The Pacific Trade Pact Is Big, but Is It a Huge Deal?

Thursday, 09 January 2014 00:00 By Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed
  • font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size
  • Print
  • Email

Shoppers purchasing goods at a mall in the Ngee Ann City commercial center in Singapore in September. (Photo: Edwin Koo for The New York Times) Shoppers purchasing goods at a mall in the Ngee Ann City commercial center in Singapore in September. (Photo: Edwin Koo for The New York Times)

I've been getting a fair bit of correspondence from readers wondering why I have not written about the negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which many regard as something both immense and sinister. The reason: I have been having a hard time figuring out why this deal is especially important. The usual rhetoric - from supporters and opponents alike - stresses the total size of the economies involved: hundreds of millions of people! Forty percent of global output!

But that tells you nothing much. After all, the Iceland-China free trade agreement, which was signed earlier this year, created a free-trade zone with 1.36 billion people. But only 300,000 of those people live in Iceland, and nobody considers the agreement a big deal.

The talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't that silly. But my starting point for things like this is that most conventional barriers to trade - tariffs, import quotas and so on - are already quite low, so it's hard to get big effects by lowering them further.

The deal currently being negotiated involves only 12 countries, several of which already have free-trade agreements with each other in place. It's roughly, though not exactly, the "TPP11" scenario analyzed last year by the researchers Peter Petri, Michael Plummer and Fan Zhai. They are pro-T.P.P., and in general pro-liberalization, yet they can't produce big estimates of gains from that scenario - only around 0.1 percent of gross domestic product. And that's with a model that includes a lot of nonstandard effects.

(An aside: One little-known aspect of the literature on trade liberalization is that to get any kind of large effect, it's necessary to drop the assumption that markets are highly competitive and efficient, and assume instead that there are large inefficiencies that will be reduced as a result of international competition. This was the case when people claimed large gains in 1992 for Europe, and it's the case for the Trans-Pacific Partnership now. I'm not saying that this is wrong - the Melitz Model, in which inefficient firms don't get driven out unless there's increased external pressure, is a beautiful thing. But it's sort of dissonant with the overall pro-market feel of this stuff. Oh, and 1992 was kind of a disappointment, wasn't it?)

As I read it, to make the Trans-Pacific Partnership into something really important, you have to (a) bring China inside, which isn't on the table right now and (b) produce evidence of major effects on foreign direct investment. To be fair, the North American Free Trade Agreement seems to have had effect (b) - but NAFTA changed the political environment in Mexico in a way that the Trans-Pacific Partnership probably won't. O.K., I don't want to be dismissive. But so far, I haven't seen anything to justify the hype, positive or negative.

© 2014 The New York Times Company
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).
Copyright 2014 The New York Times.

Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus