Unpacking EU Policy-Making towards China

How Member States, Bureaucracies, and Institutions Shape its China Economic Policy

Bas Hooijmaaijers

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9789811593666
• eBook ISBN:
  9789811593673
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines different intellectual frameworks for international relations, including the bureaucratic politics model, neorealism, and institutionalism as tools for understanding the European Union's (EU) China policy. Based on a study of three political economy-related cases, it demonstrates what approaches not just apply, but apply best in various stages of the policy cycle, why some models apply to several policy stages, and why some seem to work better than others in certain policy stages. The three cases include the EU-China solar panel dispute (2012–2018), the EU investigation into Chinese mobile telecommunications networks (2012–2014), and the EU's response to China's rise in Africa via the European Commission initiated EU-China-Africa trilateral cooperation initiative in 2008. Those interested in EU-China affairs can apply this innovative analytical framework to these three cases and a wide range of other issues; scholars, journalists, diplomats, and businesspeople will find this book of value. 

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

B. HooijmaaijersUnpacking EU Policy-Making towards ChinaPalgrave Studies in Asia-Pacific Political Economyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9367-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Bas Hooijmaaijers^{1, 2}

(1)

School of Advanced International and Area Studies, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

(2)

Leuven International and European Studies Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Bas Hooijmaaijers

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Scope, Rationale, and Relevance of the Book

This book is about unpacking European Union (EU) policy-making toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC/China). It illuminates how member states, bureaucracies, and institutions shape the EU’s China economic policy. China’s rise and economic comeback story are among the most dramatic developments of the last decades, and present a challenge to the EU both internally and externally. When observing the EU’s China policy, one is often confronted with puzzling observations. They include, among others, the following questions. The EU stands firm against unfair trade practices and uses trade defense instruments (TDIs) to uphold its commitment to open markets and free trade. Why were some EU member states simultaneously sidelining the EU by engaging in parallel discussions with China regarding the dumping of Chinese solar panels on the EU market? If an EU industry was aware of unfair trade practices, for instance, by the Chinese side in telecommunication networks, why did the industry not lodge a formal complaint to the European Commission? Moreover, why are the member states that were aware of these practices influential in the decision-making stage but not in the issue identification stage of the policy process? When the European Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) concerned with development issues (DG DEV) was developing a strategy to deal with China’s rise in Africa, why was there internal resistance from the Commission’s former DG involving external relations (DG RELEX)? Furthermore, why have no concrete EU-China-Africa trilateral development projects seen the light since the launch of the initiative in 2008? This book offers insights that contribute to a better understanding of these puzzles.

Although the number of academic publications on EU–China relations is booming, there is a specific and general inability of contemporary literature to explain the above’s puzzles. Academic work on EU foreign policy (EUFP) toward China is heavily policy-driven, with very few works using theory. This indicates a lacuna in the current literature and current academic approaches regarding EU foreign policy-making vis-à-vis China because even fewer academic works seek to test theoretical approaches thoroughly (Bersick 2015). However, multiple international relations (IR) theories have the potential to illuminate EUFP vis-à-vis China and to explain (part of) these puzzles, including the bureaucratic politics model (BPM), neorealism, and institutionalism. The BPM emphasizes internal bargaining within an entity; neorealism stresses that state interests dominate; institutionalism highlights the importance of competences, and EU law and procedures, which is of particular importance in an EU context with different procedures per issue area.¹ These theories assume universal applicability, which is problematic in two ways. First, these theories do not apply equally well to all issue areas. Second, these theories do not illuminate all stages of the policy-making process, even when we focus on one issue area; that is, economics. When scholars use theory, there is a failure to unpack the policy cycle. The universal applicability of theories is a problematic assumption. Indeed, the contemporary literature’s inability is that those works that use theory do not test them thoroughly because they do not focus on the various stages of the policy cycle and do not add scope conditions. Case studies on the EU and China, as well as studies more generally, often do not focus on the policy cycle, including issue identification, decision-making, and policy implementation.²

A more in-depth look into the policy cycle stages provides us with an analytical tool to gain more specific knowledge to explain the EU foreign policy-making process and add scope conditions. Scope conditions are universal statements that define the circumstances in which a theory is applicable (Cohen 1989: 83). As pointed out by Foschi (1997), they limit the applicability of the relationship proposed in a hypothesis. Scope conditions constitute the antecedent clause of a conditional statement. If a situation does not meet this, then nothing is being said about that relationship. A scope condition specifies what we can and cannot see as evidence relevant to the formulated hypothesis by limiting the claim a statement makes. Given the limits of the existing literature, there is a need to explore EU foreign policy drivers vis-à-vis the PRC anew. The issue I argue in this manuscript is not that these existing theories are wrong or lack potential, but that there is an inadequate appreciation of the fact they do not apply equally well to all domains.

As discussed in the previous paragraph, there is a need to identify the range of applicability of these theories. When do they work and when do they not work? I show this by examining three distinct stages of the policy cycle in three political-economic cases. My three cases are the EU-China solar panel dispute, the EU investigation into mobile telecommunication networks from China, and the EU’s response to China’s rise in Africa where I look at the European Commission initiated EU-China-Africa trilateral cooperation initiative. These three cases are hot topics in EU-China relations, but they also have an apparent political-economic angle. I argue that neorealism works best to understand the decision-making stage in the solar and telecommunications trade defense cases, and it was visible in the background of the decision-making stage of the EU-China-Africa case. Institutionalism illuminates virtually every stage of every issue area in EU foreign policy-making. The BPM, for instance, fits the stage of policy implementation. However, this is predominantly correct when there is more leeway. When key (bureaucratic) actors leave, then policy implementation will reflect this.

Two main contributions make this project distinctive. The first one is my findings of theory scope conditions. The second is my empirical work because I am studying insufficiently studied cases and using more and better evidence to evaluate existing arguments and cull out these scope conditions. In more scientific terms, cutting the dependent variable into policy stages allows us to see if the independent variables highlighted by various analytical approaches are equally powerful through all policy process stages. These findings can provide useful analytical lenses for those studying EUFP toward other countries, regions, and issues.

The policy relevance lies in predicting what might happen in EU foreign policy-making and understanding which actors and factors are most influential in the three distinct stages of the policy process. Readers will get more clarity about how policy stages affect EU identification of issues, policy selection, and implementation. Given the peculiar institutional framework of the EU, this is highly important. It is all about competences. Also, all three cases are part of a more significant challenge for the EU, which is how to deal with emerging powers in general and China in particular (see also Hooijmaaijers 2015, 2018, 2019; Keukeleire and Hooijmaaijers 2014; Hooijmaaijers and Keukeleire 2020). The first two cases enlighten the readers on the internal workings of EU trade defense policy, the evolving nature of Sino-European trade relations, and, more generally, the current challenges to globalization and the international trading order. The EU-China-Africa case illuminates the EU’s internal workings against the backdrop of a new party with its view on development with a focus on trade, investment, and infrastructure entering the African stage.

This chapter will continue as foll...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
• 3. The EU-China Solar Panel Dispute
• 4. The EU Investigation into Mobile Telecommunications Networks from China
• 5. The Rise of China in Africa and the Response of the EU: The EU-China-Africa Trilateral Dialogue and Cooperation Initiative
• 6. Conclusion
• Back Matter