Thread by @AnnaJerzewska

This week, @davidallengreen's question of whether an FTA was worthwhile got me thinking of how FTAs have changed over time.

A🧵with a lot of questions and very few answers.

/1

Back in the day (15/20/25 y ago) such questions were rarely asked.
The interpretation of “substantially all trade” was the name of the game and Singapore issues (gov procrm, TF, investment and competition) were still optional and not something that was included in all FTAs.

/2

The debate focused on Bhagwati’s stepping stones, @BaldwinRE's tit-for-tat or home magnification effect.

Questions on “fairness”, if at all asked, were mostly limited to tariffs. But there was also less of an expectation that FTAs would be fair/worthwhile for both sides.

/3

Over time FTAs started to cover other issues: standards, SMEs, gender, sustainable development etc.

Then ISDS blew up and for the first time, non-market access FTA provisions were in the spotlight to such an extent.

/4

I think ISDS plus some of the proposed FTAs (TTIP but also TPP in the Asia-Pacific region) were the turning point.

Ppl started paying attention to what they said; what they meant for workers and standards, what they meant for IP and patents.

/5

And as the scrutiny of FTAs increased, our expectations of what should be included and what these treaties should do, grew as well.

This weeks’ questions over climate change provisions in the UK-Australia deal are a good example.

/6

There is a tendency to try to include other issues in trade deals and this leads to a number of broader questions:

✅Is it possible and should/can it be done in a binding way rather than the non-committal, best endeavours language?

/7

✅ Are FTAs the best way to do this vs various multilateral groupings?

✅ Is there really enough appetite to expand the scope from market-access focused deals to something more in a meaningful way?

/8

✅ And what does that mean for the FTAs already in place and the possibility of a wider shift?

/9

Basically, to what extent can we expect FTAs to deliver results they were not designed to deliver?
Constant disappointment (issue of language, enforcement, dispute resolution etc) or is there a potential for a meaningful shift and would that make a difference?

/10

So there is an issue of the allegedly dropped climate targets under the UK-Australia deal which to me is still about trade-off and the dynamics of negotiating a trade deal (e.g. quick vs well). And there are these broader questions that I think are incredibly interesting.

/11

The ongoing question of how FTAs are evolving at a time where the traditional multilateral fora are preoccupied with their own identity crisis.

Personally, I see more resistance than interest.

/end