新瓶装陈酒:自由贸易协定是新的保护主义吗?

Q1 Arts and Humanities Asia-Pacific Social Science Review Pub Date : 2008-05-07 DOI:10.3860/APSSR.V6I2.59
C. Freedman
{"title":"新瓶装陈酒:自由贸易协定是新的保护主义吗?","authors":"C. Freedman","doi":"10.3860/APSSR.V6I2.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Free trade agreements have proliferated wildly in the past five years. This paper tries to make sense of this alternative approach to trade policy by carefully distinguishing free trade from free trade agreements. The motivation for the first approach is largely economic, while politics is the key driver behind the latter. In particular, large economies find it simpler to impose their objectives on smaller economies than in the multilateral environment of free trade. In particular, the allure of access to large markets can bind small countries to their larger counterparts in an interplay of political and economic ties. The leverage provided by such agreements affects the foreign policy decisions of these smaller economies and tends to draw them into conformity with that of its larger partner. In much the same way, such agreements allow large economies to foist standards involving intellectual property rights, quarantine inspection, or business practises that advance prominent vested interests within the large nation. While no single small country is significant, each agreement signed creates a precedent for the next. In aggregate, this creates de facto universal standards that are far more conducive to national interests than could be expected in multilateral negotiations. To make these points clear, I examine the recent Australia/US Free Trade Agreement. This treaty, in its way, represents some of the gravest shortcomings of this preferential approach to trade policy. By evaluating this agreement using checkpoints provided by a proponent of free trade agreements (Summers), as well as a list suggested by an academic opponent (Bhagwati), I am able to demonstrate how economics took a clear back seat in negotiating such a treaty. Given that both China and Japan, as well as the US, are now eagerly pursuing such arrangements in the Asia Pacific region as well as elsewhere, this study may provide policy guidelines to future negotiations for free trade agreements.","PeriodicalId":39323,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Social Science Review","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Old wine in new bottles: are free trade agreements the new protectionism?\",\"authors\":\"C. Freedman\",\"doi\":\"10.3860/APSSR.V6I2.59\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Free trade agreements have proliferated wildly in the past five years. This paper tries to make sense of this alternative approach to trade policy by carefully distinguishing free trade from free trade agreements. The motivation for the first approach is largely economic, while politics is the key driver behind the latter. In particular, large economies find it simpler to impose their objectives on smaller economies than in the multilateral environment of free trade. In particular, the allure of access to large markets can bind small countries to their larger counterparts in an interplay of political and economic ties. The leverage provided by such agreements affects the foreign policy decisions of these smaller economies and tends to draw them into conformity with that of its larger partner. In much the same way, such agreements allow large economies to foist standards involving intellectual property rights, quarantine inspection, or business practises that advance prominent vested interests within the large nation. While no single small country is significant, each agreement signed creates a precedent for the next. In aggregate, this creates de facto universal standards that are far more conducive to national interests than could be expected in multilateral negotiations. To make these points clear, I examine the recent Australia/US Free Trade Agreement. This treaty, in its way, represents some of the gravest shortcomings of this preferential approach to trade policy. By evaluating this agreement using checkpoints provided by a proponent of free trade agreements (Summers), as well as a list suggested by an academic opponent (Bhagwati), I am able to demonstrate how economics took a clear back seat in negotiating such a treaty. Given that both China and Japan, as well as the US, are now eagerly pursuing such arrangements in the Asia Pacific region as well as elsewhere, this study may provide policy guidelines to future negotiations for free trade agreements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Social Science Review\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"1-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Social Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3860/APSSR.V6I2.59\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Social Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3860/APSSR.V6I2.59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的五年中,自由贸易协定激增。本文试图通过仔细区分自由贸易和自由贸易协定来理解这种贸易政策的替代方法。第一种方法的动机主要是经济上的,而政治是后者背后的关键驱动力。特别是,大型经济体发现,与自由贸易的多边环境相比,将它们的目标强加给较小的经济体更容易。特别是,进入大市场的诱惑可以在政治和经济关系的相互作用中将小国与较大的对手联系起来。这些协定提供的杠杆作用影响了这些较小经济体的外交政策决定,并倾向于使它们与较大伙伴的外交政策保持一致。同样,这些协议允许大型经济体强加涉及知识产权、检疫检查或商业实践的标准,这些标准在大国内部促进了突出的既得利益。虽然没有一个小国是重要的,但每一项协议的签署都为下一个国家创造了先例。总的来说,这创造了事实上的普遍标准,这些标准远比在多边谈判中所能期望的更有利于国家利益。为了阐明这些观点,我研究了最近的澳大利亚/美国自由贸易协定。就其本身而言,该条约体现了这种优惠贸易政策的一些最严重的缺点。通过使用自由贸易协定的支持者(萨默斯)提供的检查点以及学术反对者(巴格瓦蒂)提出的清单来评估这一协议,我能够证明经济学在谈判这样一项条约时是如何明显退居次要地位的。鉴于中国和日本以及美国现在都在亚太地区以及其他地方急切地寻求这样的安排,这项研究可能为未来的自由贸易协定谈判提供政策指导。
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
Old wine in new bottles: are free trade agreements the new protectionism?
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Free trade agreements have proliferated wildly in the past five years. This paper tries to make sense of this alternative approach to trade policy by carefully distinguishing free trade from free trade agreements. The motivation for the first approach is largely economic, while politics is the key driver behind the latter. In particular, large economies find it simpler to impose their objectives on smaller economies than in the multilateral environment of free trade. In particular, the allure of access to large markets can bind small countries to their larger counterparts in an interplay of political and economic ties. The leverage provided by such agreements affects the foreign policy decisions of these smaller economies and tends to draw them into conformity with that of its larger partner. In much the same way, such agreements allow large economies to foist standards involving intellectual property rights, quarantine inspection, or business practises that advance prominent vested interests within the large nation. While no single small country is significant, each agreement signed creates a precedent for the next. In aggregate, this creates de facto universal standards that are far more conducive to national interests than could be expected in multilateral negotiations. To make these points clear, I examine the recent Australia/US Free Trade Agreement. This treaty, in its way, represents some of the gravest shortcomings of this preferential approach to trade policy. By evaluating this agreement using checkpoints provided by a proponent of free trade agreements (Summers), as well as a list suggested by an academic opponent (Bhagwati), I am able to demonstrate how economics took a clear back seat in negotiating such a treaty. Given that both China and Japan, as well as the US, are now eagerly pursuing such arrangements in the Asia Pacific region as well as elsewhere, this study may provide policy guidelines to future negotiations for free trade agreements.
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
Asia-Pacific Social Science Review
Asia-Pacific Social Science Review Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Asia-Pacific Social Science Review (APSSR) is an internationally refereed journal published biannually (June and December) by De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. It aims to be a leading venue for authors seeking to share their data and perspectives on compelling and emerging topics in the social sciences with, and to create an impact on, the region’s communities of academics, researchers, students, civil society, policymakers, development specialists, among others. Topics related to or with implications for the region that are pursued employing sound methodologies and comparative, and inter, multi and transdisciplinary approaches are of particular interest.
期刊最新文献
From the Editor: Vol.10(2) 2010 Effect of District Magnitude on Electoral Corruption under a Block Vote System: The Case of Thailand Renewable Energy (RE) Sector Development in the Philippines Based on the Perspectives and Experiences of Selected Industry Managers Fiction as Fact: False Memories of WWII in the Philippines The State and "Transnational Advocacy Networks" in the Prevention and Control of Transnational Crime
×
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