The new EP Library Catalogue allows you to search the EP collection for:
- Journals, books and articles in paper or electronic format
- EPRS and Policy Department publications
Abstract by the authors: The European Union's Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are touted as a new form of equitable engagement. However, many argue that the EPAs simply substitute a different form of political and economic domination. In this paper, we consider if the siting of meetings has a substantive impact on EPA outcomes or media reporting thereof. Using a difference‐in‐difference like approach we evaluate if the tone and polarity of media reports about the EPAs during periods of ‘home’ meetings in the ACP countries differs from media reports during ‘away’ meetings in the EU. Using two different datasets we arrive at differing results, leading to inconclusive overall findings. While we suspect that the alternating meeting site norm has implications for EPA process and outcomes, further research will be needed to uncover the precise nature of these effects.
Abstract by the author: This article examines the rationales of the European Union (EU) and the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) in the preparations and negotiations of the successor to the Cotonou Agreement, paying particular attention to contested issues. It argues that the EU-OACPS Agreement constitutes a fundamental break from past practices, at least apparently: with regards to form, it introduces an unprecedented framework for cooperation, articulated in a common base with three distinct regional pillars; in terms of substance, it proposes a list of equally important strategic priorities, thus going beyond the previous focus on development. Furthermore, unlike its predecessor but like many other agreements signed by the EU with third states, it sets out a comprehensive political partnership for mutually beneficial outcomes. This article, importantly, unravels sources of tensions between and within the two sides. It also shows that negotiations were more symmetrical than in previous instances, not least because contentious issues such as aid volumes and trade cooperation fall outside the remit of the EUOACPS Agreement, and less participatory, as they were largely conducted by a small number of official representatives, with limited involvement of other stakeholders.
Abstract by the author: The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group, established in June 1975 by the Georgetown Agreement, was generally seen as an emanation of the European Union (EU). This article presents a non-EU-centric per[1]spective by discussing various initiatives aimed at fostering intra-ACP cooperation and promoting common ACP positions in international settings. Furthermore, it analyses various threats to the survival of the ACP Group, some linked to its allegedly ineffective performance as an organisation, others related to the rise of competitors, most notably the African Union. Importantly, it delves into the reform process that cul[1]minated in the adoption of the revised Georgetown Agreement in December 2019, which transformed the ACP Group into the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS), with the aim of estab[1]lishing it as a relevant and influential global actor and reducing its dependence on the EU. In revisiting the evolution of the OACPS, this article identifies an intentions–capability gap, specifically between the often grandiose statements of official discourse and the institutional and financial resources devoted to implementing stated objectives.
Abstract by the authors: The expiration of the Cotonou Agreement in February 2020 paved the way to a comprehensive review of the longstanding partnership between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States. Following an intense and contentious preparatory process, the EU’s proposal for an unprecedented cooperation framework, consisting of a general part and three regional pillars, was reluctantly accepted by the ACP Group. Official talks started in September 2018, but proceeded slower than expected, with delays attributable to organisational issues rather than the substance of negotiations, yet some divergences still emerged. This article investigates dynamics within and between the EU and the ACP Group, but concentrates on EU-Caribbean relations. In particular, it points to the interplay of common and intersecting interests, the former in relation to the promotion of multilateralism, citizen security, and environmental sustainability, the later with regard to economic development and financial governance. Nevertheless, on the basis of the negotiations for a post-Cotonou Agreement, it concludes that any claims that the two sides are drifting away are unwarranted and in fact their partnership – in spite of various external threats and some uncertainties on how to frame it – appears solid.
Abstract by the authors: : It is widely accepted that trade promotes economic growth and reduces poverty in both developed and developing regions of the world, including Africa. Trade is supposed to serve as a channel through which the participating countries utilize comparative advantages in their natural resource endowments and productive capacities. While trade among countries may generate growth globally, it is often the case that the aggregate benefits are not equitably distributed among the trading partners.This is evident in the case of the African continent, which is entirely dependent on the export of unprocessed raw materials and mineral resources to the developed and emerging Asian countries to power their economic growth.
The paper will analyse the current economic and trade relations between the EU and Africa in broad terms. Africa’s trade position is inherently weak as characterized by dependence on raw commodities for exports (with falling prices on the international markets) and a collapsing manufacturing sector necessitating the importation of basic consumer goods. Africa signed the interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) on tangible goods with the European Union (EU) negotiated under various RECs: e.g. the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) ECOWAS, SADC blocs. EPAs are supposed to facilitate the free trade agenda as the EU will offer Africa duty and quota-free access to EU markets and will similarly concede its market to EU exports (reciprocity). Thus, the economic partnership agreements are a threat to the industrialization strategy in African countries. British exit (BREXIT) from the European Union astonished the proponents of regional integration and free trade. African countries remain uncertain on the likely impacts of the BREXIT both within and outside the EU-EPAs context. Brexit will certainly reduce market access and development assistance to developing countries that signed EPA.
Publisher's note: In 1975, the EEC and 46 former colonies of EEC member states concluded an aid-and-trade agreement that became the centrepiece of the EEC’s development policy; the Lomé I Convention. The milestone agreement was called ‘revolutionary’ and ‘a turning point in history’ and has been the subject of numerous studies, providing very different and contradictory interpretations. This study revisits this ‘drawing together of peoples of several continents’, presenting a study of primary data that became available with the opening of the archives on the Convention. The study finds that Lomé I was the result of intergovernmental and geopolitical dynamics: France and the UK were the main drivers behind the process, with other EEC members, especially Germany, hitting the brakes. The former metropoles aimed at maintaining their sphere-of-influence by concluding a Convention at EEC level that held the middle-ground between their respective relationships with ‘clients’ in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
Publisher’s note: The EU considers the promotion of regional integration a central pillar of its relations with the rest of the world, and as constituting an important element in its identity as a new global actor. It aims to mold the international system into a “community” based on the success of its own model, and for that reason has strongly contributed to the development of regional integration in several regions across the globe. The EU investment in the African integration initiatives has been particularly immense. It has supported Africa’s regional integration “project” with significant financial and technical resources particularly for the administrative and security capacities of the African Union (AU) and its Regional Economic Communities (RECs). But analysts have noted how the Africa-EU relations have often been characterized by asymmetry of power and resources which has served to reproduce and reinforce pre-existing colonial linkages between former colonizers (e.g. Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK) and their former colonies in Africa, so that the relations have constituted little other than “a tool of hegemony, strengthening the influence of the old continent” [1] on Africa. Thus, the EU-Africa relations are said to have disintegrative effects on the Africa, undermining integration initiatives underway in the continent. This paper shows how the legacy of colonialism and its corollary of strong cleavages of former colonial powers, especially France, on their former colonies; the incongruence of EU interests with its stated objective of promoting regional integration and the objectives of local actors; the rigid pursuit of a formal, functional model of integration incompatible with the African political economy; and the EU’s inconsistency in the application of its stated policy instruments have conspired to undermine efforts at region-building in Africa. Thus, the paper observes that while regional integration is a ‘sine qua non’ for Africa’s socio-economic development, its place within the framework of EU-African relations must be reassessed, especially as the EU negotiates a new partnership agreement with the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in anticipation of the expiry of the Cotonou agreement in 2020.
Abstract by the author: With the Cotonou Agreement due to expire in 2020, formal negotiations towards a new partnership agreement between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states began in September 2018. Based on the acceptance of the EU's negotiating mandate, the new arrangement will be primarily organised via three specific regional protocols with each of the ACP regions. Meanwhile, the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) launched in 2007, has seen the African Union (AU) gain increased prominence as an institutional partner of the EU. Given its ambitious pan-African agenda, it adopted an alternative 'African' vision for future EU-ACP relations, to the mandate agreed by the ACP states and expressed a willingness to become directly involved in the negotiations. This article contributes an important new case-study to the existing literature on 'African agency' in international politics by considering the scope for Africa to exert agency within the post-Cotonou negotiations, given the negotiation of a specific regional compact with Africa. It adopts a structurally embedded view of agency, based on Cox's understanding of historical structures, as a fit between institutions, ideas and material relations. The central argument is that, in comparison to the negotiation of the Cotonou Agreement two decades ago, there is greater scope for African agency. However, both the ideational and material aspects of Africa's relationship with the EU, condition the limits to how effective such agency might be. Moreover, tensions at the institutional level between the ACP and AU further undermine the potential for effective African agency.
Abstracts by the authors: Economic partnership agreements (EPAs) mark a new era in economic relations between the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries that will lead to reciprocal tariff liberalization. Model‐based impact assessments have become a powerful tool in trade negotiations and mixed results are reported for ACP countries. Given their set‐up within a neoclassical framework, these models neglect important issues such as impacts on employment, macroeconomic balances and adjustment costs. The structuralist computable general equilibrium model applied in this article for three African EPA regions addresses these shortcomings and shows negative macroeconomic and distributional effects and important adjustment costs associated with employment and public revenue losses. These results highlight the importance of policy responses to deliver on promises associated with EPAs, namely sustainable economic development. More generally, they show the importance of alternative models to understand implementation challenges and facilitate broader debates about bilateral trade agreements.
Abstract by the authors: The Cotonou agreement governing relations between the EU and the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (hereafter the ACP group), will expire in February 2020. Preparations somehow proceeded smoothly until early 2018, when both sides were hit by a storm, which lasted for a good part of the year before calm eventually returned. This contribution, accordingly, investigates different types of challenges posed to the renegotiation of the EU–ACP partnership. Firstly, it sketches the rationale behind the proposal made by the European Commission (EC) in December 2017 for an innovative framework consisting of a general section that is applicable to all ACP countries, and three regional pillars applicable to countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, respectively. Secondly, it delves into the process resulting in the adoption of the EU negotiating mandate in June 2018, including the rows between EU member states over the duration of the future agreement, the institutional framework and the issue of migration. Thirdly, it examines the preparatory process in the ACP group, particularly the adoption of its negotiating mandate in May 2018, but also the problems generated by some contradictory pronouncements made by the African Union (AU), first entailing the abolishment of the ACP group and then recommending a two‐track process, one for EU–ACP relations and the other for EU–AU relations. Fourthly, it touches upon the initial phases of the EU–ACP negotiations, characterized by delays and complications, which are attributable to the form rather than the substance of the future agreement.
Abstract by the authors: The nature of the relationship between the European Union (EU) and Africa is in permanent evolution. Historically, the EU mostly dominated the relationship while Africa developed adaptive/reactive strategies. With the establishment of new powers as well as efforts to decolonise the thought and practise of North-South interactions, it is crucial to understand what the future of the relationship could be. The purpose of this paper is to draw lessons from the “Broadening the debate on EU-Africa relations” workshop whose aim was to advance perspectives on EU-Africa relations from the point of view of African scholars. The process consisted of identifying major influential factors in the relationship and assessing what role they played in the past and what role they could play in the future. The results indicate a decline of the importance of EU-dominated factors and the emergence of African agency related factors. We interpret these results as a transformation of this relationship, using the concept “post-normal” to highlight indeterminacy, insolvability and irreversibility as the new context. Implications are discussed regarding the type of research that needs to be developed in order to further investigate this transformation, particularly the meaning of a shifting focus from (normal times) EU-Africa relationship to (post-normal times) Africa-EU relationships.
If you are unable to access the article you need, please contact us and we will get it for you as soon as possible.
| Data Protection Notice | Cookie Policy & Inventory |
 |
 |
 |
Journals on all devices |
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more |
Newspapers on all devices |