Hostname: page-component-74d7c59bfc-2tr8t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-11T17:31:51.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transatlantic Economic Relations: Continuity amid Discord

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Mark A. Pollack  and
Gregory C. Shaffer
Mark A. Pollack*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Temple University, 4th Floor Gladfelter Hall, 1115 West Berks Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6089, USA
Gregory C. Shaffer*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Law School, Law Building, 975 Bascom Mall, Room 8104 WI 53706-1399, Madison, USA
*
E-mail: mark.pollack@temple.edu
E-mail: gshaffer@wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Union (EU) and the United States are the world's largest and most-interconnected economies. In the 1990s, they engaged in a series of joint initiatives designed further to liberalise the transatlantic marketplace through cooperation in trade and regulatory matters, including pursuant to the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda. From 2000 to 2004, however, political tensions between the US and Europe intensified, as conflicts arose over the war in Iraq, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol, triggering fears that political turmoil could disrupt the mutually beneficial transatlantic economic relationship. Despite the political challenges, the transatlantic economic relationship has demonstrated extraordinary continuity and resilience amid the discord. The US/EU economic relationship has been subject to intensive disputes in areas such as steel, airplanes, and genetically modified foods, but there is little sign that the election of George W. Bush or the 2003 invasion of Iraq was responsible for these tensions, which arose primarily from pre-existing divergent domestic political pressures. This relative insulation of the economic relationship from the dispute over the Iraq war, however, does not imply that power politics is unimportant in the economic realm, and indeed we argue that outcomes in the economic realm are shaped significantly by differences in US and EU market and institutional power in different sectors.

Keywords

transatlantic relationsEuropean UnionUnited Statesregulatory cooperation

Information

Type
Research
Information
European Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 62 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) (2005) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
Bermann, G., Herdegen, M. and Lindstreth, P. (eds.) (2001) Transatlantic Regulatory Co-Operation: Legal Problems and Political Prospects,, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D.S. and Quinlan, J.P., (2005), Partners in Prosperity: The Changing Geography of the Transatlantic Economy, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Kovacic, W.E., (2005), Competition Policy Cooperation and the Pursuit of Better Practices, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Nicolaidis, K. and Steffenson, R., (2005), Managed Mutual Recognition and the Transatlantic Marketplace, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 139–163.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. and Pollack, M.A. (eds.) (2003) Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the 21st Century, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philippart, E. and Winand, P., (2001), Deeds Not Words? Evaluating and Explaining the US–EU Policy Output, in Philippart, E. and Winand, P. (eds.) Ever Closer Partnership: Policymaking in US–EU Relations, Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 431–463.Google Scholar
Pollack, M.A. and Shaffer, G.C. (eds.) (2001) Transatlantic Relations in the Global Economy, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Posner, E., (2005), Market Power without a Single Market: The New Transatlantic Relations in Financial Services, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 233–268.Google Scholar
Pérez Asinari, M.V. and Poullet, Y., (2005), Privacy, Personal Data Protection and the Safe Harbour Decision: From Euphoria to Policy, from Policy to Regulation?, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 101–134.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D., (1988), Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games, International Organization, 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, G.C. and Pollack, M.A., (2005), Reconciling (or Failing to Reconcile) Regulatory Differences: The Ongoing Transatlantic Dispute over the Regulation of Biotechnology, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 167–229.Google Scholar
Stokes, B., (2005), Trade Negotiations, in Andrews, D., Pollack, M.A., Shaffer, G.C. and Wallace, H. (eds.) The New Transatlantic Agenda and the Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar