Security, power or profit? The economic diplomacy of the US and the EU in North Africa
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3979287 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Patrick Holden (0000-0002-7742-8107, University of Plymouth, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 11-32 |
| Publication date | 2009-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of North African Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1362-9387 • E-ISSN: 1743-9345 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13629380802383547 |
| OpenAlex | W2015895899 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 30 |
The United States and the European Union have an extensive set of economic instruments to help reform the economic institutions of North African countries. These are allegedly motivated by security concerns. In theory a more liberal and integrated economic framework will allow for greater development, cohesion and stability. This is based on a general consensus that economic stagnation is a major cause of extremism in the region. The economic dimension of US diplomacy involves an essentially bilateral push for free trade agreements and several aid instruments. EU policies have a similar thrust but its deeper interdependence with North Africa leads to a more holistic approach. These different emphases relate to the complex dynamics of competition and cooperation evident in US–EU relations more generally. Although an alliance, the US–EU partnership involves competition for structural power in the global political economy. Does the element of competition significantly affect the overall unity of their approach to the region? Empirical study bears out the hypothesis of competition for structural power but there are striking commonalities in their globalising and liberalising agendas. There are also substantial similarities in another sense; self-interest considerations distort the reform and development project. In relation to the broader strategic role of both actors it is concluded that the limited element of competition does not amount to geo-political rivalry at this stage. All of this implies that neither actor is likely to have a transformative impact on the institutions of the region. Their main focus is in limited commercial reforms which regime elites will be able to control and manipulate
Alliance · Competition (biology · Economic Diplomacy · Economic interdependence · Economic system · Economics · European union · General partnership · International trade · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Rivalry · European Union Policy and Governance · International Development and Aid · International Relations and Foreign Policy
Europe and the Middle East
Banking on ordoliberalism? Security, stability and profits in EU’s economic reform promotion in Egypt
Global international relations and the Arab Spring
Ordoliberalizing the Neighbourhood? The EU's Promotion of Regulatory Reforms in Egypt
Authoritarian resilience in Morocco after the Arab spring
Why Europe will run the 21st century
A common foreign policy for Europe?
Promoting Polyarchy
Human Development Report 2006
Promoting Polyarchy
A Political Economy of the Middle East
Governance Matters III
Security
A World of Regions
The Governance of Global Capitalism
The Re-Invention of Populism
The Social Impact of Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Areas
Arab Political Economy and the European Union's Mediterranean Policy
A merica's “G reater M iddle E ast ” and E urope
T he P olitics of M orocco's “F ight A gainst C orruption ”
Superintending Global Capital
"Empire" by Integration
Globalization and the Politics of Development in the Middle East
Our size fits all
Civilian Power Europe
Rentiers and Autocrats, Monarchs and Democrats, State and Society
Hybrids on the rim? The European Union's Mediterranean aid policy
A world of regions
What kind of power
Can the EU Anchor Policy Reform in Third Countries
International Markets and Partial Economic Reforms in North Africa
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,36 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2018 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |