{
  "id": "RL31072",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31072",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100492,
      "date": "2001-08-03",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:22:01.752941",
      "title": "Regional Trade Agreements: An Analysis of Trade-Related Impacts",
      "summary": "The 107th Congress is currently debating regional trade agreements (RTAs) from two important\nperspectives directly and in connection with granting the Administration trade negotiating\nauthority. The Congress is directly addressing RTAs via the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade agreement,\nwhich has been approved in the House and is under consideration in the Senate. Also, the Bush\nAdministration is negotiating agreements with Chile and Singapore that may be sent to Congress\nfor consideration. In addition, Congress is weighing whether to grant the Administration trade\npromotion authority (TPA), also know as fast-track authority. The Administration has indicated it\nwould use TPA to negotiate trade agreements at the multilateral level through the World Trade\nOrganization and RTAs at the regional and bilateral level. \n While economic analysts are in general agreement that multilateral trade agreements yield\nimproved social welfare, the picture is more clouded for RTAs. This report considers numerous\nfactors employed in judging RTAs. These factors include: distinctions between multilateral and\nregional trade agreements, the gains the United States can expect from entering regional trade\nagreements, and the impact of the recent flurry of RTA activity on U.S. interests.\n By allowing production to shift from domestic producers to lower cost foreign producers, RTAs\nand multilateral agreements may result in trade creation, but RTAs may also cause trade diversion\nas trade shifts from lower cost non-RTA members to higher cost members because of the tariff\npreference extended to members. The potential for trade diversion is greater when the trade barriers\nfacing non-RTA members are high. RTA opponents also argue that RTAs tend to exclude poor\nnations and distract attention from multilateral negotiations.\n Empirical analyses of RTA formation generally find the immediate economic impact on the\nUnited States to be small whether the United States is in the RTA or not. At the same time, the gains\nfor U.S. RTA partners are considerably larger. However, numerous analysts believe that the United\nStates solidifies foreign relationships and extends its influence over the trade agenda by forming\nRTAs, and the gains over an extended period are potentially much larger as the trade-restraining\nimpacts of national borders are reduced.\n Separate sets of RTAs involving the EU and Mexico appear to be causing the most concern for\nthe United States. EU trade with its RTA members (including intra-EU trade) is over three times\nU.S. trade with its RTA members, opening the possibility that it will become dominant in setting the\ntrade agenda. Mexico's trade agreements with the EU and numerous Latin American countries raise\na different concern. Mexico may be positioning itself as a trade hub with agreement members as\nspokes. This hub-and-spoke setup may encourage firms to locate in Mexico in order to have tariff-\nfree access to member countries. Additionally, U.S. firms have to compete with firms from the other\nMexican RTA countries for a share of the Mexican market.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31072",
          "sha1": "5a344b9239c63ec5281bbfcb08e495d1a6cbd4a1",
          "filename": "files/20010803_RL31072_5a344b9239c63ec5281bbfcb08e495d1a6cbd4a1.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010803_RL31072_5a344b9239c63ec5281bbfcb08e495d1a6cbd4a1.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}