December 3, 2013 | By

Guest Commentary: TTIP – Views from Europe

By Fredrik Erixon, director and cofounder of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), a world-economy think tank based in Brussels, and was the Convenor of the Transatlantic Task Force on Trade, a joint project of ECIPE and the German Marshall Fund of the US that spearheaded the TTIP negotiations. A fuller version of his analysis can be found here (PDF).

Failures in the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Round have prompted countries to turn to preferential trade agreements. But are they worth their salt? While the most outstanding feature of past FTAs is that they have not had impressive effects on growth in trade and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) may change this verdict. Clearly, TTIP will be won or lost for its economic merits. And the pro-growth effects of TTIP are really what persuaded reluctant officials and politicians in Europe to join countries like Germany and Sweden in their efforts to push for a transatlantic FTA. Given Europe’s poor growth rates, trade agreements that could deliver higher economic growth have been given a new hearing.

Few would deny that TTIP has the capacity to deliver a sizeable contribution to GDP in Europe. The gains from this FTA would be bigger than from other FTAs for the reason that it involves two large economies. Simply, size matters. A “conservative” estimate by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London suggests the TTIP gain for the EU to be in the tune of 0.3-0.5 percent of GDP (the GDP gains are slightly smaller for the US).

However, political scepticism of TTIP is less concerned with the bilateral economic gains (or losses) and more directed to its consequences on the World Trade Organisation as the central forum of trade negotiations. But perhaps surprisingly to some, the debate in Europe over TTIP has taken a different view. Generally, it has not thrived on the notion that TTIP should be an attempt to build a Fortress Atlantic – or that it is a strategy to gang up on China or other emerging powers competing with the US and Europe.

So while the strange acronym of TTIP is for some a code word for the death knell of the WTO, many trade observers in Europe would argue it is the substance that should be used to give global trade policy a needed shot in the arm.

TTIP, like the TPP, was not born out of deep and genuine beliefs in the principles of free markets or the classical school of free trade. Like any other trade agreement in the past years, these initiatives build on conditional views of free trade and free competition mixed up with soft mercantilism and a growing urgency to support economic growth. Yet it is the best available strategy to rejuvenate global efforts to liberalise trade.

In the past 15 years, the multilateral trading system has been a leaderless system with no clear direction that has unified the key members. The system itself benefited for several decades from the leadership by the United States, which considered this system to be critical for its overall strategic objective of spreading market-based capitalism. There were willing followers to the US leadership, but none other than the US had the requisite economic, political, and institutional capacity to underwrite the system. Yet since the collapse of the Cold War, American leadership has withered away, and its general position on trade liberalisation has somewhat changed. Absent political leadership and direction, the Doha Round got stuck because the political instinct of many countries was to favour status quo rather than new liberalisation as long as there is no external pressure that prompts them to revisit that position.

Like many other things in economic life, trade liberalisation tends to be driven by two motives: profits and fear. Countries agree to open up for greater foreign competition because they believe it will boost their economy or because they fear that other countries will go ahead without them if they stubbornly resist liberalisation. Despite all the success of trade-oriented models of growth, many countries have grown to think that they will not stand to benefit much from new trade liberalisation – and that they have no reason to fear failure.

TTIP may partly change this. It is a big initiative. And if the two biggest economies of the world go for a bilateral agreement, it means that there is a risk for other countries that stand outside that bilateral agreement and, which is important, other efforts to liberalise trade. That risk is mostly about not having a voice in the design of the trade reforms that are likely to serve as benchmarks in future international agreements. It is far less about loosing current trade access – but it is about the fear of not having as good access to trade that will be liberalised in the future. Consequently, if TTIP is the ‘real thing,’ if it achieves the promise of ushering the world into 21st Century trade policy, the response from the larger emerging economies cannot be no response at all. The political and economic opportunity costs of status quo would have been changed.

About

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 ReviewEconomic 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.

Archive

Why are Trade Deals Complicated?

Why not embrace the one-sentence free trade agreement? Consider three examples of the complications that have arisen over the years.

Just a Flesh Wound?

At the end of July, negotiators for the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries failed to conclude a trade agreement. Was the failure just a flesh wound, or was it something more serious?

It’s all Greek to Me

As the Greek suffering mounts and they careen towards Sunday’s referendum, Senior Fellow Phil Levy has two additional questions surrounding the Greek crisis.

Previously, on Game of Trade…

It is traditional, in intricate ongoing dramatic sagas, to begin a new episode with a recap. If you are just tuning in to trade policy prospects in the US Congress, Senior Fellow Phil Levy breaks it down in his latest post on the World of Cents blog.
 

Venn Will They See How Serious This Is?

After the President’s trade policy was blocked in the US Senate yesterday, there was a divide among analysts over just how serious a setback the vote was. But it is difficult to see how the trade agenda could now advance, and the sensitive timing of trade talks means that a delay could be fatal.

Cities and Trade

Last week, the battle to gain trade promotion authority (TPA) began in earnest in Washington.

China Joins the Monetary Party

This week China took an unusually strong measure to goose its economy. It lowered the amount of money that Chinese banks needed to hold in reserve. In theory, this should allow the banks to take those sequestered funds and use them for new loans, thereby stimulating the Chinese economy.

International Ramifications of the Jobs Report

The big news of the morning was that the US economy created 295,000 jobs in February, pushing the unemployment rate down to 5.5 percent. Both numbers were better than expected, which seemed to paint a picture of an economy returning to normal after a long, chilly period of slow growth and painful joblessness.


An Economic Question about the President’s Immigration Action

There is a raging debate about whether the President stretched or exceeded his executive powers, but let us set aside the legal and political questions for the moment and consider a (wonkish) economic one: How does the administration envision the demand for low-skilled labor?

Can We Take a Hint?

Trade impasses between the United States and Japan are eminently predictable. They will continue until the Obama administration shows it has achieved domestic agreement on trade. 

New Deficit Numbers in Perspective

In this week of financial market turmoil, there was a notable bit of good news: the US federal budget deficit shrank to 2.8 percent of GDP, its lowest level since 2007. 

Are EU Sanctions Working?

Are EU sanctions on Russia working? If goal is to annoy Russians and make symbolic gesture, then yes. Otherwise, no.


Phantom French Austerity

The New York Times is reporting a brewing political crisis in France. The Prime Minister is planning to dissolve the government in a battle over budgetary belt-tightening.


Seals, Morality, and the WTO

I recently returned from a conference in which a coauthor and I presented some research on clubbing seals to death. The case raises issues of morality, extraterritoriality, and the dangers of a global trading system adrift.