Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T14:29:34.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US Views on 1992

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Stephen Woolcock
Stephen Woolcock*
Affiliation:
Royal Institute of International Affairs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

North American, and in particular US views of 1992 must be seen in the broad political context of transatlantic relations. The US has shown consistent support for the idea of European integration. Initially this took the form of linking Marshall aid to greater European economic cooperation, then organised by the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). There was also strong political support for Monnet's supranational approach to European integration as a means of helping to bring about Franco-German reconciliation and to stabilise Europe. In the early days of European integration there were strategic and political reasons for American concerns to see a stronger (Western) Europe. The possible adverse effects of economic integration for the US were seen as more than manageable, given the strength of the US economy in relation to those of the European countries. With the promise of enhanced markets for US exports and US production the creation of the EEC was seen as being trade creating rather than trade diverting.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 134 , November 1990 , pp. 86 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 National Institute of Economic and Social 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.)

Footnotes

This article begins by setting out the history of US trade relations with Europe and then goes on to examine the impact of the 1992 programme upon them, focusing on reciprocity, investment, procurement, standards, certification and the social dimension. However, it also draws attention to the fact that there are two clear camps, described as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, according to whether they are or are not closely involved with the EC already. The ‘outsiders’ are a continuing source of protectionist pressure. The article concludes with a discussion of US approaches to multinational as opposed to bilateral bargaining.

∗

This article draws on research work on Europe as a Partner for which major funding has been provided by The Ford Foundation.

References

Notes

(1) Special message to the Congress on Foreign Trade Policy, quoted in Europe 1992, An American Perspective, (ed. Gary Hufbauer, The Brookings Institution, 1990.)

(2) Hufbauer estimates 1.9. (see Hufbauer op. cit.)

(3) See for example, The Effects of Greater Economic Integration within the European Community on the United States. The US International Trade Commission (March 1990). Also 1989 first report.

(4) These are not formally part of the Uruguay Round but are politically linked to it.

(5) See USITC op. cit.

(6) The US sees the ISO as biased towards the European since the US has one vote to the EC's 12.