globalEDGE Blog - By Tag: regional-trade-agreements

This globalEDGE Blog post is also shared as an opinion segment on the globalEDGE Business Beat on the Michigan Business Network (a radio show hosted by Tomas Hult).

The first two Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) that existed in the world according to the World Trade Organization’s database on RTAs were the EC Treaty (what has now become known as the European Union), which started in 1958, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which started in 1960. Today, some 60 years later, we have 299 RTAs in force (predicted to be about 308 RTAs by the end of 2018).

Complementing RTAs in the world are Bilateral Trade Agreements (BTAs) between any two of the world’s countries. These BTAs are more difficult to count exactly due to what can be considered an active agreement and what is considered a country. Given that we have 193 country members of the United Nations along with two so-called UN observers (Holy See/Vatican and Palestine) along with Taiwan and Kosovo (and 61 dependent and 6 disputed territories), the options are almost endless for potential bilateral agreements.

Including both RTAs and BTAs, the United States is engaging formally in 14 active trade agreements. The countries included in these 14 agreements are Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore. The first agreement that the U.S. entered into was with Israel in 1985, with Israel now being the 24th largest trading partner with the U.S. (amounting to about $50 billion annually).

On April 26, United States President Donald Trump announced plans to "re-negotiate" the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. As related in a White House press release, the administration had intended to completely withdraw the U.S. from the trade deal, but was dissuaded from doing following conversations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Peña Nieto. At present, NAFTA stands in its current form, although the U.S. has explicitly stated its desire for major changes to the trade deal. The situation is predictive of a potentially volatile future for NAFTA and trade relations between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

This week, the globalEDGE blog will be taking a look at various trade blocs around the world, focusing on smaller blocs you might not have heard of. Following the end of World War II, trade agreements became common throughout much of the world. European states began to look for ways to increase trade between themselves, states in South-East Asia saw cooperation as a way to increase economic growth among all members, and Arab nations looked to unify to better market their natural resources. Trade agreements can help smaller countries have more of a say in the global economy, and help encourage exporting for local businesses.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been a largely controversial topic from the day discussions began. As the largest regional trade agreement in history, the agreement would set new terms for trade and business between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, and numerous other Pacific Rim countries. As a whole, this group of member countries is responsible for nearly one-third of world trade. Needing the approval of Congress, the TPP has become a topic of discussion in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While the nominees of both major parties are both against the agreement currently, there are a number of reasons why dropping the partnership all together may not be the best idea.

The USA, more than most other countries, has been reluctant to engage in trade agreements. As a backdrop, the US-Israel Trade Agreement is the oldest agreement involving the US and it went into effect on September 1, 1985. Since then, the US has signed 13 more trade agreements, covering 20 countries in total with the Israeli agreement (with 18 more agreements being deliberated).

But, during the same 30-year period the world has seen 256 new trade agreements involving a large portion of the world, as registered with the World Trade Organization (see my article in The Conversation). Nineteen trade agreements were in force worldwide in 1985. Now there are 275, with 132 agreements being implemented in the last decade. The bottom line is that the US is very reluctant to engage in almost any form of trade agreement compared with the rest of the world.

Britain’s historic decision to leave the European Union (EU) has caused massive economic and political chaos. World financial markets tumbled immediately after the vote and the British pound fell tremendously. Britain will look to further engage in trade to offset some of its economic loss.

This blog was written using a wealth of materials promoted by the United Nations, UNCTAD, and various UN Forums, such as the World Investment Forum, but with my take on the implications and where to go from here. This inclusion of official, publicly available UN materials sets the tone for the debate about UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the 2030 Agenda, funding and bold leadership required, and the worldwide collaboration needed by the UN’s 193 member states. My take is that collaboration – whether it be structured as a series of multilateral agreements and/or regional agreements – is the way to go over any form of isolationism.

Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on July 13, 2016, after David Cameron stepped down as the leader of the Conservative Party following UK’s June 23, 2016 referendum on European Union membership. The UK population voted for BREXIT, and the formal UK exit from the EU will start when Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union is triggered by the UK.

The United Kingdom is predicted to file paperwork to trigger Article 50 within six to nine months from the June 23, 2016 vote, although many expect the UK to drag it out as long as possible to potentially negotiate or at least discuss options for UK to be as favorable as, at this time, conceivable. This is where Angela Merkel comes in.

China devalued its yuan in 2015 by calculating the reference rate on a daily basis and letting market forces affect the value. For some, it seemed like a good idea to get China more into the dynamic financial market. For others, it’s not playing out that way.

With the Iran nuclear deal and US sanctions lifted, Iran’s market – read oil production and related industries – should open up to companies. Not really. There is just too much bad feeling and economic turmoil for some to engage.

While the cases of China and Iran involved decisions being made (by China and by the US vis-à-vis Iran), TPP has been in negotiation since March 15, 2010 without an agreement. TPP, often talked about, seldom spelled out, refers to the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” and involves 12 primary countries as potential trading partners. Nineteen official negotiation rounds between 2010 and 2013 and numerous other meetings since led simply to indecisiveness.

International trade has become a negative phenomenon in the US election cycle in 2016 as well as influenced the BREXIT. Last year, on October 5, 2015, US President Obama used the “fast track powers” granted to him by Congress to seal the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. TPP involves the US and 11 Pacific nations that encompass 40% of global trade (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, US, and Vietnam).

But is US trade a lost cause and is the signing of TPP too late to be helpful for US trade? The US share of the Asia-Pacific region’s imports declined about 43% from 2000 to 2010. Gaining that back would mean an additional $600 billion annually by 2020, supporting some 3 million US jobs. Now, other countries are exporting much more to these countries, and at an increasing rate. Why is that?

After years of negotiation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal was finally reached on Monday. This means that a new trade bloc has been created with reduced trade barriers among the 12 countries that signed. Since these countries together are responsible for 40% of the world’s GDP and 26% of total trade, the impacts of TPP are far-reaching and significant to the world economy, as well as to the U.S. economy.

As far as regional trade agreements are concerned, the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is constantly being compared to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). United States citizens in particular are concerned as to whether free trade is actually beneficial to the U.S. economy and its workers. When NAFTA entered into force in 1994, tariffs were cut and laws were changed in order to allow free trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. While many proponents of the agreement believe that NAFTA has stimulated the economies of these countries, others believe that the framework for the agreement can serve as a warning of what could potentially go wrong with the TPP. 

There is a large trade agreement under negotiation involving major economies around the Pacific. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will include the major economies of Japan and the United States, while also including the following ten countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. These twelve countries account for forty percent of global gross domestic product. It has been noted that China has been left out of this partnership because it has been criticized for not following trade rules. In the future, China will be able to join the partnership pending compliance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s standards.

Just last week, the World Trade Organization seemed like it was going to pass the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) when India decided not to sign the deal, citing concerns over food security. The TFA was the WTO's first landmark trade agreement, designed to ease and liberalize trade between its over 160 member countries by changing tariff and duty systems, as well as cutting down on red tape. These trade revolutions, it claimed, would have created over 20 million jobs and added $1 trillion in trade output. The idea for the deal was born during the WTO's conference in Indonesia last winter, and the deadline for agreement and signing the deal by its member countries was on July 31 of this year. With India backing out of the deal, however, it seems as though the TFA has been doomed to oblivion....or has it?

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect January 1, 1994, creating the foundation for economic growth and strengthening trade relations between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Now in 2014, it has been over 20 years since NAFTA has been in place. To better understand the economic impacts of NAFTA, we have prepared a table showing trade statistics before and after NAFTA.

With the current state of the global economy, the Eurozone crisis, and the large numbers of countries that have left similar unions in the past, a new currency union would not seem like an appealing idea to most regions of the world. However, six West African countries, including Ghana, Guinea, and Nigeria, have all decided to adopt the eco as a common currency by 2015. Members of Africa's current currency union, the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), have also decided to adopt the eco by 2020. Similarly, five countries of the East African Community (EAC)—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi—have all signed an agreement on forming their own monetary union in a decade. There are several potential advantages to these proposed unions, however these could also lead to several big problems for Africa.

On July 1, 2013 Croatia was all festivities, celebrating their induction as the 28th member of the European Union (EU). Joining the EU will provide Croatia with more legal stability, a larger market for their goods, and a projected $18 billion earmark between 2014 and 2020. While this ensures great things for the Croatian economy, we cannot forget about the implications, good or bad, on the relationship between Croatia and the other Balkan Countries.

Japan is the world’s third largest economy and the United States is the largest economy in the world ranked by GDP. But, these two huge economies do not have a free trade agreement, which strikes the question – why not? Obviously, there are a lot of reasons why these two great nations have not struck a deal yet, but one could be on the horizon.

A few months ago, Zheng wrote a blog post about a possible Trans-Atlantic trade agreement. Recently, talks have been heating up between the United States and the European Union with negotiations on a trade deal likely to begin by the end of June. The free trade agreement, if passed, would remove tariffs and reduce other barriers to trade, spurring economic growth, exports and job creation for both parties. Given the stagnant state of the global economy, there is much excitement over a potential deal and optimism is high that an accord will be reached.

While "made in China" products become wide-spread in the U.S and China-U.S trade continues to grow, the trade between the European Union (EU) and the U.S is actually the driving force behind world trade figures. Indeed, the EU-U.S trade is the largest trade in the world and comprises one-third of all trade, determining the shape of the global economy. Now, the debt crisis in Europe and the desire for American growth are pushing both sides to consider knocking down the barriers to trade. A trans-Atlantic trade talk is underway.

“Export or Die”, a phrase that Americans and other countries seem to neglect, has become an emergent dilemma in Japan. An annual trade balance report released last Thursday triggered a sense of crisis in Japan by displaying a huge trade deficit. This is the second straight year that exports have been in the red for Japan. As an export-reliant country, Japan is going to be hit hard by this news without doubt.

International trade is a very important aspect of the world’s economy in the globalized business climate of today. Less than one percent of all United States businesses export and according to research, the main reason for not exporting is the lack of confidence in selecting the best market for U.S. products. To help solve this issue, the U.S. International Trade Administration has published a book titled Free Trade Agreements: 20 Ways to Grow Your Business available for download on iTunes.

While most news headlines involving Mexico revolve around drug cartels, illegal immigration, and law enforcement, economists are noticing a new story south of the border. Trade between the United States and Mexico has been surging recently, including a 17 percent increase to a record level of $461 billion (USD) in 2011. Mexico is currently competing with China for the title of America's second-largest trading partner following Canada, and the Mexican economy became the top investment destination for the aerospace industry this year. Mexico's middle class, which is quickly growing to be the country's majority, has been responsible for much of the trade with the U.S. since they are buying record levels of American goods.