Perspectives of the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the US after BREXIT
https://doi.org/10.26794/2308-944X-2019-7-4-45-71
Abstract
In this article, the author presents the legal nature and economic effects of Free Trade Agreements (FTA or RTS according to WTO terminology) on economies of members and third countries. The second aim was an evaluation of the economic effect of TAFTA (TTIP) on the United States and the European Union in the case of Brexit as well as some potential impact on third countries and alternative FTAs as counterweights to TTIP. To identify the mathematical and statistical relationships, I constructed correlation and regression models between dependent and independent variables. The dependent variables are GDP, independent variables of GDP per capita, unemployment, exports and imports, price index and investment, as well as the country’s participation in the free trade zone. To evaluate the independent variable (specifically the participation in the free trade zone), a “dummy variable” I used with values “0” during ten years prior the entrance intro free trade zone and “1” during ten years after the entrance of a particular country into the free trade zone. The general conclusions following from my study is that RTS allows many countries to negotiate and achieve much more preferential trade conditions than is possible at the multilateral level.
About the Author
J. Raudsepp
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Jan Raudsepp
Master’s student, International Finance Faculty, Department of the economic theory
References
1. Alexander, D. C. (1993). The North American Free Trade Agreement: An Overview. International Tax & Business Law, 48. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=bjil
2. Anania, G., & Pupo D’Andrea, M. R. (2015). The 2013 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm. Johan Swinnen, ed. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). London: Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Political%20Economy%20of%20the%20CAP_Final_small.pdf
3. Andersen, T. B., & Vanhuysse, P. (2019, Feb 7). EU membership has many benefits, but economic growth is not one of them: new findings. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/eu-membership-has-manybenefits-but-economic-growth-is-not-one-of-them-new-findings‑111206
4. Bakulina, A. A., & Raudsepp, J. V. (2016). Counterfeit — a link in the economic chain of companies’ bankruptcies [Kontrafakt — svyazuyushchee zveno v ekonomicheskoi tsepochke bankrotstv]. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta, 1(91), 78–85.
5. Belke, A., & Gros, D. (2017). The economic impact of Brexit: Evidence from modelling free trade agreements. Atlantic Economic Journal, 3, 317–331.
6. Blecker, R. A. (2018). NAFTA. In Robert E. Looney (Ed.), Handbook of International Trade Agreements. Country, regional and global approaches, 1st ed. (pp. 177–195). Routledge.
7. Bratt, M. (2014). Estimating the bilateral impact of non-tariff measures (NTMs) (No. 14011). Institut d’Economie et Econométrie, Université de Genève.
8. Brookhart, L., & Wallace R.W. (1993). Potential Impact on the US Economy and Selected Industries of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. US International Trade Commission. SITC Publication 2596. Retrieved from https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub2596.pdf.
9. Cecchini, P. et al. (1988). The European Challenge 1992: the benefits of a single market. English edition by John Robinson. Commission of the European Communities. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt., USA: Gower.
10. Cheong, I. (2013). Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement: Evaluation and implications for East Asian regionalism. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 428. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/156283/adbi-wp428.pdf
11. Ciuriak, D., Xiao, J., & Dadkhah, A. (2017). Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for TransPacific Partnership. East Asian Economic Review, 4(21), 343–384.
12. Czarny, E., & Felbermayr, G. (2017). Introduction: How Would a TTIP Affect Central and Eastern Europe? CESifo Forum, München: ifo Institut — LeibnizInstitut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München, München, 1(18), 3–4. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/166697/1/cesifo-forum-v18-y2017-i1-p03–04.pdf.
13. Dahlberg, E. (2015). Economic Effects of the European Single Market. Review of the empirical literature. 1st ed. Stockholm: National Board of Trade. Retrieved from https://www.kommers.se/Documents/dokumentarkiv/publikationer/2015/Publ-economic-effects-of-the-european-single-market.pdf.
14. Dean, J. M. et al. (2009). Estimating the price effects of non-tariff barriers. U.S. International Trade Commission. Office of Economics Working Paper No. 2006–06-A(r). Retrieved from https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/EC 200606Ar.pdf
15. Delimatsis, P. (2017). The evolution of the EU external trade policy in services-CETA, TTIP, and TiSA after Brexit. Journal of International Economic Law, 3, 583–625.
16. Draper, P., Lacey, S., & Ramkolowan, Y. (2014). Mega-regional trade agreements: implications for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. ECIPE Occasional Paper No. 2.
17. Felbermayr, G. et al. (2015). Potential Impacts of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on emerging and developing economies. Munich, Tübingen: IFO Institute & Institute for Applies Economic Research.
18. Fergusson, I. F., & Williams, B. R. (2016). The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Key Provisions and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service 7–5700. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R 44489.pdf
19. Gowling, WLG. (2017). Trade deal or no deal. What are the implications of Brexit on transatlantic trade? Retrieved from https://gowlingwlg.com/GowlingWLG/media/UK/pdf/campaigns/161213-brexit_transatlantic_trade.pdf
20. Holmes P., Rollo J., Winters L.A. (2016). Negotiating the UK’s post-Brexit trade arrangements. National Institute Economic Review, 1(238), R 22-R 30. Available at http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/65554/1/__smbhome.uscs.susx.ac.uk_qlfd7_Desktop_NIER%20submitted%20final.pdf.
21. Institute for Government. (2019). Non-tariff barriers. Retrieved from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/non-tariff-barriers (accessed 15/03/2019).
22. Korteweg, R. (2015). It’s the geopolitics, stupid: Why TTIP matters. Centre for European Reform. https://www.cer.eu/insights/it%E 2%80%99s-geopolitics-stupid-why-ttip-matters.
23. Irwin, G. (2016). Realizing TTIP’s Strategic Potential. London: Chatham House. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2016–07–14-realizing-ttip-strategic-potential-irwin.pdf.
24. Kierzenkowski, R. et al. (2016). The Economic Consequences of Brexit: A Taxing Decision. OECD Economic Policy Paper No. 16. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/economy/The-Economic-consequences-of-Brexit‑27-april‑2016.pdf.
25. Looi Kee, H., Nicita, A., & Olarreaga, M. (2008). Estimating trade restrictiveness indices. The Economic Journal, 119, 172–199. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRES/Resources/469232–1107449512766/ecoj_2209.pdf.
26. Parker, R. W. (2015). Four challenges for TTIP regulatory cooperation. Columbia Journal of European Law, 1(22).
27. Pataki, Z. (2014). The Cost of Non-Europe in the Single Market: ‘Cecchini Revisited’. An overview of the potential economic gains from further completion of the European Single Market. European Parliamentary Research Service CoNE 1/2014. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/510981/EPRS_STU(2014)510981_REV1_EN.pdf.
28. Petri, P. A., & Plummer, M. G. (2016). The economic effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: New estimates. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper No. 16–2.
29. Sauvé, P. (2017). III.34 The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Elgar Encyclopedia of International Economic Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 436–437. Available at https://china.elgaronline.com/view/nlm-book/9781784713539/b‑9781784713546–217.xml?pdfVersion=true.
30. Straathof, B. et al. (2008). The internal market and the Dutch economy: implications for trade and economic growth. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis No. 168.
31. Tregub, I. V., & Raudsepp, Y. V. (2018). Vliyanie zon svobodnoi torgovli na ekonomiku stran-uchastnits soglasheniya [Influence of free trade zone on member states]. Alleya Nauki, 3(19), 252–258. Available at https://alley-science.ru/domains_data/files/SbornikMarch/Mart_1_tom.pdf
32. Urata, S. (2018). Free Trade Agreements and Patterns of Trade in East Asia from the 1990s to 2010s. East Asian Community Review, 1, 61–73. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s42215–018–0007–3.
33. Villareal, M., & Fergusson, I. F. (2017). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (CRS Report R 42965). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1937/.
34. WTO. (2014). The WTO Agreements Series Technical Barriers to Trade. Geneva: World Trade Organization Centre. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/tbttotrade_e.pdf.
35. Xiao, Y. (2015). Competitive Mega-regional Trade Agreements: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) vs. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/52f0/d44f6b2c77b45160ef993c532534daeffeb5.pdf?_ga=2.136660980.536204764.1576056616–1623766573.1511244473.
Review
For citations:
Raudsepp J. Perspectives of the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the US after BREXIT. Review of Business and Economics Studies. 2019;7(4):45-71. https://doi.org/10.26794/2308-944X-2019-7-4-45-71
Email this article 