TPP 10、11、12年

Dan Ciuriak, A. Dadkhah, Jingliang Xiao
{"title":"TPP 10、11、12年","authors":"Dan Ciuriak, A. Dadkhah, Jingliang Xiao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3108231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Canadian participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was called into question by Canada’s hold-up on signing the draft agreement among the remaining eleven negotiating parties following US withdrawal. This raised the possibility of the CPTPP going ahead as a 10-member agreement without Canada. We ran the numbers on the opportunity costs for Canada compared to the gains of participation. This note builds on our previous studies of the TPP which quantify the TPP12 and TPP11. This helps inform the discussion surrounding the announcement that the TPP11 will go ahead, with Canada’s participation. We report comparable figures for the TPP12, TPP11 (without the United States) and TPP10 (without Canada).","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The TPP 10, 11, 12\",\"authors\":\"Dan Ciuriak, A. Dadkhah, Jingliang Xiao\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3108231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Canadian participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was called into question by Canada’s hold-up on signing the draft agreement among the remaining eleven negotiating parties following US withdrawal. This raised the possibility of the CPTPP going ahead as a 10-member agreement without Canada. We ran the numbers on the opportunity costs for Canada compared to the gains of participation. This note builds on our previous studies of the TPP which quantify the TPP12 and TPP11. This helps inform the discussion surrounding the announcement that the TPP11 will go ahead, with Canada’s participation. We report comparable figures for the TPP12, TPP11 (without the United States) and TPP10 (without Canada).\",\"PeriodicalId\":320446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3108231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3108231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大参与《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(CPTPP)受到质疑,原因是在美国退出后,加拿大在其余11个谈判方签署协议草案方面的拖延。这增加了CPTPP作为一个没有加拿大的10国协议继续推进的可能性。我们将加拿大的机会成本与参与的收益进行了比较。本文以我们之前对TPP的研究为基础,对TPP12和TPP11进行了量化。这有助于围绕在加拿大参与下将继续进行的TPP11宣布进行的讨论。我们报告了TPP12、TPP11(不包括美国)和TPP10(不包括加拿大)的可比数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The TPP 10, 11, 12
Canadian participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was called into question by Canada’s hold-up on signing the draft agreement among the remaining eleven negotiating parties following US withdrawal. This raised the possibility of the CPTPP going ahead as a 10-member agreement without Canada. We ran the numbers on the opportunity costs for Canada compared to the gains of participation. This note builds on our previous studies of the TPP which quantify the TPP12 and TPP11. This helps inform the discussion surrounding the announcement that the TPP11 will go ahead, with Canada’s participation. We report comparable figures for the TPP12, TPP11 (without the United States) and TPP10 (without Canada).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Mandate of the ECB: Legal Considerations in the Ecb's Monetary Policy Strategy Review Modeling the Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers in Services on Intra-African Trade: Global Trade Analysis Project Model Towards an Analyses of the Mega-Politics Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice Front-of-Pack Labelling and International Trade Law: Revisiting the Health Star Rating System Shared Obligations and the Responsibility of an International Organization and its Member States: The Case of EU Mixed Agreements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1