An article in Financial Post (April 26, 2016) titled “Which Canadian agricultural companies stand to reap big rewards from the TPP trade deal” (http://business.financialpost.com/investing/which-canadian-agricultural-companies-stand-to-reap-big-rewards-from-the-tpp-trade-deal) discusses the Canadian economic sectors that will and will not benefit from the TPP, as well as analyzes the agricultural companies that are expected to gain the most from this commercial deal. 65% of the current agricultural exports are destined to TPP members, meaning that the reduction of tariffs associated with this deal is expected to increase additional demand from these trading partners. On the other hand, the TPP is expected to have a negative impact on sectors such as textiles apparel, chemicals and metal products. The National Bank Financial has reviewed the companies in the agriculture space and has concluded that the ones that should gain the most from the TPP include AGT Food and Ingredients Inc. (AGT), Input Capital Corp., Cervus Equipment Corporation and Rocky Mountain Dealership Inc. Will the benefits of the agricultural sector outweigh the tradeoffs that this commercial deal will represent to the Canadian economy?
An article in The Diplomat (April 20, 2016) titled “The TPP: A Win for Vietnam’s Workers” (http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/the-tpp-a-win-for-vietnams-workers/) describes the relevance that the TPP commercial deal represents for Vietnam’s workers and community. Vietnam has refused to commit to labor requirements until now. The TPP is the first agreement that subjects Vietnam to important labor commitments such as freedom of association, minimum work conditions, and collective bargaining. The TPP parties are required to comply with the International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, giving the chance to Vietnam’s workers to finally organize unions independent from the Vietnam’s General Confederation of Labor (VGCL). In this way, it is expected that the TPP will push for a better civil society in Vietnam. What tradeoffs may these actions have on the overall Vietnam’s economy? Will more freedom be translated into more productivity in the country?
An article in Thanhniem News (March 28, 2016) titled “How the Trans-Pacific Partnership benefits Vietnam’s economy” (http://www.thanhniennews.com/commentaries/how-the-transpacific-partnership-benefits-vietnams-economy-60650.html) describes the impact that the TPP will have on Vietnam’s future growth. Three main benefits are analyzed: 1) Large trade volumes with the US and Japan, 2) Competitive manufacturing environment, and 3) Tariff cuts of key export and import products. It is expected that thanks to the TPP, Vietnam’s total export will increase by USD 68 billion by 2025, and that the Foreign Direct Investment to Vietnam will reach around USD 20 billion by 2020. As the TPP agreement is implemented, key export manufacturing sectors such as textile & garment, footwear and fishery will enjoy rapid growth. How will lead industry players define strategies to capitalize on Vietnam’s manufacturing sector as the Asian country boosts its economic growth thanks to the TPP?
An article in EconoMonitor (March 21, 2016) titled “TTIP & TPP – A Threat to Latin America?” (http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2016/03/ttip-tpp-a-threat-to-latin-america/) analyzes the impact that the new regional mega-deals will have on different Latin American economies. For years, most Latin American countries have supported their economies on exporting commodities and natural resources. To face the risk that commodities’ prices are variable, these countries have implemented import-substitution industrialization policies, which mean high tariffs to protect domestic industry and discourage imports. With the TPP, it is expected that Peru takes the most advantage of this deal since the agreement could lead to a 2.4% increase in real income. On the other hand Chile and Mexico already have deep trade agreements with most of the TPP members, preventing them from expecting a relevant impact in their economies thanks to the latest commercial deal. Mercosur countries, which are not involved in the TPP agreement, such as Brazil and Venezuela are currently facing economic crisis that need them to reevaluate their access to international markets and enhance their integration in global value chains. Will the TPP members allow any Mercosur country to join the deal in the coming years? How can Chile and Mexico leverage their current position as members of the TPP deal?
An article in The Japan Times (January 25, 2016) titled “TPP will raise U.S. annual income by $131 billion, study shows” (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/25/asia-pacific/tpp-will-raise-u-s-annual-income-131-billion-study-shows/#.VqY1r4UrJQI) describes a study from The Peterson Institute for International Economics, which states that the TPP will raise US incomes by 131 billion annually after 2030. The analysis highlights that one-year delay in the TPP implementation would cost $77 billion in lost income. Moreover, the agreement would boost the US exports by $357 billion annually, and by $1.025 trillion annually for all TPP countries together. Other studies suggest that there would be 53,700 US jobs that would churn annually during the first 15 years of the TPP implementation period, but it is estimated that by 2030 about 796,000 jobs will have been added in US export activities thanks to the commercial agreement. Will the US Congress approve the TPP considering this analysis and its suggestion that the benefits of the TPP outweigh its costs?
An article in Aljazeera America (January 21, 2016) titled “TPP would facilitate lawsuits against governments, critics say” (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/21/tpp-would-erode-environmental-protections.html) explains that the TPP erode American sovereignty and threaten progress on climate change. The environmental group Sierra Club agrees that the TPP would expand the number of corporations able to sue governments for what they consider as unfair restraints on trade. Under the TPP, approximately 9,000 companies doing business in the US would receive expanded foreign rights to sue over lost profits. The costs implied in these legal actions may prevent the government to enact environmental policies that could harm foreign investors. In this way, critics mention that the TPP will make foreign companies in control of some important aspects of the American sovereignty. How risky could it be for the American Sovereignty that the TPP deal is approved?
An article in The Denver Post Opinion (January 15, 2016) titled “Guest Commentary: TPP will harm Colorado’s workers, environment” (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_29390004/guest-commentary-tpp-will-harm-colorados-workers-environment) describes impact that the TPP has had on employment, especially in Colorado. The TPP is not just about imports and exports; it deals with important topics such as public health, environment and consumer protections. Once a country imports more that it exports it costs good jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Colorado has lost more than 70,700 jobs from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the China trade deals. The risk now is that the TPP will only hasten such job losses. Will the TPP be changed in a way that doesn’t jeopardize as many jobs as previous trade deals have?