Tag Archives | Trans-Pacific Partnership Regional Cooperation, TradeRegional Cooperation, TradeTradeTrade
By Ganeshan Wignaraja. Posted July 4, 2016
Talks just concluded in Auckland, New Zealand on Saturday show that plans for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are advancing. Just as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the next potential leaders of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) biggest partner—the US—have distanced themselves from the agreement. Some even suggest that the US Congress won’t ratify the TPP agreement, and warn that the world economy risks US isolationism.
By Ganeshan Wignaraja. Posted April 21, 2016
There seems to be a pushback against trade agreements in the post global financial crisis era. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was signed in early 2016, but US presidential candidates have spared no effort criticizing it so near-term ratification is highly uncertain. The WTO Doha Round is in the deep freeze after 14 years of negotiations. Unilateral trade liberalization has virtually come to a standstill.
By Matthias Helble. Posted November 24, 2015
At the beginning of October, 12 Pacific Rim countries agreed on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The TPP agreement has been hailed as a landmark trade pact, as it includes many issues that have so far not found their way into the rule of law in the multilateral trading system. As a reaction to the successful deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Roberto Azevêdo announced that the TPP “will serve as an inspiration for WTO members” for the forthcoming 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. In this article, I argue that neither the process of TPP talks nor the content of the TPP agreement can provide a positive stimulus for the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations.
By Rolf J. Langhammer. Posted December 16, 2014
Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) is a second-best approach to trade and investment liberalization compared to a global agreement. A global agreement is not within reach, and thus Asia, as a non-beneficiary, will incur trade losses similar to the losses that Europe would incur as a non-beneficiary of an Asia-Pacific agreement on free trade.
Subscribe / Connect to Asia Pathways
- Agriculture and rural development
- Industry and Trade
- Information and Communications Technology
- Poverty Reduction
- Public-Private Partnership
- Regional Cooperation
- Social Development and Poverty
- Video Blog
- “Monsters” in the house? What to do about Malaysia’s government-linked companies
- Japan’s Local Government Debt Control System
- What are the reasons behind the decrease in solar module prices?
- Sustainable funding schemes for the development of waste management projects in Asia
- High-speed rail investment: A butterfly effect for urban chaos
- Minimizing the Cost of Fecal Sludge Management through Co-Treatment on
- Energy Efficiency: The Cornerstone for Achieving SDG 7 on
- Spillover effects of quantitative easing on the Asian credit market and policy options on
- Energy strategies must consider all parts of the ‘energy trilemma’ on
- Exploring the trade–urbanization nexus in developing economies: evidence and implications on