<p>China has been the second largest trading partner of EU in goods and the forth largest</p><p>in services since it joined the WTO in 2001. For its part, the European Union has been</p><p>China’s largest trading partner since 2004. Despite this, there are a range of issues at</p><p>stake between the EU and China who are not only involved into economica l disputes,</p><p>but are also at odds on politica l matters . In this paper the authors conduct the study</p><p>based on trade hindrances instead of trade achievements with the approaches of IPE</p><p>based on the assumption: the tenser of trade-ties, the deeper the politica l dimension</p><p>involved and the more delica te the relationship between Economy and Politics</p><p>projected to be. Considering the limitation of time and space, the paper focuses</p><p>prima rily on the trade issues regarded from three different angles: the internal issues</p><p>related to trade (e.g. trade deficit, IPR infringement); the external issues related to</p><p>trade (e.g. huma n rights); the ultimate issues rela ted to trade (e.g. technology). Instead</p><p>of putting forth feasible resolution to these issues, the ma in feature of this paper lies in</p><p>the analysis of trade issues in combination with the approaches of Internationa l</p><p>politica l economy. It’s interesting and far-reaching to research EU (trade) from the</p><p>perspective of IPE because as Michael Smith argued “The EU’s place in the IPE is</p><p>challenging not only in the empirica l sense, but also in the conceptual sense, for</p><p>simple reason that (on the one hand) it is not a state and that (on the other hand) it</p><p>performs a number of vital state functions in the IPE” (Michael Smith 2006, p.527).</p>

<p>China has been the second largest trading partner of EU in goods and the forth largest in services since it joined the WTO in 2001. For its part, the European Union has been China’s largest trading partner since 2004. Despite this, there are a range of issues at stake between the EU and China who are not only involved into economical disputes, but are also at odds on political matters. In this paper the authors conduct the study based on trade hindrances instead of trade achievements with the approaches of IPE based on the assumption: the tenser of trade-ties, the deeper the political dimension involved and the more delicate the relationship between Economy and Politics projected to be. Considering the limitation of time and space, the paper focuses primarily on the trade issues regarded from three different angles: the internal issues related to trade (e.g. trade deficit, IPR infringement); the external issues related to trade (e.g. human rights); the ultimate issues related to trade (e.g. technology). Instead of putting forth feasible resolution to these issues, the main feature of this paper lies in the analysis of trade issues in combination with the approaches of International political economy. It’s interesting and far-reaching to research EU (trade) from the perspective of IPE because as Michael Smith argued “The EU’s place in the IPE is challenging not only in the empirical sense, but also in the conceptual sense, for simple reason that (on the one hand) it is not a state and that (on the other hand) it performs a number of vital state functions in the IPE” (Michael Smith 2006, p.527).</p>

This research includes two areas, with the first area focusing on supermarket food purchasing decisions by consumers in China. A probit model, using consumer food survey data indicates that supermarket food purchases are related to shopping habits, supermarket and food attributes, and demographics. This information should be helpful for those businesses attempting to market food within the Chinese supermarket supply chain. The second part of the study attempts to identify and analyze non-tariff barriers for food and agriculture, with a focus on China. These can include for example, import regulations, such as food safety regulations, food standards, labeling requirements, inspections, import licenses, and SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary conditions), and they are sometimes used by food importing countries to restrict imports. These results show that there are a number of significant non-tariff barriers regarding China – Canada food trade.

This research includes two areas, with the first area focusing on supermarket food purchasing decisions by consumers in China. A probit model, using consumer food survey data indicates that supermarket food purchases are related to shopping habits, supermarket and food attributes, and demographics. This information should be helpful for those businesses attempting to market food within the Chinese supermarket supply chain. The second part of the study attempts to identify and analyze non-tariff barriers for food and agriculture, with a focus on China. These can include for example, import regulations, such as food safety regulations, food standards, labeling requirements, inspections, import licenses, and SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary conditions), and they are sometimes used by food importing countries to restrict imports. These results show that there are a number of significant non-tariff barriers regarding China – Canada food trade.

No description available.

While the multilateral trading system views human and labour rights issues as outside of its remit, states increasingly incorporate regulation in these areas into their bilateral reciprocal preferential trade agreements, "HR-PTAs. This dissertation investigates the emergence of HR-PTAs, testing alternative explanations derived from conventional "public interest" and "private interest" theories of regulation against a new theory of "symbolic regulation." According to the public interest theory of regulation, regulation is motivated by benevolent legislators' commitment to correcting market or social problems. The private interest theory of regulation instead views regulation as the result of private interest groups capturing the regulatory apparatus in order to regulate in their own self-interest. Unlike its counterparts, the symbolic theory of regulation suggests that regulation may also be created for the primary purpose of reassuring regulatory advocates that their demands have been heard, rather than to regulate a given issue area. This dissertation argues that for the states behind them, HR-PTAs are primarily a symbolic form of regulation. Legislators create HR-PTAs to appease domestic human and labour rights organizations, while defending their trade interests through the non-enforcement of their provisions. Using longitudinal network analysis to analyse original data from 415 preferential trade agreements in force from 1989 to 2009, paired with case study evidence from the EU, US, and Canada, this dissertation finds support for the symbolic regulation explanation of HR-PTAs. It shows that a state's commitment to HR-PTAs depends less on the public interest or the desires of private interest groups than on its need to accommodate human and labour rights advocates. Symbolic regulation however should not be dismissed. It sets precedents, creates policy space, facilitates softer forms of cooperation, and can fuel political accountability politics. When this occurs, states may use HR-PTAs or other forms of symbolic regulation to achieve their seeming purpose.

No description available.

China has been the second largest trading partner of EU in goods and the forth largest in services since it joined the WTO in 2001. For its part, the European Union has been China’s largest trading partner since 2004. Despite this, there are a range of issues at stake between the EU and China who are not only involved into economica l disputes, but are also at odds on politica l matters . In this paper the authors conduct the study based on trade hindrances instead of trade achievements with the approaches of IPE based on the assumption: the tenser of trade-ties, the deeper the politica l dimension involved and the more delica te the relationship between Economy and Politics projected to be. Considering the limitation of time and space, the paper focuses prima rily on the trade issues regarded from three different angles: the internal issues related to trade (e.g. trade deficit, IPR infringement); the external issues related to trade (e.g. huma n rights); the ultimate issues rela ted to trade (e.g. technology). Instead of putting forth feasible resolution to these issues, the ma in feature of this paper lies in the analysis of trade issues in combination with the approaches of Internationa l politica l economy. It’s interesting and far-reaching to research EU (trade) from the perspective of IPE because as Michael Smith argued “The EU’s place in the IPE is challenging not only in the empirica l sense, but also in the conceptual sense, for simple reason that (on the one hand) it is not a state and that (on the other hand) it performs a number of vital state functions in the IPE” (Michael Smith 2006, p.527).

China has been the second largest trading partner of EU in goods and the forth largest in services since it joined the WTO in 2001. For its part, the European Union has been China’s largest trading partner since 2004. Despite this, there are a range of issues at stake between the EU and China who are not only involved into economical disputes, but are also at odds on political matters. In this paper the authors conduct the study based on trade hindrances instead of trade achievements with the approaches of IPE based on the assumption: the tenser of trade-ties, the deeper the political dimension involved and the more delicate the relationship between Economy and Politics projected to be. Considering the limitation of time and space, the paper focuses primarily on the trade issues regarded from three different angles: the internal issues related to trade (e.g. trade deficit, IPR infringement); the external issues related to trade (e.g. human rights); the ultimate issues related to trade (e.g. technology). Instead of putting forth feasible resolution to these issues, the main feature of this paper lies in the analysis of trade issues in combination with the approaches of International political economy. It’s interesting and far-reaching to research EU (trade) from the perspective of IPE because as Michael Smith argued “The EU’s place in the IPE is challenging not only in the empirical sense, but also in the conceptual sense, for simple reason that (on the one hand) it is not a state and that (on the other hand) it performs a number of vital state functions in the IPE” (Michael Smith 2006, p.527).