NAFTA and TPP
Effects of the U.S. Withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP
at least 8 sources / we can use internet sources too (Articles from journals and articles ) i attached the instruction about research paper so you can refer to that. the space of paper isn’t double spacing , for this paper you have to use just 1.5 Microsoft word space. I am a international student so you don’t need to use some sophisticated and complicated words or sentences
Effects of the U.S. Withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP
The international community continues to promote global economic, political, and social integration and interaction through extensive free trade agreements. FTAs play a significant role in the promotion of trade liberalization across the globe as allowed under the WTO rules. Boskin (2014) defines an FTA as a treaty reached between two or more countries that involves the removal of trade barriers for the facilitation of enhanced trade and commercial interaction. The enforcement of any FTA comes with numerous benefits. According to Hu and Matthias (2014), these agreements allow free access to market and trade flows for the development of stronger relations between partners. FTAs eliminate tariffs and barriers that inhibit trade, encourage foreign direct investment, cooperation between governments, protection of intellectual property, and enhance procurement. Additionally, the finalization and enforcement of any FTA result in improved productivity, trigger economic growth, and innovation, and competitiveness (NAFTA, 2017). The different elements of an FTA promote economic integration, create effective trading opportunities, and play an important role in the promotion of livelihood by reducing poverty, unemployment, and enhancing labour. Different countries have entered into FTA and other pacts across the globe.
The North America Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership recently attracted global attention after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. The President signed the withdrawal of the US from TPP and plans renegotiation or withdrawal from NAFTA. Considering the objectives and impacts or possible influence of the agreements, the withdrawal from the accords will have multiple national and regional effects. The effects will impact the US, Canada, Mexico, and the other member states of TPP significantly. This essay offers an extensive discussion and analysis of the possible negative and positive effects of the withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
NAFTA is an agreement reached by the Mexican, Canadian, and United States governments in 1994. The implementation of the agreement over the years up to January 2008 ensures free trade between the three countries. It led to the elimination of numerous tariffs on products and services traded between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Its major objectives included the liberalization of trade, the improvement of market access for products and services, enhancement of foreign investment, improvement of accessibility to government procurement, intellectual property protection, and the creation of effective platforms for dispute-resolution (Mize, 2010). Additionally, the agreement considered the implementation of labour safeguards, environmental protection, and the liberalization of key markets and industries such as agriculture, automobile, and the textile industries. According to NAFTA (2017), the agreement has influenced trade policy and trade in among the countries significantly. It continues to reshape economic relations in North America, integrates the economies, and improves relations of the US, Canada, and Mexico greatly (NAFTA, 2017). However, the quest by the new US Administration to withdraw from the agreement has attracted different criticisms, support, and opposition in equal measure. The discussion of the negative and positive impacts of withdrawal from NAFTA offers insight into the matter.
The TTP is a trade agreement reached by the U.S., Australia, Canada, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico, Japan, and Peru on February 4, 2016, with the signing of the final proposal (Trans-Pacific Partnership, 2017). The agreement was formed for the promotion of economic growth and development by creating and retaining jobs, enhancing trade, innovation, improving production efficiency, and promoting social development. According to Schott, Kotschwar, and Muir (2012), the TPP agreement was supposed to improve livelihood in the member countries, reduce the levels of poverty, and ensure good governance, transparency, and labour liberalization. The achievement of these objectives was tied to the reduction of tariff barriers that hinder trade and create efficient mechanisms for the resolution of disputes between the members (Lim, 2012). However, the withdrawal of the US from the accord made its ratification difficult and its implementation almost impossible. Experts from different sectors and disciplines offer varying arguments on the negative and positive effects of the move. An extensive discussion of the TPP and its possible influence on the signatory countries shows the negative and positive effects of the pullout.
Positive and Negative Effects of the U.S. Withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP
Effects of Withdrawal from NAFTA
The debate surrounding the intended withdrawal of the US from NAFTA has led to differing argument on the possible impacts of the withdrawal. The withdrawal of the US will impact on the region’s ability to achieve the objectives of the agreement. For instance, whether on specific countries or the region as a whole, the withdrawal of the US will influence regional trade, market access, dispute resolution mechanisms, labour and environmental safeguards, and intellectual property protection among other elements highlighted in NAFTA (Mize, 2010). The impact on the elements outlined will affect regional economic integration and relations significantly. Moreover, the specific countries will experience varied positive and negative effects. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have benefited differently from the Agreement and, therefore, the effects may differ among countries. For instance, a positive impact on the US economy following the withdrawal may translate to a negative impact on either Mexico or Canada and vice versa (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2017). The analysis of the different arguments shows the possible positive and negative effects that will face the region and the specific countries. This section outlines and discusses the various possible positive and negative effects of the withdrawal of the U.S. from NAFTA.
The Council on Foreign Relations (2017) asserts that the U.S. may benefit from its withdrawal from NAFTA. NAFTA costs the U.S. jobs and, therefore, withdrawal will contribute substantially towards the creation and retention of jobs in the country. The withdrawal of the US will trigger the creation of employment for Americans by reducing the wage stagnation experienced since the implementation of the agreement (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). Mace (2009) asserts that most companies have moved their production to Mexico to lower their costs of production and ensure cost-effectiveness. The low-wage competition places the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to Mexico thus promoting the movement. The process leads to increased trade deficit which continues to rise over the years. According to Council on Foreign Relations (2017), the US-Mexico trade balance has in the recent past shot to $54 billion deficit in 2014 from a $1.7 billion US surplus before the agreement. The withdrawal of the US from NAFTA will reduce the deficit, retain manufacturing in the US, create jobs and boost the livelihood of Americans.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (2017), the US auto sector has lost approximately 350 000 jobs between 1994 and 2016. Proponents of the withdrawal link the loss of the jobs to NAFTA citing the continually rising percentage of jobs created in the same sector in Mexico. Employment in the sector has risen from 120 000 to over 550 000 since the creation of NAFTA. Withdrawing from the agreement will revive the auto industry in the US and trigger job creation. The lower costs of production in Mexico offer competition to the high costs in the US and Canada (Mize, 2010). As every company focuses on the improvement of cost-effectiveness, production efficiency, and profitability, the consideration of environments that favour the processes is important. Lower costs in Mexico ensure cost-effectiveness while the availability of labour promotes productivity. These aspects of production in Mexico make it difficult for Canada and the US to compete successfully to attract manufacturing industries (Mize, 2010). The withdrawal will reduce the challenge and create an enabling platform or environment for the sector to operate effectively.
However, numerous negative effects may arise upon the withdrawal of the U.S. from NAFTA. The three countries benefit significantly from the aspects of the agreement. The withdrawal of the U.S. will not only affect the country by the other member states as well. One of the major negative impacts will be decreased regional trade. The implementation of NAFTA led to increased market for products from the countries. According to NAFTA (2017), the U.S., for instance, benefits majorly from the Canadian and Mexican markets. The two countries offer the largest export markets to American SMEs, which impacts on the country’s economy. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017)states that the agreement has enabled trade with Mexico and Canada which supports more than 140, 000 small and medium enterprises. The withdrawal will impact severely on US SME operators costing the country revenue and affecting the citizens’ livelihood greatly. The effect will be greater on the economy of Mexico (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017).
According to Mace (2009), the withdrawal of the US from NAFTA will cause a considerable decrease in regional trade. The agreement caused a sharp increase in regional trade. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017) points out that it led to an increment of regional trade from approximately $290 billion before its formation in 1994 to an estimated $1.1 trillion by 2016. The increase influence regional economy and influences the socio-economic development of the three countries. Cross-border investment has also increased majorly over the years. The foreign direct investment stock of the U.S. in Mexico stands at more than $100 million from about $15 million in 1993. While this is the case, Mexico benefits even more from the agreement, which opened a great market for its exports. However, Council on Foreign Relations (2017) states that Canada benefits the least from the free trade agreement. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the agreement will impact greatly on trade and regional cross-border investment. The placement of business and operational tariffs and the withdrawal of the existing incentives will make cross-border operations costly thus reducing their profit efficiency.
The Agreement has played an immense role in enhancing free trade agreements between the North American countries and other nations around the globe. Mize (2010) asserts that withdrawal from NAFTA will influence the future of regional/bilateral FTAs significantly. The formation of NAFTA promoted global trade talks resulting in the creation of multiple FTAs. For instance, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. has entered into FTAs with more than twenty countries since the implementation of the NAFTA. In the recent past, the country has shown interest in forming other agreements with Asian and European countries for the enhancement of trade and the promotion of global relations. The withdrawal of the U.S. from NAFTA will shape the future of such relations and agreements significantly (Mace, 2009). It may cause the termination of some agreements and impact on global relations, free trade, environmental and labour relations, and economies negatively. The withdrawal holds great uncertainties concerning the future of US and other countries relations, global politics, and economies.
The withdrawal of the US from NAFTA will influence trade balance in the region significantly. The US benefits greatly from the NAFTA as it maintains trade surplus in most services and various types of goods. The withdrawal from the agreement will affect the balance and even trigger a development of a deficit in the future. NAFTA influences the competitiveness of American companies and SMEs by making imports and essential raw materials cheaper (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2017). The US depends mainly on imports from Mexico and Canada for production of goods and services (Burfisher, Robinson, & Thierfelder, 2001). Withdrawal from the FTA will cause an increase in prices of imports from the region thus increasing the cost of production of local products and services. The process will affect the country significantly given that more than 60 percent of imports from the member countries are used in production (NAFTA, 2017). Therefore, withdrawal will influence reduced cost-effectiveness and profit efficiency by increasing the costs of production.
The withdrawal of the US from the agreement will affect the economies of Canada and Mexico. The two countries benefit greatly from the enhanced trade and cross-border investment. NAFTA has resulted in tripled investments in Canada from the US and Mexico and the movement of many companies operations from the US and Canada to Mexico (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). This has led to the improvement of the economy of both countries. For instance, Canada’s FDI stock rose from $70 to $368 billion between 1993 and 2013 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). The trade liberalization in the region caused a rapid improvement in the trade between the countries. Income from Canada and Mexico’s exports has increased greatly over the years showing the great benefit of NAFTA (Mize, 2010). The withdrawal of the US will impact greatly on the economies by decreasing trade, exports due to possible reintroduction of tariffs, and increased production costs caused by an increase in the cost of major imports.
Further, the commitment by the NAFTA members for effective mechanisms for conflict resolution will be affected by the withdrawal of the US from the agreement. Some of the key objectives of NAFTA include protecting foreign investment, enabling market access, and protecting intellectual property (Burfisher, Robinson, & Thierfelder, 2001). The objectives may be affected significantly by the withdrawal of the US from the agreement. For instance, the accord led to the elimination of duties on numerous products and services in the region, reduction of tariffs, and the provision of various privileges for FDI in the three countries. Additionally, it established adequate platforms for dispute resolution that assist in solving differences between the countries. The withdrawal of the US will render the agreement will cause the reintroduction of duties and increment of tariffs impacting the North American relations greatly. Further, this will affect intellectual property rights enforcement causing serious disputes, and with reduced commitment towards the implementation of the dispute resolution mechanisms, lead to strained relations (NAFTA, 2017).
The withdrawal with impact on the textile and agriculture
sectors majorly. Since it came to effect, NAFTA has constantly influenced the
development of the agricultural and textile sectors in the US and Mexico. The
textile and apparel sectors in the US were declining before the implementation
of the agreement. Before the implementation of the agreement, the US had lost approximately
250 000 jobs between 1980 and 1990 in the textile industry and almost 500 000 apparel
employment (Burfisher, Robinson, &
As the sectors adopted better technologies and focused on innovation for
enhanced production efficiency, they continued to record a decline in jobs due
to lack of global competitiveness. However, the passage of NAFTA led to the
growth of the industries, especially the textile sector. Textile production
increased greatly the years after NAFTA came to effect due to increased
integration, reduced tariffs, and open markets for the products. The withdrawal
of the US from NAFTA will have debilitating implications, causing further
decline in employment, production, and exports from all the countries in the
region (Burfisher, Robinson, & Thierfelder,
Effects of the US Withdrawal from TPP
The TPP agreement was reached for the achievement of specific objectives that would have a positive impact on all the member countries. The major objectives of the agreement include the promotion of effective relations between the countries, the promotion of economic growth through enhanced economic integration, enhancement of innovation and productivity, creation of employment, reduction of poverty, and the promotion of competitiveness. The withdrawal of the US from the agreement will impact on its finalization and enforcement significantly. Most importantly, it will affect the US, its economy, and relations with the member countries (Cimino-Isaacs & Schott, 2016). The Trump administration termed the agreement a bad deal before signing to withdraw the country on Jan 23, 2016. Most arguments for the withdrawal considered the economic impact of the agreement on the US. This section discusses the positive and negative effects of the withdrawal. It considers the various arguments presented by people who supported the withdrawal and the critics of the move.
According to the James Hoffa, General President of Teamsters, withdrawing from the TPP was the right move for the US. Hoffa argues that the withdrawal is the first step towards the promotion of efficient and good trade policies that will ensure that the US benefits considerably from international agreements. The President asserts that the last 30 years comprise mainly of bad deals that continue to cost the US millions of highly-paying domestic employment opportunities (PR NEwswire, 2017). The withdrawal will set a ground for the improvement of trade and the creation of policies that benefit the country. In comparing the TPP agreement with CAFTA and NAFTA, Hoffa states that the end or renegotiation of such deals will prevent the movement of jobs to other countries in form of free trade deals. The renegotiation of the FTAs, as many other proponents of the withdrawal argue, will strengthen the economy of the US and attract and retain companies in the country. This process will create jobs, improve the economy, and the livelihood of Americans (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017).
The CEO of Ford Motor Company (Mark Fields) supported the withdrawal of the US from the TPP arguing that the move would promote the US auto industry and save the country form the inadequacy of the agreement in addressing currency manipulation. According to Leggett (2017), Fields offered the support of the automaker and stated that withdrawal from the deal would enhance manufacturing and production efficiency in the US, help improve the auto sector, which will warrant Americans jobs. Moreover, the CEO cited currency manipulation as an issue of great concern for the US and other member states in TPP. The inadequacy of the trade deal to address the issue attracted criticism from major business organizations, economists, and countries across the world. Failure to address the manipulation will make it difficult for the US to benefit from the deal since there are concerns that Pacific Rim countries such as China devalue their currencies to make their exports cheaper and undercut competitors. Withdrawing from the deal will ensure the US does not suffer from unfair competition from other countries in the agreement (Leggett, 2017).
The closure of US markets following the withdrawal from the agreement will affect China, its major competition, and improve the role of World Trade Organization. The role of the WTO in the enhancement of global trade through facilitation of trade negotiations, the implementation of trade deals, monitoring of the deals, and enabling dispute settlement among others will improve. According to Interfax (2017), the US will work actively towards the promotion of the WTO agenda thus strengthening the organizational role. The processes will enhance the economic influence of the US and trigger its growth and development. Most importantly, the closure of US markets will limit access by the China pushing it to identify other sales niches for its exports. The pursuance of protectionist policy by the US will, therefore, affect the economy of China significantly (Interfax, 2017). As a competitor, the US stands to gain economically and strategically from the withdrawal.
The US plays a major role in the promotion of global economic balance. Opponents of the withdrawal of the US from the TPP agreement assert that the move will impact on the country’s economy and that of the other member states in the long-term. John F. Kerry, for instance, defended the finalization of the TPP agreement terming it critical for the US and the member states (Westover, 2017). The major interest of the agreement should be the integration of the US economy with Asian and other economies. The positive influence of the economic, international relations, and social events in Asia through the agreement gives the US an advantage in promoting and influencing global economic balance and interaction. Some of the Pacific member countries have fast-growing economies and the integration of their economies with the US and other member countries would improve their economies, credibility, and security (Parameswaran, 2016). The withdrawal of the US from TPP will impact on its economy by denying it the chance to benefit from the objectives of the agreement.
The withdrawal of the US from the TPP agreement will affect it economically by denying the country the opportunity to influence the rules of trade of the 21st century. As different countries form free trade agreements and other integration and interaction pacts, the rules of engagement continue to change with changing trends. Parameswaran (2016) argues that the withdrawal of the US from TPP will prevent the country from benefitting from the agreement and changing the face of free trade agreements of the century. The agreement’s objectives of improvement of economies, reduction of poverty, and the enhancement of market access among others such as the creation of effective mechanisms for the resolution of disputes create an effective ground for integration. The TPP creates a ground for the attraction of new members giving the US a global economic and political advantage through the formation of other regional and global pacts (Parameswaran, 2016). Withdrawal from the accord denies the country the platform for the achievement of this competitiveness edge and limits its global influence.
The withdrawal of the US from the TPP will affect the country strategically. The influence of the US in the region and around the globe gives it political and economic bargaining power. The failure of TPP due to the country’s withdrawal from the agreement with raise doubts about the credibility of the US in the region. The withdrawal gives US global competitors such as China a competitive advantage in the Pacific-Asian region. The process undermines the ability of the US to compete effectively amid decreasing capability to strengthen its ties with the member states of the TPP. The agreement offers a platform for the improvement of foreign relations diversification and reforms critical for the interactions and integration among the member states (Schott, Kotschwar, & Muir, 2012). The US-Asia policy will appear unbalanced upon the withdrawal of the US from the TPP thus giving China, which maintains a stronger policy a competitive advantage in the region. As such, the US will remain disadvantaged in dealing with Asian countries.
Ana (2017) asserts that even without the US the TPP stands a chance of proceeding effectively. A possible scenario from China will be a rush to lead this significantly large trade deal of the 21st century. Such a scenario will place some of the US allies such as Japan, Canada, and Australia in tow. Additionally, the agreement includes some of the US largest trading partners who are focusing on the establishment of the trade agreement to ease and enhance operations in the Pacific Rim and North America. Withdrawal from the TPP gives China the chance of leading the establishment of the agreement or in case of its failure, the creation of the next agreement. As every country looks out for its interests, most of the member countries of TPP are not likely to ignore a deal that opens up operations in the various countries (Ana, 2017). Therefore, the US may end up losing competitiveness with its allies and across the Pacific Rim.
After the withdrawal of the US from TPP, China has continued to push for the completion of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific. The former is a negotiation among 16 Asian states while the latter considers 21 economies including China, Russia, the US, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, and Peru among others. The completion of these agreements will open up trade between the countries and enhance integration, economic development, innovation, and production. However, efforts by China to implement the deals present the country as an influence in the Pacific Rim and around the world. According to Ann (2017), the US discouraged the implementation of FTAAP and persuaded aspiring member countries to drop the agreement in support of the TPP. However, its withdrawal from the TPP places significant challenge in its implementation but gives China an opportunity to promote FTAAP and the RCEP. This process will weaken the strategic position and global influence of the US in comparison to China.
Most arguments for the withdrawal of the US from TPP are based on the idea that the deal will hurt the country by moving jobs overseas. Proponents of the move assert that it will further hurt the economic development of the country by influencing the movement of manufacturing companies to countries where production is cheaper compared to the US. By withdrawing, the country hopes to retain its jobs for the sake of its people. However, some proponents argue that the country stands to lose significantly. For example, Bergsten argues that the withdrawal will mean the US is left behind in other trade deals, which will impact negatively on US workers. Even when the large economy of the US remains attractive to other economies, countries will continue to forge trade agreements without the input of the country. The impact of trade diversion where the member countries may choose to buy goods from one another due to lower barriers or removal of tariffs might affect the US economy. The impact will affect the US economy by influencing American exports negatively and worsening the country’s trade deficit.
The TPP faces great challenges following the withdrawal of the US from the pact. According to Westover (2017), the agreement and its enforcement face uncertainties. Some of the member states such as Vietnam and Malaysia have raised concerns over the withdrawal of the US stating the inevitable collapse of the TPP. The inclusion of the US into the pact gave it global attention and attracted member countries to twelve from the initial four. That the US was holding great influence in the agreement shows the possibility of its collapse. However, the finalization and ratification of the pact without the US may proceed to ensure effectiveness in the achievement of the set objectives. Even without the US, the TPP member countries are likely to stick together and operate efficiently. The implementation of the pact, the reduction of tariffs, removal of trade barriers, enhancement of market access, and the creation of dispute resolution methods and platforms will allow improved economic growth, integration, reduction of poverty, and promotion of production efficiency, and social development among other key objectives of the TPP (Kennedy, 2014).
Free trade agreement influence global interaction and economic integration significantly. The FTAs serve a fundamental role in the promotion of free trade flows and the creation of strong ties between the trading partners. These agreements allow the reduction or elimination of tariffs and barriers that hinder the effective trade between the members of the pact. The reduction in tariffs or removal of trade barriers enhances the flow of products and services in the regions or countries engaged in the agreement. The process influences FDI and local investment significantly by enhancing cooperation, the protection of property rights and welfare of foreign and business investors from the member states, and the promotion of productivity. The achievement of increased economic integration, improved productivity, and removal of tariffs and barriers on multiple products and services improve economic growth. FTAs focus on the promotion of innovation, competitiveness, and the integration of innovation in operation boosts the economies of the country members. NAFTA and TPP are important agreements that continue to influence economic growth of the member countries.
However, the withdrawal of the US from the NAFTA and TPP poses various challenges. The major effects of the withdrawal are directly linked to the objectives of the FTAs. NAFTA includes the US, Mexico, and Canada while TPP comprised of twelve countries including the US (before withdrawal on January 23, 2017), Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Peru, New Zealand, and Australia. These FTAs have clearly defined objectives, which are affected greatly after the withdrawal of one country. The withdrawal of the US from NAFTA will influence its economic growth and the economies of Mexico and Canada considerably. The withdrawal will impact employment in the US and Mexico greatly. Proponents of the renegotiation of NAFTA or withdrawal argue that the move will help the US create and retain jobs for its citizenry while some feel that it will affect Mexico negatively. However, opponents argue that withdrawal of the US will cause decreased regional trade, lower GDP, increased input prices, lower productivity, less competition, and less commitment towards the protection of intellectual property and the FD investors among other negative effects as discussed. However, it may cause the development of the US auto, textile, and manufacturing sectors.
Withdrawing from the TPP will similarly trigger diverse effects. The move will place uncertainties over the agreement risking its collapse. Additionally, the withdrawal will result in reduced economic growth, decreased production efficiency, competitiveness, and less innovation. Further, the move will affect trade between the US and specific member countries due to the removal of tariffs and reintroduction of barriers to trade by the member countries against the US. The US will lose strategic credibility and global economic and political influence if its credibility is brought to question. The country will face significant challenges and competition from China, Japan, and other Asian-Pacific countries. If the US wants to retain the benefits of the withdrawal, the need for the formulation of and negotiation of bilateral FTAs that promise more or less the same benefits is undeniable.
Apart from the negative effects, withdrawal
from the TPP may influence the growth of the US economy by promoting the auto
sector and the manufacturing industry in general. Additionally, the US may
benefit from the withdrawal if the move influences the formulation of better
trade agreements. The creation of FTAs that observe the interests of the US in
the future will enhance trade, promote economic growth, innovation, and improve
the livelihood of Americans. Additionally, the withdrawal might improve the role
of the WTO in facilitating global trade agreements, integration, trade
negotiations, and dispute resolution. The discussion of the withdrawal of the
US from NAFTA and TPP shows greater negative effects as compared to the
positive. There is a need for the Trump Administration to consider renegotiation,
especially in NAFTA, to prevent the withdrawal. This move will ensure that the
country continues to benefit from the FTA, which has influenced the growth of
its economy significantly.
Ana, S. (2017). Hints about what Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP deal could set in motion. The Washington Post, 11.
Boskin, M. J. (2014). NAFTA at 20. New York: Hoover Institution Press.
Burfisher, M. E., Robinson, S., & Thierfelder, K. (2001). The impact of NAFTA on the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives (15) 1, 125-144.
Cimino-Isaacs, C., & Schott, J. J. (2016). TPP : an assessment. Washington,DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2017). NAFTA’s Economic Impact. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Hu, J., & Matthias, V. (2014). Regional cooperation and free trade agreements in Asia. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Interfax. (2017). Possible closure of U.S. markets will hit China foremost, withdrawal from TPP will raise role of WTO – Medvedkov. Russia & FSU General News, 1-1.
Kennedy, M. (2014). Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Two-Level Game. New York: GRIN Verlag.
Leggett, D. (2017). Ford backs Trump on TPP withdrawal. Aroq – Just-Auto.com (Global News) , 1.
Lim, C. L. (2012). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement : a ques tfor a twenty-first century trade agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mace, G. (2009). Regionalism and the state : NAFTA and foreign policy convergence. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Mize, R. L. (2010). Consuming mexican labor : from the bracero program to nafta, 1942-2009. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
NAFTA. (2017). North American Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved from North American Free Trade Agreement: http://www.naftanow.org/agreement/default_en.asp
Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2017). North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Retrieved from Office of the United States Trade Representative: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
Parameswaran, P. (2016, November 23). What Would US TPP Withdrawal Mean? Retrieved from The Diplomat: http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/what-would-us-tpp-withdrawal-mean/
PR NEwswire. (2017). Hoffa: Withdrawal From TPP The Right Choice For U.S. Trade Policy’,. PR Newswire US – Regional Business News, 1.
Schott, J. J., Kotschwar, B., & Muir, J. (2012). Understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute For International Economics.
Trans-Pacific Partnership. (2017). Trans-Pacific Partnership. Retrieved from Trans-Pacific Partnership: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/
Westover, J. H. (2017, January 26). The consequences of withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-consequences-of-withdrawal-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2017/01/26/5d9634ea-e353-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.6d6d0c888384