Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Deliberate or Emancipate? Civil Society Participation in Trade Policy: The Case of the CARIFORUM–EU EPA

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At both the multilateral and regional levels, there have been efforts to address the democratic deficit in trade negotiations. One such example is the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries where civil society participation was enshrined in the Cotonou Agreement. Yet, the CARIFORUM–EU EPA attracted much criticism from civil society. The paper argues that civil society failed to affect the outcome of the EPA because they participated in the process within a deliberative democratic framework which did not allow for emancipation or a challenge to global economic power and structural considerations in the negotiations; neither did it achieve citizen empowerment and ownership. We advocate the practice of participatory democracy in trade policy decision making—an ideal space for citizen participation—the former holding greater promise for influencing the trade policy agenda.

Zusammenfassung

Sowohl auf den multilateralen als auch den regionalen Ebenen hat es Bemühungen gegeben, um das demokratische Defizit bei Handelsgesprächen anzugehen. Ein Beispiel dafür ist das Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen (WPA) zwischen der Europäischen Union und afrikanischen, karibischen und pazifischen Ländergruppen, in denen die bürgergesellschaftliche Partizipation im Cotonou-Abkommen verankert wurde. Doch erhielt das CARIFORUM-EU WPA viel Kritik seitens der Bürgergesellschaft. In dem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass die Bürgergesellschaft keinen Einfluss auf das Resultat des WPA hatte, da in dem Prozess innerhalb eines beratenden demokratischen Rahmenwerks eine Emanzipation oder eine Herausforderung für eine globale Wirtschaftsmacht sowie strukturelle Erwägungen in den Verhandlungen unmöglich waren; auch wurde keine Bürgereinbindung und -verantwortung erreicht. Wir befürworten die Praxis partizipatorischer Demokratie bei handelspolitischen Entscheidungen - ein idealer Bereich für Bürgerpartizipation. Diese ist für die Beeinflussung der handelspolitischen Agenda vielversprechender.

Resumen

Tanto a nivel multilateral como regional, ha habido esfuerzos para abordar el déficit democrático en las negociaciones comerciales. Un ejemplo es el Acuerdo de Asociación Económica (Economic Partnership Agreement, ““PA”” entre la Unión Europea y el grupo de países de África, Caribe y Pacífico en el que la participación de la sociedad civil quedó consagrada en el acuerdo de Cotonou. Sin embargo, el EPA CARIFORUM-UE atrajo muchas críticas de la sociedad civil. El presente documento argumenta que la sociedad civil fracasó a la hora de influir en los resultados del EPA porque participaron en el proceso dentro de un marco democrático de deliberación que no permitió la emancipación o un cuestionamiento del poder económico mundial y de las consideraciones estructurales en las negociaciones; ni obtuvo el empoderamiento ni la apropiación ciudadana. Abogamos por la práctica de la democracia participativa en la toma de decisiones de políticas comerciales - un espacio ideal para la participación ciudadana - ya que ofrece mayores esperanzas de influir en la agenda de la política comercial.

摘要

为了解决贸易磋商中的民主缺陷,不但存在多边层次的努力,也有地区层次 的努力,例如,非洲加勒比太平洋组织之间的经济合作伙伴协议(EPA), 在该协议中, 民间团队的参与被供奉于科托努协议中,但是,加欧经济伙伴协定饱受民间团体批评。 本文论认为, 由于民间团体是在民主框架中参与这一进程,而这一框架中不允许在磋商中解放或挑战全球经济大国,不允许结构性考虑, 因此民间团体并不能影响EPA的结果。 民间团体也没有被赋予公民权和所有权。 在贸易政策决策中,我们提倡实行参与性民主——民参与的理想空间——与性民主提高了影响贸易政策日程的希望。

ملخص

على المستويات المتعددة الأطراف والإقليمية على حد سواء، لقد كانت هناك جهود لمعالجة العجز الديمقراطي في المفاوضات التجارية. أحد الأمثلة على ذلك هو إتفاق الشراكة الإقتصادية (EPA) بين الاتحاد الأوروبي وأفريقيا ، الكاريبي ،المحيط الهادئ من البلدان التي تجسدت مشاركة المجتمع المدني في إتفاق كوتونو. فوق ذلك مجموعة من 15 بلد في منطقة البحر الكاريبي (CARIFORUM) – و إتفاق الشراكة الإقتصادية (EPA) للإتحاد الأوروبي إجتذبت كثير من الإنتقادات من المجتمع المدني. يجادل البحث أن المجتمع المدني لم يؤثر على نتيجة إتفاق الشراكة الإقتصادية (EPA) لأنهم شاركوا في إجراءات في إطار ديمقراطي تداولي الذي لم يسمح للتحرر أو تحدي لقوة إقتصادية عالمية والإعتبارات الهيكلية في المفاوضات؛ كما أنه لم يحقق تمكين المواطن والملكية. ندعو إلى ممارسة ديمقراطية تشاركية في صنع القرار السياسي التجاري - مساحة مثالية لمشاركة المواطنين - أرصدة سابقة لعقد وعود كبيرة للتأثير على جدول أعمال السياسة التجارية.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Invited spaces are those created by officials and policy makers for civil society engagement.

  2. This section examining how civil society participated in the EPA process is based on the work of Montoute (2009).

  3. See Girvan (2010) for a discussion of the “technification” of the negotiations which excluded ordinary people from the participatory process.

References

  • Asomba, A. (2009). Tale of constitutive capacities for civil society organisations (CSOs) in natural resources management (NRM): Between India and the Caribbean Basin. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(3), 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynes, K. (2002). Deliberative democracy and the limits of liberalism. In R. von Schomberg & K. Baynes (Eds.), Discourse and democracy essays on Habermas’ between facts and norms. New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrouzi, M. (2005). Democracy as the political empowerment of the people: The Betrayal of an ideal. Oxford: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M., Heron, T., & Payne, A. (2012). Caribbean development alternatives and the CARIFORUM-European Union economic partnership agreement. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, K. (2013). Global civil society and transversal hegemony: The globalization-contestation nexus. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, P. (2014). Re-conceptualizing civil society: Towards a radical understanding. VOLUNTAS, 25, 538–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (2000). Think again: Civil society. Foreign Policy, 117, 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Civil society at the turn of the millennium: Prospects for an alternative world order. Review of International Studies, 25, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, J. M. (2000). Involving NGOs in trade policy negotiations. Optimum, 30(2), 60–62. http://www.optimumonline.ca/article.phtml?id=6.

  • Dahl, R. (1998). On democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Crombrugghe, A. S. (2009). Opportunities of reforming the WTO: Resistance and potentials of change. Public Organization Revision, 9, 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Felice, C. (2012). Transnational activism and free trade. Exploring the emancipatory potentials of global civil society. VOLUNTAS, 23, 302–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiCaprio, A., & Gallagher, K. P. (2006). The WTO and the shrinking of development space—How big is the bite? Journal of World Investment and Trade, 7(5), 781–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, N. (1998). Anglophone Caribbean Non State Actors in National Integration: A Vital Step in CARICOM and Greater Caribbean Integration. In P. Wickham (Ed.), Elements of West Indian integration: The way forward. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECDPM. (2003). The Cotonou agreement. A user guide for non-state actors. Maastrict: ECDPM.

  • Edwards, M. (2004). Civil Society. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2009). Civil Society. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, N. (2010). Technification, sweetification, treatyfication: Politics of the Caribbean-EU economic partnership agreement. Interventions, 12(1), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, N. (2013). Social movements confront neoliberalism: Reflections on a Caribbean experience. Globalizations, 9(6), 753–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, K. H. (2013). Civil society consultation in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM): Why conceptual clarity matters. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 38(1 and 2), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, K. H. (2014). Virtual shop fronts: The internet, social media, and Caribbean Civil Society Organisations. Globalizations, 11(6), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilmer, J. (2010). The state of participatory democratic theory. New Political Science, 32(1), 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., & Sapir, A. (2011). EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements: Deepening or Widening of WTO Commitments. In K. W. Bagwell & P. C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Preferential trade agreements: A law and economics analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hylton, A. (2001). Jamaica new trade policy. Paper No. 69, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interview by author with the EU Delegation to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, Barbados, 2005.

  • Isakhan, B., & Stockwell, S. (Eds.). (2011). The secret history of democracy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. T. (2012). Framing democracy: A behavioral approach to democratic theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S. (2001). Between centralization and fragmentation: The club model of multilateral cooperation and problems of democratic legitimacy. John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard, University Faculty Research Working Papers Series. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.262175.

  • Kurki, M. (2010). Democracy and conceptual contestability: Reconsidering conceptions of democracy in democracy promotion. International Studies Review, 12(3), 362–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laine, J. (2014). Debating Civil Society: Contested conceptualizations and development trajectories. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 16(1), 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loy, F. (2001). Public participation in the World Trade Organisation. In G. Sampson (Ed.), The Role of the WTO in Global Governance. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, R. (2011). The role of civil society in global governance. In Alvaro de Vasconcelos (Ed.), Global Governance: Building on the civil society agenda. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies.

  • Mcdonald, L. (2012). Canada and North American integration—Bringing in Civil Society? In J. Castro-Rea (Ed.), Our North America: Social and political issues beyond NAFTA. Surrey and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, S. (2003). Trade policy and political legitimacy in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 1, 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoute, A. (2009). Civil society in trade negotiations: A Caribbean case study. PhD thesis, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago.

  • Naidoo, K. (2003). Civil society, governance and globalisation. Lecture Presented at the World Bank Presidential Fellows Lecture, World Bank Headquarters, Washington, DC, February 10, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20095848~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html.

  • Nayyar, D. (2000). Globalization and development strategies, UNCTAD X high-level round table on trade and development: Directions for the twenty-first century Bangkok, 12 February, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ux_tdxrt1d4.en.pdf.

  • Ninth Regional Seminar of the ACP-EU Economic and Social Interest Groups, European Economic and Social Committee, Bridgetown, Barbados, May 14–16, 2007. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.acp-eu-ninth-regional-seminar.

  • Ostry, S. (2007). Trade negotiations and civil society: The Trade Policy making process at the national level. Fourth meeting of the Trade and Integration Network, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, September 17–18, http://www.iadb.org/int/DRP/ing/Red1/documents/OstryTradeNegotiationsa09-02eng.pdf.

  • Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Esteve, M. (2012). WTO rules and practices for transparency and engagement with civil society organizations. Staff Working Paper ERSD-2012-14 18, World Trade Organization, Economic Research and Statistics Division, September.

  • Polycandriotis, S. (2007). ACP—EU Cooperation: The establishment of EU Funded Non State Actors Advisory Panels and Capacity Building Programmes in the Eastern Caribbean, The Regional Forum on Reinventing Government in The Caribbean, Building Trust in Government: Improving Public Management through Civic Engagement, hosted by UNPAN, Caribbean Centre for Development Administration, United Nations Development Programme Barbados and the Government of Barbados, 7–8 May, Bridgetown, Barbados.

  • Robertson, D. (2000). Civil society and the WTO. The World Economy, 23(9), 1119–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 5(2), 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Paulino, A. U. (2012). Trade income distribution and poverty in developing countries: A survey. Discussion Paper No. 2017, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva.

  • Scholte, J. (2008). Reconstructing contemporary democracy. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 15(1), 305–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte J, O’rien R., & Williams M. (1998). The WTO and civil society. CSGR Working Paper No. 14/98, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.

  • Sutherland, P., Bhagwati, J., Botchwey, K., FitzGerald, N., Hamada, K., Jackson, J. H., et al. (2004). The future of the WTO: Addressing institutional challenges in the new millennium. Geneva: World Trade Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, D. (2012). Diversity in the online deliberations of NGOs in the Caribbean. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. H. (2003). What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of ‘development space. Crisis States Research Centre working papers series 1, 31. Crisis States Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290310001601902.

  • Wedderburn, J. (1998). Towards a vision of the future: Gender issues. In P. Wickham (Ed.), Elements of West Indian integration: The way forward. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, P. (1998). Towards capturing popular sovereignty in the caribbean through integration. In P. Wickham (Ed.), Elements of West Indian integration: The way forward. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (2008). The WTO, civil society and accountability. The Building Democracy Programme. http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/content/wto-civil-society-and-accountability.

  • World Economic Forum and KPMG International. (2013). The future role of civil society. World Scenario Series, January. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FutureRoleCivilSociety_Report_2013.pdf.

  • Government of Trinidad and Tobago, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Overview of the CARIFORUM/EU EPA Process, n.d, http://www.tradeind.gov.tt/Agreements/TradeAgreements/EconomicPartnershipAgreementEPA/EconomicPartnershipAgreementEPAOverview.aspx.

  • World Trade Organisation (WTO). (2015). Understanding the WTO: What we stand for. Geneva: World Trade Organisation. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/what_stand_for_e.htm. Accessed 6 Sept 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annita Montoute.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montoute, A. Deliberate or Emancipate? Civil Society Participation in Trade Policy: The Case of the CARIFORUM–EU EPA. Voluntas 27, 299–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9640-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9640-9

Keywords

Navigation