Preferential trade agreements: free trade at what cost?

This repository item contains a single issue of Issues in Brief, a series of policy briefs that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future.This paper looks at the broader aspects of legal incompatibility among various agreements and argues that in the long run, increased reliance on PTAs for trade liberalizations will force countries to maintain inconsistent legal standards

Leaked TISA Financial Services text: A glimpse into the future of services liberalization

This repository item contains a policy brief from the Boston University Global Economic Governance Initiative. The Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) is a research program of the Center for Finance, Law & Policy, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. It was founded in 2008 to advance policy-relevant knowledge about governance for financial stability, human development, and the environment.News of the leaked draft text of the financial services annex of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) has enlivened critics and given them opportunity to discuss the substantive shortcomings of the agreement. This brief addresses how the leaked text could impact host state regulation of foreign direct investment (FDI). The TISA negotiations are attempting to make progress in services liberalization outside of the stalled WTO proceedings. Proponents recognize potential importance of such an agreement in today’s services-driven economy. However, services liberalization has not resulted in the same consistent growth as liberalizing goods trade did in the mid-20th century. Here I discuss four key provisions in the leaked draft text that threaten to destabilize the global economy by exceeding the scope and coverage of the existing services liberalization as applied to FDI. First, by extending the “right of establishment” to foreign financial service providers, they would be granted almost automatic entry into any host state that is a party to the agreement. Second, by establishing automatic coverage of any “new financial service, host states may not protect themselves from new, untested financial services in the future. Third, by prohibiting even nondiscriminatory measures, foreign financial services providers receive special protection from any regulatory measures that may affect them, even if they affect national providers similarly. Finally, under the guise of “transparency”, this new draft text gives foreign providers political power in the host state to shape future financial services regulation

Suppose UK voters accept the Alternative Vote in the May referendum… but then don’t use AV to signal multiple party preferences?

Most of the discussion of the AV referendum assumes that if UK voters endorse changing the voting system, they will be eager to vote 1, 2 3, 4 etc to express support for several or multiple parties. But Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher have their doubts. Reviewing the evidence from Queensland, which uses the same system as the proposed UK alternative vote, they believe that many voters will treat an AV election as just like ‘first past the post’, and not cast (or perhaps over time stop casting) multiple preferences

21st century trade agreements: implications for long-run development policy

This repository item contains a single issue of The Pardee Papers, a series papers that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. The Pardee Papers series features working papers by Pardee Center Fellows and other invited authors. Papers in this series explore current and future challenges by anticipating the pathways to human progress, human development, and human well-being. This series includes papers on a wide range of topics, with a special emphasis on interdisciplinary perspectives and a development orientation.This paper examines the extent to which the emerging world trading regime leaves nations the “policy space” to deploy effective policy for long-run diversification and development and the extent to which there is a convergence of such policy space under global and regional trade regimes. We examine the economic theory of trade and long-run growth and underscore the fact that traditional theories lose luster in the presence of the need for long-run dynamic comparative advantages and when market failures are rife. We then review a “toolbox” of policies that have been deployed by developed and developing countries past and present to kick-start diversity and development with the hope of achieving longrun growth. Next, we examine the extent to which rules under the World Trade Organization (WTO), trade agreements between the European Union (EU) and developing countries, trade agreements between the United States (US) and developing countries, and those among developing countries (South-South, or S-S, agreements) allow for the use of such policies. We demonstrate that there is a great divergence among trade regimes over this question. While S-S agreements provide ample policy space for industrial development, the WTO and EU agreements largely represent the middle of the spectrum in terms of constraining policy space choices. On the far end, opposite S-S agreements, US agreements place considerably more constraints by binding parties both broadly and deeply in their trade commitments. Rachel Denae Thrasher holds a master’s degree in International Relations and a law degree, both from Boston University, and she is a Research Fellow at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. Her recent research has focused on policy issues related to regional trade agreements, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and on global forests governance. Kevin P. Gallagher is an Assistant Professor in the Department of International Relations and Research Fellow at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, both at Boston University. He is also a fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. He has written extensively on trade and global development. Also see related publication The Future of the WTO, by Kevin Gallagher

On fairness and freedom: the WTO and ethical sourcing initiatives

This repository item contains a working paper from the Boston University Global Economic Governance Initiative. The Global Economic Governance Initiative (GEGI) is a research program of the Center for Finance, Law & Policy, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, and the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. It was founded in 2008 to advance policy-relevant knowledge about governance for financial stability, human development, and the environment.Although the concepts of fair trade and free trade have little to do with one another, in the context of public procurement, the two come head to head. Proponents of free trade argue that governments should act like private market actors when purchasing; others hold that governments are obligated to promote justice and equality by way of procurement “linkages” to social policy like fair trade. An increased awareness of the importance of sustainability has re‐opened the debate over whether governments should link their spending to social concerns. In Europe a sustainable approach to public procurement is commonplace and EU enthusiasm has reached the WTO. A Revised GPA seeks to encourage broader acceptance of the agreement by including exceptions for environmental and social policy linkages. The exceptions include a general exception in cases where derogation is “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health”, excludes public procurement in international development assistance from the scope of the agreement, and explicitly permits governments to apply technical specifications for environmental protection. A recent case against sustainable public procurement in the Netherlands demonstrates the space given countries in Europe to select and implement their own procurement practices. Countries vary widely in their government procurement. Although the EU maintains a region‐wide consensus toward encouraging ethical sourcing and consumption, other regions have not created the same supportive structure. Within the WTO, it is even clearer that policies creating obstacles to liberalized trade would be less favorable than other policies, regardless of the reason for those obstacles. We conclude that while the Revised GPA has made more policy space for governments to prioritize development and environmental goals, it does not go far enough. Future revisions of the GPA should provide policy space for horizontal linkages, including those aimed at long‐term sustainability