An excellent post explaining the relevant doubts about the transpacific partnership. Regulatory harmonisation is not necessarily a good thing. Investor state dispute settlement are unnecessary between countries who are democracies.
Sykes is the go to guy on the international law and economics regulatory harmonisation. He argues that:
“…harmonization is inferior to a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognition where appropriate (the exception to this claim being matters of technical compatibility between products). Related, as a positive manner, harmonization will often lack any political constituency and thus instances of true harmonization will be rare.”
“The debate over ‘competition versus harmonization’ in regulatory policy often confuses the pertinent alternatives… neither pure regulatory competition nor complete regulatory harmonization is desirable or feasible where important international cross-border effects of regulation arise. Instead, a considerable degree of cooperation is almost always needed, yet non-homogeneity of regulatory policies is almost always desirable as well. This proposition holds virtually regardless of the subject matter of regulation.”
“Almost throughout the whole process of European integration, harmonisation of national laws and regulations was considered a matter of course.” There existed “a widespread prejudice … of assuming quite uncritically that a uniform legal system which covers a large area has a value on its own and that legal harmonisation will lead to the best possible system”
Tyler Cowen wrote last night. “Larry Summers on TPP makes perfect sense. I haven’t seen anything on the anti- side coming close to this level of analysis, and in a short column at that.”
I’ve been a bit ambivalent about TPP, so thought that I’d better read the Summers piece. My problem was that I came away more skeptical than I went in.
My own priors are pretty clear. Free trade is good – as a matter of liberty and as a means to greater prosperity. I’m sure one can find exceptions, but the rule is a pretty good one to live, and make policy, by.
But then Summers tells us that:
First, the era of agreements that achieve freer trade in the classic sense is essentially over. The world’s remaining tariff and quota barriers are small and, where present, less reflections of the triumph of protectionist interests and…
View original post 773 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments