(EU) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR)? - FDCL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

70 The largest trade balance deficits on the part of MERCOSUR are realized in the services sector; the EU shows the respective surplus: EU TRADE IN SERVICES WITH MERCOSUR �� Source: DG Trade: http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/111832.htm European foreign trade with MERCOSUR is apparently still a good business for European corporations, even if profits, as a result of crisis situations in MERCOSUR, e.g., in Argentina in 2001/2 due to the rapid devaluation of the Peso, are not always as high as expected. The U.S.A. lags behind the EU in MERCOSUR, both in the area of foreign trade, as well as with respect to FDI. Even if in absolute numbers the U.S. is still the largest direct investing country, the combined numbers of the EU countries’ investment account for the largest share of FDI in MERCOSUR amounting to 60% of foreign capital inflows. European FDI-Flows (the sum of the capital invested over one year) to MERCO- SUR amounted to 28.9 billion Euros in 1999, 25 billion Euros in 2000 and 16.4 billion Euros in 2001. The European FDI-Stock (sum of all realized investments) in MERCO- SUR increased from 89.1 billion Euros in 1999 to 115.4 billion Euros in 2000, finally reaching 131.8 Euros in 2001: ��
EU FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT WITH MERCOSUR �� Source: DG Trade: http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/111832.htm European foreign investment in MERCOSUR has traditionally had a focus on the respective domestic market and its positioning there, rather than focussing on the world market, according to which by availing comparative cost advantages there would have been an emphasis on export production for the world market. 178 And the Argentine and Brazilian domestic markets were of prioritarian interest for European corporations: �� “Brazil and Argentina have since long been a focal point of FDI outside the 178 Nunnenkamp, Peter: Foreign Direct Investment in MERCOSUR: The Strategies of European Investors, in: Paolo Giordano - Chaire MERCOSUR de Sciences Po [edit.]: An Integrated Approach to the European Union - MERCOSUR Association, 2002. �� 71
Page 2 and 3:
Christian Russau Enforcement of int
Page 4 and 5:
Preface Since the end of 1999 the C
Page 6 and 7:
If the “Interregional Association
Page 8 and 9:
8 Chapter 5: The enforcement of int
Page 10 and 11:
10 1.1 Negotiations of the “Inter
Page 12 and 13:
12 A similar agreement of the so-ca
Page 14 and 15:
14 tute in the eyes of many countri
Page 16 and 17:
16 amaraty, where the FTAA-negotiat
Page 18 and 19:
18 free trade agreement between the
Page 20 and 21: 20 at the UN Millenium Summit to ha
Page 22 and 23: 22 on the possibility of a unilater
Page 24 and 25: 24 tual contradictions between the
Page 26 and 27: 26 fired. The workers union OGB-L,
Page 28 and 29: 28 policy and EU development policy
Page 31 and 32: Chapter 2: Foreign direct investmen
Page 33 and 34: 50% in 2002 as compared to the prev
Page 35 and 36: The reasons for propagating this co
Page 37 and 38: • according to a study conducted
Page 39 and 40: promotion of domestic demand, in or
Page 41 and 42: 2.2 International Agreements and Tr
Page 43 and 44: 2.3 The World Trade Organization WT
Page 45 and 46: • trade and investment • compet
Page 47 and 48: 2.3.3 The GATS agreement The Genera
Page 49 and 50: which works on a profit-basis, sees
Page 51 and 52: “deadline: by 1 January 2005”.
Page 53 and 54: “discrimination” or “expropri
Page 55: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
Page 58 and 59: 58 3.1 European foreign investment
Page 60 and 61: 60 zations and liberalization in La
Page 62 and 63: 62 the profitability, on the electr
Page 64 and 65: 64 America. Also the issue of human
Page 66 and 67: 66 • Thirdly the WTO Dispute Sett
Page 68 and 69: 68 to the U.S. trade power by rapid
Page 72 and 73: 72 OECD area by European companies.
Page 74 and 75: 74 EDF, has issued a similar compla
Page 76 and 77: 76 European automobile producers in
Page 78 and 79: 78 But not only international law o
Page 80 and 81: 80 ment,” which in the beginning
Page 82 and 83: 82 4. 1 The free trade agreement be
Page 84 and 85: 84 issues for us.” 233 On the oth
Page 86 and 87: 86 capital flows” explicitly. The
Page 88 and 89: 88 which also speaks out against th
Page 90 and 91: 90 in Congress and encouraged the B
Page 92 and 93: 92 studies in 2003 on the impact of
Page 94 and 95: 94 The MEBF successfully works as a
Page 96 and 97: 96 “We have tried to explain how
Page 98 and 99: 98 4.2 The example of Brazil: Forei
Page 100 and 101: 100 Brazilian Constitution. This wo
Page 102 and 103: 102 countries through CC-5 accounts
Page 104 and 105: 104 4.3 Brazil, foreign direct inve
Page 106 and 107: 106 “Commercial Presence: The jur
Page 108 and 109: 108 Providing cheaper access to wat
Page 110 and 111: 110
Page 112 and 113: 112 5.1 Foreign direct investment i
Page 114 and 115: 114 The agreement on government pro
Page 116 and 117: 116 5.2 The case of Chile: Foreign
Page 118 and 119: 118 which was believed to be dead,
Page 120 and 121:
120 c) The still pending Doha “De
Page 122 and 123:
122 gesamtamerikanischen Freihandel
Page 124 and 125:
124 · http://europa.eu.int/comm/co
Page 126 and 127:
126 · http://www.citizen.org/ · h
Page 128 and 129:
128 · http://www.rebrip.org.br ·
Page 130 and 131:
130 um den Markt der wiederentdeckt
Page 132 and 133:
132 · Torrent, Ramón: Acordos Int
Page 134 and 135:
134 DIHK Deutscher Industrie- und H
Page 136 and 137:
136 Lomé Lomé-Agreement between E
Page 138 and 139:
About FDCL is a nonprofitorganizati
show all

(EU) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR)? - FDCL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?