Current U.S. trade policy stresses establishing free trade areas (FTAs) with partners spanning the globe. Motivations include enhancing goods and services trade; stimulating investment flows; extending standards on intellectual property rights, labor, and the environment; and addressing geopolitical concerns. Simulations of FTAs with the United States highlight the importance of trade complementarity, trade diversion, and welfare losses for nonmembers. Agriculture and textiles play a central role in determining welfare outcomes. Initial improvement in market access enjoyed by participants could be eroded progressively as global liberalization proceeds, and this preference erosion might act as a disincentive to participate in multilateral liberalization.
Beyond Bilateralism analyzes how, and to what extent, crucial global and regional security, finance, and trade transformations have altered the U.S.-Japan relationship and how that bilateral relationship has in turn influenced those global and regional trends.
As multilateral negotiations become increasingly complex and protracted, preferential trade agreements have become the center of trade diplomacy, pushing beyond tariffs into deep integration and beyond regionalism into a web of bilateral deals, raising concerns about coercion by bigger players. This study examines American, European and Asian approaches to preferential trade agreements and their effects on trade, investment and economic welfare. It draws on theoretical works, but also examines the actual substance of agreements negotiated and envisaged.--Publisher's description.
This new book highlights the multifaceted effects of regional trade agreements and outlines the strategic options for EU trade policy. It points out what is new about this most recent phase of regionalism and analyzes the effects on economic welfare and trade transaction costs. The authors draw upon elements of game theory to explore a self-reinforcing mechanism that is resulting in a potentially damaging race for markets. They focus in particular on the multiple impacts of regionalism on the WTO and the multilateral trading order. The book arrives at an opportune time, as the Doha Round is reaching a critical phase.
"The central theme of this book is the utility of bilateralism and multilateralism in Southeast Asia international relations. The intention was to examine a sufficient number of empirical cases in the Southeast Asian region since the mid-1970's so as to establish a pattern of interactions informing a wider audience of interactions unique to the region. Through these case studies, we seek to identify how this pattern of interaction compares with similar experiences elsewhere vis-a-vis the theoretical underpinnings of multilateralism and bilateralism. Consequently, this book also examines the theoretical drift in international relations literature at the broadest level and the overall drift of Southeast Asian international relations between the nations themselves and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)."--P. xv.
As the Doha Development Round trade negotiations have stalled, bilateral and regional free trade agreements have become an important alternative. These agreements have proliferated in recent years, and now all of the major trading countries are engaging in serious bilateral and regional trade negotiations with multiple trading partners. This book provides a comprehensive study of recent bilateral and regional trade agreements. There are two main aspects. First, it situates bilateral and regional trade agreements in the context of economics, international law and international relations. Second, it surveys the most important recent agreements in relation to each substantive topic covered (e.g. intellectual property, investment, services and social policy) and provides an overview of the law being created in these areas.
November 1996 Do the forces that regional integration arrangements set up encourage or discourage a trend toward globally freer trade? We don't know yet. The literature on regionalism versus multilateralism is growing as economists and political scientists grapple with the question of whether regional integration arrangements are good or bad for the multilateral system. Are regional integration arrangements building blocks or stumbling blocks, in Jagdish Bhagwati's phrase, or stepping stones toward multilateralism? As economists worry about the ability of the World Trade Organization to maintain the GATT's unsteady yet distinct momentum toward liberalism, and as they contemplate the emergence of world-scale regional integration arrangements (the EU, NAFTA, FTAA, APEC, and, possibly, TAFTA), the question has never been more pressing. Winters switches the focus from the immediate consequences of regionalism for the economic welfare of the integrating partners to the question of whether it sets up forces that encourage or discourage evolution toward globally freer trade. The answer is, We don't know yet. One can build models that suggest either conclusion, but these models are still so abstract that they should be viewed as parables rather than sources of testable predictions. Winters offers conclusions about research strategy as well as about the world we live in. Among the conclusions he reaches: * Since we value multilateralism, we had better work out what it means and, if it means different things to different people, make sure to identify the sense in which we are using the term. * Sector-specific lobbies are a danger if regionalism is permitted because they tend to stop blocs from moving all the way to global free trade. In the presence of lobbies, trade diversion is good politics even if it is bad economics. * Regionalism's direct effect on multilateralism is important, but possibly more so is the indirect effect it has by changing the ways in which groups of countries interact and respond to shocks in the world economy. * Regionalism, by allowing stronger internalization of the gains from trade liberalization, seems likely to facilitate freer trade when it is initially highly restricted. * The possibility of regionalism probably increases the risks of catastrophe in the trading system. The insurance incentives for joining regional arrangements and the existence of shiftable externalities both lead to such a conclusion. So too does the view that regionalism is a means to bring trade partners to the multilateral negotiating table because it is essentially coercive. Using regionalism for this purpose may have been an effective strategy, but it is also risky. This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department - was prepared for a conference on regional integration sponsored by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, La Coru-a, Spain, April 26-27, 1996, and will appear in the conference proceedings.
