IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tei/journl/v11y2017i1p52-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do we really know about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Facts versus myths? Trying to understand social expectations

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Dzialo

    (Lazarski University, Department of Economics, Warsaw, Poland)

  • Bogna Gawronska-Nowak

    (Lazarski University, Department of Economics, Warsaw, Poland)

  • Ziemowit Stanczyk

    (Institute for Socio-Economic Enquiries, Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to confront the social expectations of the TTIP, and how it effects the so-called "expert knowledge". Defining a mismatch between the social expectations and expert knowledge may contribute to better understanding of the controversies related to the TTIP. Using the NAFTA case study, we investigate if there is a significant gap between ex-ante and ex-post analysis of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Design/methodology/approach: We rely on Eurobarometer (2014, 2015) and Bertelsmann Foundation (2016) surveys to describe the TTIP-related social expectations. We make a critical overview of the global CGE models, which are the main source of ex-ante estimations of TTIP macro effects. We also use the NAFTA case study as a TTIP reference point that allows for a comparison of ex-ante with ex-post analysis results. Findings: Social expectations regarding the economic effects of the TTIP are ambiguous on both sides of the Atlantic. The CGE models have many limiting assumptions. They are, however, a useful tool for exploring the effects of the TTIP, bearing in mind all restrictions and limitations of ex-ante analyses. The NAFTA case study indicates that most ex-ante models tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate disadvantages arising from free trade. Research limitations/implications: Many such surveys have been conducted recently. The results should be developed upon, for a more detailed, country-specific and time variant understanding of possible sources of social conflicts in the context of the TTIP (or FTA) implementation. Originality/value: The analysis tends to prove the existence of a mismatch between social and expert knowledge on the TTIP, which may result in generating social conflicts. A practical and original outcome of our work is a well-supported recommendation to make the TTIP realistic effects much more transparent to the public, which should be important to those supporting the TTIP (and generally speaking FTA).

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Dzialo & Bogna Gawronska-Nowak & Ziemowit Stanczyk, 2017. "What do we really know about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Facts versus myths? Trying to understand social expectations," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 11(1), pages 52-60, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:tei:journl:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:52-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbesar.af.duth.gr/docs/volume11_issue1/transatlantic_trade_investment_partnership.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijbesar.af.duth.gr/volume11_issue1.php
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lionel Fontagné & Julien Gourdon & Sébastien Jean, 2013. "Transatlantic Trade: Whither Partnership, Which Economic Consequences?," CEPII Policy Brief 2013-01, CEPII research center.
    2. Joseph Francois & Miriam Manchin & Hanna Norberg & Olga Pindyuk & Patrick Tomberger, 2013. "Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment," Economics working papers 2015-03, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    3. Roland-Holst, David & Reinert, Kenneth A. & Shiells, Clinton R., 1994. "NAFTA liberalization and the role of nontariff barriers," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 137-168.
    4. Shushanik Hakobyan & John McLaren, 2016. "Looking for Local Labor Market Effects of NAFTA," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(4), pages 728-741, October.
    5. Gordon H. Hanson, 2003. "What Has Happened to Wages in Mexico since NAFTA?," NBER Working Papers 9563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Andreas Waldkirch, 2003. "The 'new regionalism' and foreign direct investment: the case of Mexico," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 151-184.
    7. Grumiller, Jan-Augustin, 2014. "Ex-ante versus ex-post assessments of the economic benefits of Free Trade Agreements: Lessons from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," Briefing Papers 10, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    8. David Cox & Richard G. Harris, 1992. "North American Free Trade and its Implications for Canada: Results from a CGE Model of North American Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 31-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raza, Werner & Taylor, Lance & Tröster, Bernhard & von Arnim, Rudi, 2016. "Modelling the impacts of trade on employment and development: A structuralist CGE-model for the analysis of TTIP and other trade agreements," Working Papers 57, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    2. Beckman, Jayson & Burfisher, Mary & Mitchell, Lorraine & Arita, Shawn, 2021. "Hidden obstacles to trade: The case of the EU’s Ban on beef hormones," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1332-1343.
    3. repec:gnv:wpaper:unige:77631 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Raza, Werner & Grumiller, Jan & Taylor, Lance & Tröster, Bernhard & von Arnim, Rudi, 2014. "ASSESS_TTIP: Assessing the claimed benefits of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," Policy Notes 10/2014, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    5. Céline Carrère & Anja Grujovic & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2020. "Trade and Frictional Unemployment in the Global Economy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 2869-2921.
    6. Aichele Rahel & Felbermayr Gabriel J. & Heiland Inga, 2016. "TTIP and Intra-European Trade: Boon or Bane?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 236(6), pages 639-664, December.
    7. Paul Welfens & Tony Irawan, 2014. "Transatlantic trade and investment partnership: sectoral and macroeconomic perspectives for Germany, the EU and the US," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 293-328, September.
    8. Rotunno, Lorenzo & Roy, Sanchari & Sakakibara, Anri & Vezina, Pierre-Louis, 2023. "Trade Policy and Jobs in Vietnam: The Unintended Consequences of Trump’s Trade War," SocArXiv 9rdne, Center for Open Science.
    9. Gabriel Felbermayr & Mario Larch & Mario Larch, 2014. "Transatlantic Free Trade: Questions and Answers from the Vantage Point of Trade Theory," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 14(04), pages 03-17, January.
    10. Disdier, Anne‐Célia & Emlinger, Charlotte & Fouré, Jean, 2016. "Interdependencies between Atlantic and Pacific agreements: Evidence from agri-food sectors," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 241-253.
    11. Pietrzyck, Katja & Petersen, Brigitte & Jarzębowski, Sebastian, 2018. "The Role of quality management in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part nership (TTIP): the case of the polish Agri-food sector," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 276627, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    12. Gros, Daniel & Alcidi, Cinzia, 2014. "The Global Economy in 2030: Trends and Strategies for Europe," CEPS Papers 9142, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    13. Latorre, María C. & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2016. "An innovative CGE assessment of the impact of the TTIP including multinationals and Foreign Direct Investment," Conference papers 332765, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Andrea Bernini & Olaf J. de Groot, 2024. "The impact of trade on income inequality in Mexico," Economics Series Working Papers 1036, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Alexandre Gohin, 2017. "The Impact of an EU–US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement on Biofuel and Feedstock Markets," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 321-344, June.
    16. Gabriel Felbermayr & Benedikt Heid & Mario Larch, 2015. "TTIP: Small Gains, High Risks?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 15(04), pages 20-30, January.
    17. Khan, Nazmus Sadat, 2020. "Revisiting the effects of NAFTA," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-16.
    18. Engler, Philipp & Tervala, Juha, 2018. "Welfare effects of TTIP in a DSGE model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 230-238.
    19. Oliver Krebs & Michael Pflüger, 2018. "How deep is your love? A quantitative spatial analysis of the transatlantic trade partnership," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 171-222, February.
    20. Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, 2017. "Potential Economic Effects of TTIP for the Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 271-294, September.
    21. Gabriel Felbermayr & Rahel Aichele & Inga Heiland, 2016. "Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP Revised," ifo Working Paper Series 219, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; social expectations towards TTIP; CGE models; macroeconomic effects of TTIP; NAFTA agreement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law
    • K3 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tei:journl:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:52-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kostas Stergidis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dbikagr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.