IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Trade sustainability impact assessment (SIA) on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada: Final report

  • Kirkpatrick, Colin
  • Raihan, Selim
  • Bleser, Adam
  • Prud'homme, Dan
  • Mayrand, Karel
  • Morin, Jean Frederic
  • Pollitt, Hector
  • Hinojosa, Leonith
  • Williams, Michael

Commissioned by the European Commission, the Final Report for the EU-Canada Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts of trade liberalisation under CETA. The analysis assesses the economic, social and environmental impacts in Canada and the European Union in three main sectors, sixteen sub-sectors and across seven cross-cutting issues. It predicts a number of macro-economic and sector-specific impacts. The macro analysis suggests the EU may see increases in real GDP of 0.02-0.03% in the long-term from CETA, whereas Canada may see increases of 0.18-0.36%. The Investment section of the report suggests these numbers could be higher when factoring in investment increases. At the sectoral level, the study predicts the greatest gains in output and trade to be stimulated by services liberalisation and by the removal of tariffs applied on sensitive agricultural products. It also suggests CETA could have a positive social impact if it includes provisions on the ILO’s Core Labour Standards and Decent Work Agenda. The study also details a variety of impacts in various “cross-cutting” components of CETA. It finds CETA would stimulate investment in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the EU; and finds costs outweigh the benefits of including controversial NAFTA-style investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in CETA. It predicts potentially imbalanced benefits from a government procurement (GP) chapter. The study assumes CETA will lead to an upward harmonisation in intellectual property rights (IPR) regulations, particularly in Canada, which will have a number of effects. It predicts some notable impacts in terms of competition policy, as well as trade facilitation, free circulation of goods and labour mobility.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28812/1/MPRA_paper_28812.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 28812.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jun 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:28812
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Valérie Paris & Elizabeth Docteur, 2006. "Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies in Canada," OECD Health Working Papers 24, OECD Publishing.
  2. Egger, Peter & Pfaffermayr, Michael, 2004. "The impact of bilateral investment treaties on foreign direct investment," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 788-804, December.
  3. Burguet, Roberto & Sempere, Jaume, 2003. "Trade liberalization, environmental policy, and welfare," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 25-37, July.
  4. Evenett, Simon J & Hoekman, Bernard, 2003. "Government Procurement: Market Access, Transparency, and Multilateral Trade Rules," CEPR Discussion Papers 4109, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  5. Stephen S. Golub, 2003. "Measures of Restrictions on Inward Foreign Direct Investment for OECD Countries," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2003(1), pages 85-116.
  6. Lai, Edwin L. -C., 1998. "International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 133-153, February.
  7. Kirkpatrick, Colin & George, Clive & Scrieciu, Silviu Serban, 2004. "The Implications of Trade and Investment Liberalization for Sustainable Development: Review of Literature," Impact Assessment Research Centre (IARC) Working Papers 30576, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
  8. Aschhoff, Birgit & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2008. "Innovation on Demand: Can Public Procurement Drive Market Success of Innovations," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-052, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  9. Keith E. Maskus, 1990. "Normative Concerns in the International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 387-409, 09.
  10. Glass, Amy Jocelyn & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 387-410, March.
  11. Macmillan, Kathleen & Grady, Patrick, 2007. "A New Prescription: Can the BC-Alberta TILMA Resuscitate Internal Trade in Canada?," MPRA Paper 11485, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  12. Stephen S. Golub, 2003. "Measures Of Restrictions on Inward Foreign Direct Investment for OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 357, OECD Publishing.
  13. Keith Maskus, 1998. "The international regulation of intellectual property," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 134(2), pages 186-208, June.
  14. Lee, Jeong-Yeon & Mansfield, Edwin, 1996. "Intellectual Property Protection and U.S. Foreign Direct Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 181-86, May.
  15. Smith, Pamela J., 1999. "Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 151-177, June.
  16. Jansen, Marion & Piermartini, Roberta, 2005. "The Impact of Mode 4 Liberalization on Bilateral Trade Flows," CEPR Discussion Papers 5382, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  17. Molly Lesher & Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås, 2006. "Business Services, Trade and Costs," OECD Trade Policy Papers 46, OECD Publishing.
  18. Liebowitz, Stan J, 2006. "File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 1-28, April.
  19. Philippa Dee & Jyothi Gali, 2005. "The Trade and Investment Effects of Preferential Trading Arrangements," NBER Chapters, in: International Trade in East Asia, NBER-East Asia Seminar on Economics, Volume 14, pages 133-176 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  20. Bruce A. Blonigen & Miao Wang, 2004. "Inappropriate Pooling of Wealthy and Poor Countries in Empirical FDI Studies," Working Papers and Research 0903, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
  21. Falk, Martin & Wolfmayr, Yvonne, 2008. "Services and materials outsourcing to low-wage countries and employment: Empirical evidence from EU countries," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 38-52, March.
  22. Andrei A. Levchenko, 2004. "Institutional Quality and International Trade," IMF Working Papers 04/231, International Monetary Fund.
  23. Marcel Boyer, 2004. "Assessing the Economic Impact of Copyright Reform," CIRANO Project Reports 2004rp-01, CIRANO.
  24. Denis Audet, 2002. "Government procurement: A synthesis report," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 2(3), pages 149-194.
  25. Theodore H. Moran & Edward M. Graham & Magnus Blomstrom, 2005. "Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Development?," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 3810, December.
  26. Mohammed Rafiquzzaman, 2002. "The impact of patent rights on international trade: evidence from Canada," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 307-330, May.
  27. Emmanuel Combe & Etienne Pfister, 2001. "Le renforcement international des droits de propriete intellectuelle," Economie Internationale, CEPII research center, issue 85, pages 63-81.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:28812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.