Skip to main content

Peter Petri is the Carl J. Shapiro Professor of International Finance at the Brandeis International Business School and a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Wendy Dobson is professor and co-director of the Rotman Institute for International Business at the University of Toronto.

In the fractious politics of trade, a recent, supportive C.D. Howe Institute report on Canada's stake in the Trans-Pacific Partnership made a welcome contribution. For Canada and its 11 partners, the TPP promises market-oriented rules for industries unknown two decades ago and a stronger gateway to the Asia-Pacific, the world's fastest-growing region.

But even that positive study understates the benefits of the agreement. The study does not discuss geopolitical gains, which may be the TPP's most important contribution – as eight former U.S. secretaries of defence pointed out recently. The TPP will strengthen links across the Pacific and reinvigorate a rules-based approach to global trade. Some have argued that it will set rules so China doesn't, but the real risk is a drift toward anarchy without any solid rules.

Story continues below advertisement

The geoeconomic case for the TPP is also stronger than the institute calculates. Yes, Canada is "better in than out," but three other studies (by Japanese researchers and the U.S. Peterson Institute) estimate gains in the range of 1 per cent to 2 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, rather than the 0.08 per cent estimated by C.D. Howe.

Unlike the C.D. Howe report, these studies emphasize the effects of the rules of the TPP, not just tariff reductions.

The rules-tariffs debate is not just academic. Global negotiations have mostly won the war against tariff barriers; in the United States, they are now 78-per-cent lower than after the Second World War. But regulatory obstacles – non-tariff barriers – have mushroomed. The World Trade Organization and others now see such barriers as the main bottleneck; the Peterson Institute estimates they are five times as restrictive as tariffs for TPP trade.

The new, authoritative Elsevier Handbook of Commercial Policy concludes that accords such as the North American free-trade agreement have increased trade as much as five times more than could be expected from tariff cuts alone because they reduce non-tariff barriers and uncertainty about future trade relations. More than 215 such agreements have been signed since 2000.

The TPP offers much progress by adopting rules to facilitate trade in the newest products and services by ensuring open network access, freer cross-border data flows and limits on data-localization requirements. It focuses on international supply chains with a cluster of policies requiring regulations to be less domestically biased and more coherent. And it facilitates trade with measures such as expediting express delivery and requiring ports to process goods trade in less than 48 hours.

The agreement also includes wider commitments than the World Trade Organization to reduce services and investment barriers.

Most TPP rules will be subject to a thorough dispute resolution process or enforced by high-level oversight committees.

Story continues below advertisement

Estimating the effects of these rules on specific industries, countries and agreements is difficult and uncertain, but not optional. Developing new rules has to be central to tomorrow's effort to liberalize trade. Researchers are right to be conservative, and the Peterson Institute's study offers a range of estimates, with the whole range suggesting significant gains for Canada.

Even so, the TPP leaves stubborn barriers in some economies and several exceptions in its services and investment commitments. China and some key Asia-Pacific economies have yet to join. So work remains. But the agreement makes real progress on goals that were elusive in global negotiations and divisive in everyone's politics. It stimulates international economic co-operation at a time when other sources of productivity, wage gains and growth are difficult to find.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter