Today we are fortunate to have a guest contribution written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard University, and former Member of the Council of Economic Advisers, 1997-99.
I have written a few columns (e.g. “Critics Should Keep an Open Mind,” The Guardian, Oct. 11, 2015) and posts ([1] [2]) this year supportive of TPP. Commentators on my column and critics of TPP more generally have expressed great eagerness to know when and how they could read the full legal text of the agreement. The full text is now available.
Many skeptics seem confident in their ability to understand the significance of the detailed legal language. I am less confident of that myself, not being a lawyer. There is also to be a USTR site with user-friendly text.
This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.
“Many skeptics seem confident in their ability to understand the significance of the detailed legal language. I am less confident of that myself, not being a lawyer.”
That is quite an interesting statement. Despite that, you are “supportive”, but on what basis? Something someone told you? Who are those people and what are their interests?
I understand the TPP well enough to know that it is unlikely to be a net benefit to the poorest both in the U.S. and abroad. It is unlikely to be a net benefit to any group outside of the 1%.
The TPP is not about trade. That is just the cover story. Tariffs are already so low that any changes will be almost unmeasurable in GDP. The U.S, could simply unilaterally eliminate all tariffs if it wanted and few, other than some millionaire corporate farming protectionists in sugar or cotton, would notice.
The real story about the TPP is making the world safe for multi-national crony capitalism. It’s about extending intellectual property rights. It’s about removing local popular control that might threaten corporate interests.
For example, you might note that there are detailed mechanisms for enforcing intellectual property rights. There is virtually nothing to enforce labor rights or environmental rights, just some nice words. There are no words at all about currency manipulation.
Joseph,
So, you “understand the TPP well enough to know that it is unlikely to be a net benefit to the poorest both in the U.S. and abroad. It is unlikely to be a net benefit to any group outside of the 1%.” But “on what basis? Something someone told you? Who are those people and what are their interests?”
Since your comment was posted at 9:40 am on November 5, it seems unlikely that you had read the text. Similarly I noticed that “within hours” of the release of the text, “a broad range of civil society organizations … issued statements opposing the TPP.” [http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blog/2015/11/05/civil-society-reacts-to-finally-released-tpp-text/] I bet they really took their time to read the full text and make up their minds how they felt about it!”
I have now read the text of Chapter 20 (25 pages), which is the one on the environment. As I read the environmental provisions, they do precisely what the negotiators said they would do. Highlights of what I like best include steps to protect the marine environment from ship pollution, bans on national subsidies to fishing boats and especially subsidies for overfishing, and implementation at the national level of CITES in order to enforce bans on trade in endangered species. Also, another personal favorite of mine: a hope to begin addressing barriers to trade in environmental goods.
Some environmental NGOs say they don’t believe that those provisions will be fully enforced. Regardless how fully you think the environmental provisions will be enforced in every member country – and I hope the NGOs push for full enforcement after TPP passes – I don’t see the argument for opposing the treaty. We already have CITES; but enforcement of it is weak. Environmentalists in the past have said they want protection of endangered species in a trade agreement, because those are enforced more strongly than Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Now here it is. So how can an environmentalist not support TPP? What is the alternative?
JF
JF
I didn’t read the TPP document but I did read your article and comment and I cannot do away with a negative feeling about the TPP. I fear I caught the spreading disease of distrussting everything that comes from governments (rightfully so).
I’ve a brief thought on this. I won’t read the agreement because it would require days or weeks to analyse it because it is far more important to understand what is not included in the agreement or what is important or not for some countries. The fishing industry can be a good example. What are the conseqeunces of these restrictions for every country and every group within a country apart? I know the fishing industry in the USA will not be affected by this, because subsidies to the fishing industry are very limited and the USA has moved largely to aquaculture. Maybe their aim is to enhance more the unnatural way of producing food and they have a good argument; the environment (unfortunately a good argument). We know that capitalism tries to incorporate everything, whether it is sex, sport, food or central banks. Don’t ask me where John Galt is, he’s everywhere. The strategy to present something as progress while having a different goal in mind is brilliant.
Second, if by any means, reality would turn out to be different, the agreement will be what it really is, just a piece of paper.