Unpacking EU Policy-Making towards China

This chapter discusses and critiques three theoretical models that I use to explain EU foreign policy-making: the BPM, neorealism, and institutionalism. I will provide information about the features and limits of the IR theories that I will test to identify their usefulness and, more importantly, their scope conditions. After presenting each theory, I state the expectations about what to observe in which stage of the policy-making process. I then look for congruence or incongruity between expectations on the one hand and observations on the other. Each theory will have three hypotheses, one for the policy identification stage, one for the policy development stage, and one for the policy implementation stage. The penultimate section conceptualizes and operationalizes relevant variables for this manuscript. In the final section, concluding remarks will be made.

This chapter examines the EU-China solar panel dispute, the largest trade defense investigation ever done by DG Trade. This chapter first provides background information about the European solar market, European Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, and the Option case. This provides useful context to the EU solar panel case. It then assesses which of the BPM, neorealist, or institutionalist models best illuminates the dynamics of issue identification, decision-making, and policy implementation to evaluate existing arguments and cull out scope conditions. I find that, eventually, neorealism explains best what happened concerning decision-making. Institutionalism contributes to a better understanding of all three stages. The Commissioner had an essential role in the issue identification and decision-making stages. The chapter’s conclusion provides a more detailed summary of the case and the theoretical findings drawn from it.

This chapter examines the EU investigation into Chinese mobile telecommunications networks (2012–2014). This case substantially differs from the solar case (see Chapter 3) because it was an ex officio trade defense action initiated by DG Trade. In the case of unfair trade practices, the EU industry can lodge a formal complaint. Because of the probability of retaliatory action by the country of origin, this is not always possible. Thus, the Commission can launch an investigation on its initiative. The sector in which the alleged unfair competition had place makes it a case of critical importance. After a brief introduction, the three theories will be tested across the three distinct policy stages to examine which theories illuminate which stages and identify scope conditions. The concluding section summarizes the main findings and expounds on their broader relevance. To preview my findings, the BPM works best in the decision-making stage, as it involved a bargaining situation where actors promoted their interests, leading to compromised outcomes. Neorealism also illuminates the decision-making stage, as driven by their interests, the member states were not eager to launching a formal TDI case. Neoliberal institutions illuminate virtually all stages.

This chapter focuses on the EU’s reaction to the rise of China in Africa via the EU-China-Africa trilateral cooperation initiative. It specifically looks at the emergence of the EU’s perception of a “China in Africa” policy issue, its policy responses, and its implementation of these policy options. The analysis will evaluate whether the BPM, neorealist, or institutionalist model best fits issue identification, decision-making, and policy implementation. The concluding section summarizes the main findings and expounds on their relevance. To preview my findings, we saw elements of the BPM in the issue identification and decision-making stages. When key bureaucratic actors left, the policy implementation reflected this. Regarding neorealism, the member states were supportive of the trilateral initiative, which created an environment in which the Commission could launch its initiative. Neoliberal institutions illuminate all stages.

This concluding chapter will bring together the findings of the preceding chapters in order to unpack EU policy-making vis-à-vis China. It summarizes the main findings of this book and expounds its relevance. It reveals what analytical tools best illuminate EU policy-making at various stages of the policy process. Chapter 6 evaluates the three competing models, the BPM, neorealism, and institutionalism. The findings of theory scope conditions are this manuscript’s most significant contribution. These scope conditions include issue areas and policy stages. It illuminates what theoretical approaches not just apply but apply best in different stages of the policy-making process, why some approaches apply to multiple policy stages, and why some seem to work better than others in certain stages. Also, it highlights the business and policy value of the analytical and empirical findings of this book. These findings are germane to academics, business people, and policy-makers. Furthermore, the limitations of this study and the venues for further research will be discussed. The final chapter of this manuscript ends with some closing remarks.