.source.volume11de
dc.publisher.countryPRTde
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozinternationale Beziehungen, Entwicklungspolitikde
dc.subject.classozInternational Relations, International Politics, Foreign Affairs, Development Policyen
dc.subject.thesozFreihandelde
dc.subject.thesozfree tradeen
dc.subject.thesozKanadade
dc.subject.thesozCanadaen
dc.subject.thesozEUde
dc.subject.thesozEUen
dc.subject.thesozFöderalismusde
dc.subject.thesozfederalismen
dc.subject.thesozHandelspolitikde
dc.subject.thesoztrade policyen
dc.subject.thesozAußenhandelspolitikde
dc.subject.thesozexport policyen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10044165
internal.identifier.thesoz10048494
internal.identifier.thesoz10041441
internal.identifier.thesoz10040121
internal.identifier.thesoz10046269
internal.identifier.thesoz10037352
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo300-311de
internal.identifier.classoz10505
internal.identifier.journal787
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc327
dc.source.issuetopicUnited in Uniqueness? Lessons From Canadian Politics for European Union Studiesde
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6800de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/6800
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record