One month after the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ministerial talks in Atlanta, the participating countries released the text. There’s an awful lot there. By the count of Inside U.S. Trade, it comes in at 1,121 pages, plus market access schedules, plus 58 side letters. Everyone I know will be reading it electronically, but if electrons could land with a thud, this one would be resounding.
So how does one go about reading this? TPP negotiators have been ripped for excessive secrecy. Now the critics got what they have been seeking; the proverbial dog has caught the car. How to digest it?
There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) appears to have done an unusually good job of presenting the material in an accessible way. In addition to a table of contents, with chapter summaries, there is also a web page with FAQs and other presentations.
The bad news? There are at least two layers of “language” barriers. The first barrier consists of conventional trade terms that will not be familiar if you operate outside the world of trade: negative-list commitments, non-conforming measures, sanitary and phytosanitary regulation. This has been the standard lexicon of trade for decades, but even if you took an undergraduate trade course, you probably won’t recognize these unless your professor was particularly policy-oriented.
The second barrier afflicts even trade geeks. If the real story of the TPP were tariff cuts, then we might have a ready measure of its impact. If we knew that average tariffs used to be 20 percent, for example, and within 5 years they will be 2 percent, that would give one accessible measure of progress. But the real story of TPP is likely to be its impact on global trade rules and standards (it’s a regional agreement, but it’s a big region and such standards can propogate). To understand how new standards will affect the financial services industry or the dairy sector, you need a pretty good understanding of how those sectors work. Ideally, you would want to contrast the new rules with the old and assess how the industry would reconfigure itself under the new regime.
This is tough to do and will take time. I spoke with one figure who is an industry leader and had previously read the text as a cleared adviser. I asked whether his industry would support the TPP or not. His answer: it’s too soon to tell. Even though he is an expert in the sector and had previously seen the text, he still needed his experts to comb through and conduct a more detailed analysis before he could take a stance.
So kudos to USTR for making the agreement so accessible. For those who work through the chapter summaries, there is an education to be had about how modern trade agreements and global commerce work. Just don’t expect sudden enlightenment about the TPP’s economic impact or political prospects. For that, we’ll have to wait for the expert analyses to dribble out.
Phil Levy is senior fellow on the global economy at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Previously he was associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. He was formerly a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and taught at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. From 2003 to 2006, he served first as senior economist for trade for President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and then as a member of Secretary of State Rice’s Policy Planning Staff, covering international economic matters. Before working in government, he was a faculty member of Yale University’s Department of Economics for nine years and spent one of those as academic director of Yale’s Center for the Study of Globalization.
His academic writings have appeared in such outlets as The American Economic Review, Economic Journal, and theJournal of International Economics. He is a regular contributor to Foreign Policy magazine’s online Shadow Government section and writes on topics including trade policy, economic relations with China, and the European economic crisis. Dr. Levy has testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, the House Committee on Ways and Mean, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He received his PhD in Economics from Stanford University in 1994 and his AB in Economics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1988.
Despite hopes for a comprehensive trade pact post-Brexit, a deal between the United Kingdom and the United States is far from a certainty.
Multilateralism may face skepticism in the United States, but it remains a core value for a vital American ally
A meeting in Canada could generate creative solutions for the future of the WTO, if only for the size of the economies participating
Will the new NAFTA deal pass through Congress? The answer may depend on how it treats labor rights.
The anti-trade rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign resonated deeply in the Midwest, especially for individuals most directly affected by deindustrialization and the resulting job losses: those without postsecondary training and skills.
Inking the Asia Pacific trade deal is only step one, as obstacles remain to implementation.
Nearly four months into the NAFTA renegotiation, Mexico and Canada have potentially developed an effective response to the Trump administration's trade skepticism.
Nothing productive arises from criticizing Germany for its bilateral trade surplus, much less its auto exports.
It will be difficult to expedite the renegotiation of the 23-year old agreement in 2017, if not 2018
Targeting a realistic GDP growth rate requires more than a bidding war.
President Trump flipped his stance on labeling China a currency manipulator. But what qualifies as currency manipulation in the first place?
The bill for forgoing TPP is coming due. Perhaps its price will make the administration reconsider.
The clarion call of the disaffected, low-skilled worker became the soundtrack of the 2016 election. Indeed, President Trump claimed the presidency in no small part by promising to reverse the effects of globalization, railing incessantly against the US’s “horrible” trade deals. It does beg the question, though: Why didn’t anyone consider helping those alienated before? In fact, they did.
Mr. President! So glad you called. No, it’s not too early; I was up anyway. You wanted to know whether a strong dollar or a weak dollar is good for the economy. Excellent question.
What is a border tax adjustment, why is this national tax policy relevant to the global economy, and what headwinds does the proposed policy face from World Trade Organization and the US executive branch?