FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.

posted on 17 November 2015

We Lose More Than We Gain In Moving Away From Multilateral Trade

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Susan Harris Rimmer, Griffith University

If you struggle to understand the domestic impact of current trade negotiations such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and China Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), it is not you; it is them.

The multilateral system is under challenge from a surge of bilateral and regional trade deals that are raising concerns about transparency, efficacy, national interest, development pathways and human rights.

This is why many in the Australian policy commentators and academics have urged the Turnbull Government to release a formal trade policy.

All nations, including Australia, claim they want an open, predictable, non-discriminatory, and rule-based multilateral trading system centred on the World Trade Organization (WTO). Yet the universal consensus is that the trade system is in deep trouble. Important global trade negotiations stall while regional preferential trade agreements proliferate, often likened to noodle bowls or spaghetti. The WTO website lists 276 Regional Trade Agreements currently in force, and the figure is rising.

The DNA of trade is changing, with most trade experts urging reforms to the WTO to adapt to the new world of global value chains, integrated global standards, and transnational investment flows. With global manufacturing, goods are now "made in the world" rather than in a single country.

Economists are urging liberalisation of trade in services - but as we enter into a service and knowledge-driven economy, these negotiations has proven particularly slow and difficult.

One reason is the economic fundamentals of trade are changing. While trade growth grew by 3.1% in 2014 and 4% in 2015, it grew more slowly than global production and remains significantly lower than long-term average growth rates. Many economists are conflicted about the economic benefit derived from FTAs in particular.

Another reason is that the geo-politics of trade is changing. As the WTO reaches its 20th anniversary, many member countries are worried about a clash among blocs - such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) versus the OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) nations. The TPP leaves out China by design, which is why so many foreign policy experts are wary.

This all means that as economic diplomacy has achieved a certain primacy for Australia in 2014 - 15, trade has become an increasingly sophisticated and difficult negotiating area.

Australia has pursued the TPP and bilateral free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China with vigour and considerable success. These deals do not always have the social support required, due to concerns they will be "Trojan Horse" deals allowing undue influence in user-based intellectual property regimes, labour and technology transfer. In particular, Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses allowing international corporations to limit nation-state sovereignty in public health, have caused a great deal of public concern.

Trade deals now often deal with regulatory compatibility between nations (harmonisation or mutual recognition) rather than tariff preferences. This includes areas like product standards, that more directly affect consumers. DFAT vigorously contests these concerns.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Secretary Peter Varghese suggests we should focus on the "meta challenge of Australian foreign policy" - namely,

"How do we maximise economic opportunity and minimise strategic risk as the Indo-Pacific region becomes more powerful?"

We must think more deeply about whether it is possible to spread risk and be nimble while still strengthening the multilateral system, and while engaged in the complex game of modern trade negotiations.

Trade Minister Andrew Robb needs to make the case for trade liberalisation in clearer terms. Rather than a "trust us" approach which dismisses "fear-mongers", we need a public conversation about the possible winners and losers, along with an explanation as to why the agreement is in the nation's best interest. An alien looking at Australia's trade debates in 2015 might not recognise us as committed to trade liberalisation.

What are some of the long-term consequences of the trend towards bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements? Are they building blocks or stumbling blocks? The best-case scenario is that they are complementary. Advocates argue that these agreements maintain the strong momentum and habits of cooperation during a slow period in which the WTO inches forward the Trade in Services Agreement.

The worst-case scenario is that the WTO authority is diminished. We may see delays in large trade issues that are best tackled in multilateral forums, such as trade facilitation, financial liberalisation, telecommunication liberalisation, and farming subsidies. The public could turn against the trade agenda and withdraw their support for an area of foreign policy that was broadly approved.

Harvard University political scientist, Robert Putnam reminds us that diplomacy is always a two-level game: the domestic coordination and public support can be as hard as or harder than the global negotiations, as President Barack Obama is finding over the TPP. Australia should pay more attention to civil society concerns about our participation in trade deals.

My own conclusion is that, acknowledging the limited options Australia has at its disposal, we lose more than we gain in moving away from the multilateral trade system. What is clear is that the public debate on this issue is less rich and less urgent that it needs to be.

Our ultimate success in trade comes not from trade agreements, but from a domestic economy that puts a premium on productivity and competitiveness, while reducing inequality. Trade liberalisation that encourages development and interdependence is still a noble diplomatic pursuit, but must also promote the rule of law in our region.

This piece is based on the essay, Rules-based trade as a pivotal power, in the CEDA policy perspective, Global networks: transforming how Australia does business, released on November 9.

The ConversationSusan Harris Rimmer, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Griffith Law School, Griffith University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, using Livefyre just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.

You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.

Econintersect Opinion


Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF

The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.

Take a look at what is going on inside of
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Comments on Feyerabend’s ‘Against Method’, Part III
Federal Repression System
News Blog
Schiaparelli's Descent To Mars In Real Time
September 2016 Existing Home Sales Still Not Excellent
September 2016 Leading Economic Index Improves Indicating Moderate Growth Ahead.
October 2016 Philly Fed Manufacturing Survey Declines But Remains In Expansion.
15 October 2016 Initial Unemployment Claims: Rolling Averages Marginally Worsen
Infographic Of The Day: Real Estate Bubbles, The Six Cities At Risk Of Bursting
Tesla Is Playing The Long Game
Name Dropping, Clinton Likes To Mention Herself
The Ability To Enforce Mandatory Migrant Quotas Is Slipping Out Of The EU's Grasp
2016 Winners And Losers Against The Dollar
October 2016 Beige Book: Reading Between The Lines - The Rate Of Economic Expansion Marginally Improved
Clinton Vs. Trump: A Case Of The Lesser Of Two Evils
Inside The Post Office Railway
Investing Blog
The 401k Plan Manager 17 October 2016
How To Insure Your Stocks And Make The Stock Market Pay For It
Opinion Blog
Prop. 51 Versus A State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion On A $9 Billion Loan
Obama's Middle East Policy Has Been A Complete Failure - Or Has It?
Precious Metals Blog
Silver Prices Today Remain Volatile - What To Expect Now
Live Markets
20Oct2016 Market Close: US Indexes End Flat After Choppy Session, Nigeria Slashes Oil Prices, Crude Prices Continue To Slip, Bullish Investors Not So Bullish Anymore
Amazon Books & More

.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

Crowdfunding ....



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved