The authors empirically test the cross-sectional relationship between hiring discrimination and labor market tightness at the level of the occupation. To this end, they conduct a correspondence test in the youth labor market. In line with theoretical expectations, results show that, compared to natives, candidates with a foreign-sounding name are equally often invited to a job interview if they apply for occupations for which vacancies are difficult to fill; but, they have to send out twice as many applications for occupations for which labor market tightness is low. Findings are robust to various sensitivity checks.

Transparency has been a central issue in the debate regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), especially on the side of the European Union (EU). The lack of transparency in the negotiating process has been one of the main criticisms of civil society organizations (CSOs). The European Commission (EC) has tried to gain support for the negotiations through various 'transparency initiatives'. Nonetheless, criticism by CSOs with regard to TTIP in general and the lack of transparency in specific remained prevalent. In this article, we explain this gap between various transparency initiatives implemented by the EC in TTIP and the expectations on the side of European CSOs. We perform a content analysis of position papers on transparency produced by CSOs, mainly in response to a European Ombudsman consultation, complemented by a number of official documents and targeted interviews. We find that the gap between the TTIP transparency initiatives and the expectations of CSOs can be explained by different views on what constitutes legitimate trade governance, and the role of transparency, participation, and accountability herein.

The politicization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has manifested itself to different extents across EU Member States. In some countries, conflicting interpretations about the deal were highly visible in public and political debates, while in others there was hardly any awareness. To further understand this phenomenon, trade scholars have to date not yet deepened nor leveraged the insights of the ‘differentiated politicization’ and social movement literature, which both point to coalition formation as an important trigger of politicization processes. This article contributes to our understanding of variation in politicization across EU Member States, by exploring coalition formation dynamics in differentiated politicization processes, in order to identify the factors facilitating successful domestic coalition formation. Through an exploratory case study design, I focus on three countries that exemplify high, middle, and low politicization cases: Germany, Belgium, and Ireland. By relying on the testimonies of campaigners active during the TTIP episode, I identify three elements that facilitated the formation of a diverse domestic coalition, which subsequently played an important role in pushing for a broad-based debate about the implications of TTIP: (i) an expert ‘mesomobilization’ link with a transnational advocacy network, (ii) the prior availability of domestic alliances, and (iii) an inclusive framing approach in order to establish a diverse coalition. The findings also underline the importance of timing in the unfolding of (successful) politicization processes.

The outbreak of COVID‐19 in March 2020 led to substantial upheaval in the EU's trade policy. Over the course of a year, EU Trade Policy as a field witnessed the launch of hitherto unthinkable ideas; the proliferation of a range of new buzzwords such as resilience, autonomy, and reshoring; and ultimately the arrival of a new consensus in the Trade Policy Review of February 2021. This article uses a discourse‐theoretical approach (PDT) to retrace the political process that unfolded throughout this year, from the start of the COVID‐19 crisis, to a fundamental dislocation of EU trade politics, and ultimately to the consolidation of a partial, temporary, and frail new hegemony within the policy field. Our goal is to explain the trajectory and the dynamics of this process by studying the discourses, the framings, and the political strategies that comprised the hegemonic struggle underlying it.