<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Political Economy on ✻ Trym Nohr Fjørtoft</title>
    <link>https://www.trymnf.com/tags/political-economy/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Political Economy on ✻ Trym Nohr Fjørtoft</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026, Trym Nohr Fjørtoft.</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.trymnf.com/tags/political-economy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>American Services in European Perspective: Why Do Americans Not Care about Interstate Barriers in Construction?</title>
      <link>https://www.trymnf.com/publications/publius-construction/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.trymnf.com/publications/publius-construction/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;abstract&#34;&gt;Abstract&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The European Union identifies the sector of construction services as a priority for its agenda to remove barriers to cross-border activity. Taking the EU’s efforts as a starting point, this article explores the politics of interstate barriers in construction services in the United States. To what extent do US construction firms encounter internal-border barriers like those targeted by the EU? If they do, how much business mobilization and governmental response do they elicit, and what does that suggest about American federalism more generally? We find many similar barriers inside the United States but practically no mobilization or policy attention around them. Drawing on over fifty interviews with firms, associations, and public officials, we argue that this contrast to the EU highlights two features of American federalism. Institutionally, though promoting a national market motivated the federation’s creation, that goal is nobody’s active job today. Ideationally, the distinctively American skepticism of central government limits a market-building project.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Spirits: Single Markets in Goods in the United States and the European Union and the Case of Spirits Drinks</title>
      <link>https://www.trymnf.com/publications/publius-spirits/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.trymnf.com/publications/publius-spirits/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;abstract&#34;&gt;Abstract&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article compares the politics of internal market governance in the European Union and the United States by focusing on a shippable but highly regulated “sin” good: distilled spirits. A few generations ago, both arenas governed spirits in highly decentralized and varied ways. Over time, Europe has centralized regulation to increase market openness while the United States has seen little change. Today regulatory differences between American states create higher barriers to trade than those which persist among their European counterparts. Drawing on 102 interviews with firms, associations, and public officials, we explain this divergence by two factors: institutions and ideas. The EU’s institutional agents have encouraged market openness, including mobilizing pro-liberalization European businesses, while American firms have no similar public allies. Ideationally, European businesspeople are broadly comfortable with centralized enforcement of single market rules, while Americans view federal enforcement as unrealistic or illegitimate.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
