States Free Trade Agreement Research Articles

Welfare Analysis of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement: The Cotton Textile and Apparel Industries

This article studies the effects of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (US-CAFTA-DR) on the world fiber market using a partial equilibrium modeling approach. We find the effect of the agreement on the U.S. cotton yarn and Caribbean cotton apparel industries to be positive while the U.S. cotton apparel industry suffers significant losses. Cotton apparel producers in the Caribbean region gain approximately $80 million under US-CAFTA-DR while gains by the U.S. yarn industry average about $120 million over current trade arrangements. The U.S. cotton apparel industry loses about $40 million per year under US-CAFTA-DR.

Australian Pharmaceutical Policy: Price Control, Equity, and Drug Innovation in Australia

This paper outlines the increasing salience of drug "innovation" in the debate for reform of Australia's pharmaceutical policy, particularly change to Australia's price control mechanisms. The pharmaceutical industry has consistently criticised the central role of price control in Australia's pharmaceutical regulatory regime as an impediment to drug innovation and industry growth. Despite ambivalent or contrary evidence on the impact of price control on drug innovation, this criticism, and the appeals for reform it supports, appear to be increasingly influential in directing pharmaceutical policy. This is particularly evident in the implementation of the Australia/United States Free Trade Agreement, which has led to a weakening of the historical process of evidence-based reference pricing in Australia. Should drug innovation come to dominate Australian pharmaceutical policy, there is the potential to precipitate a devaluing of the current public orientation of regulation and diminish equitable access to affordable pharmaceuticals. The manner in which trade policy has effectively undermined a publicly funded pharmaceutical benefits scheme has clear implications for many countries that maintain such programmes.

Korean National Identity and the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement

이 논문은 한미 자유무역협정을 기존의 정치경제학적 시각보다는 정체성의 정치라는 차원에서 조망해 보려는 연구이다. 특히 한국의 민족 정체성과 한ㆍ미 자유무역협정의 상호 관계를 분석하기 위하여 우선 논의가 전개되는 이념적 지형을 자유무역/중상주의, 자유무역협정에 대한 찬반, 미국에 대한 태도라는 세 가지 기준을 중심으로 나누어 살펴보고, 그 다음은 다양한 정치 사회 세력의 담론을‘세계화 시대의 선진화’를 주장하는 찬성세력과‘미국화와 국권 상실’을 우려하는 반대세력으로 나누어 각각 분석해 보았다. 이 연구에서 확인하고 도출해 낼 수 있는 결론은 한ㆍ미 자유무역협정에 대한 찬반 논의에서 결정적인 대립 구도는 수혜 집단과 피해 집단의 대립이나 보호주의/자유무역의 이익의 대립, 또는 자유무역협정 체결과 관련된 정책 수단의 대립 보다는 미국이라는 협정 대상을 중심으로한 정체성의 대립이 핵심이었다는 점이다. 향후 다른 대상과의 협정 추진은 이러한 정체성 변수의 중요성을 검토할 수 있는 기회가 될 것이다.

TRIPS‐Plus Implications for Access to Medicines in Developing Countries: Lessons from Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement

Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and implementation of the Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as a result, the United States (US) sought to impose still higher levels of intellectual property rights on developing countries, a phenomenon that is commonly known today as TRIPS‐Plus. The Jordan–US FTA, signed in 2001, contains several TRIPS‐Plus rules that restrict the poor's access to medicines, and is today touted by US officials and the US Trade Representative (USTR) as a success, and providing a wide range of benefits. These benefits not only include a higher growth rate, but also more specific benefits to the pharmaceutical sector in particular, such as an improved ability to develop generic medicine and engage in new innovative research, as well as increasing the presence of and collaboration with multinational drug makers. This article analyzes in detail the TRIPS‐Plus provisions of the Jordan–US FTA. It challenges the claims that the FTA brings general and specific benefits to developing countries, and provides fresh evidence which strongly suggests that benefits from the Jordan–US FTA have been largely exaggerated while the costs underestimated.

United States and South Korea Sign Major Free Trade Agreement; Prospects Uncertain

United States and South Korea Sign Major Free Trade Agreement; Prospects Uncertain

Trading for National Security? United States Free Trade Agreement in the Middle East and North Africa

Free trade and customs union agreements are the rage. Hundreds of bilateral and regional free trade agreements have been notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which in theory regulates them under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).1 For example, free trade fever has reached such partners as Chile-China, Japan-Mexico, Canada-Costa Rica, Mexico-European Union, and New Zealand-Singapore. This contagion is a relatively recent phenomenon, one which poses systemic risk to the WTO.2 Far more than elsewhere in the world, United States free trade agreements in the Middle East and North Africa pursue economic policies in a seething political cauldron. This environment has led to a distinct friend or foe approach to a region most notable for its subtleties. This article commences with an analysis of free trade with a hard-core ally, Israel. It progresses to free trade with less obvious U.S. allies, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and Oman. The United Arab Emirates, with which U.S. free trade negotiations are in progress, is then reviewed as a problematic case study. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other key players in the Middle East and North Africa are woven into the analysis. Various themes permeate this article: The use by the United States of bilateral trade and investment treaties and WTO membership as prerequisites to free trade, links between U.S. free trade agreements and Middle Eastern oil and politics, the future of the Bush Administration's Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) initiative, and the premise that national security can be enhanced and terrorism can be fought through trade. Analysis of these themes is comparative, with particular reference to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and WTO law.

Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?

Amendments to the National Health Act 1953 (Cwlth) were legislated by the Australian federal government in 2007 with minimal public debate. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Act 2007 includes several changes that will limit reference pricing under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Here, I argue that these amendments were influenced by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) particularly the Medicines Working Group established under Annex 2C of that agreement. I make the case that such amendments could have adverse consequences, involving the erosion of scientific objectivity and equity in PBS processes. One concern is that the amendments might lead to policy choice being delegated to technical experts in finance, or working groups with private interests, rather than being made part of a systematic public debate about the kind of health care system all Australians want to have, and the trade-offs they are prepared to make against strategic objectives of trade or international public policy.

Advance Australia Fair? The Copyright Reform Process

Since the start of the millennium, the Australian federal government has engaged in repeated reforms of the nation's copyright laws as part of a broader response to the national and international challenges created by the advent of the internet and the wider digital revolution. This reform process has at times been both chaotic and confusing. Substantial amendments enacted in only 2001 to bring Australian copyright law into the digital age were changed substantially in response to the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) of 2004. Concurrent to meeting the obligations created by the AUSFTA, the Australian government also conducted several reviews with a view to introducing new user‐based exceptions to copyright infringement in an attempt to balance Australia's increasingly copyright‐owner‐focused legislation. These changes were enacted as part of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth). However, any benefit that these new exceptions created for copyright users and consumers has arguably been outweighed by the implementation of stronger technological protection measures and digital rights management protection and criminal sanctions that have been accompanied by few exceptions for legitimate use. Now, at the end of an often rushed and inadequately debated reform process, few parties are expressing satisfaction with the resulting amendments.

New PBS Reforms—PBS Saviour but at what Cost to Hospitals?

Journal of Pharmacy Practice and ResearchVolume 37, Issue 2 p. 93-94 EditorialFree Access New PBS Reforms—PBS Saviour but at what Cost to Hospitals? Sue Kirsa BPharm, GradDipHospPharm, Corresponding Author Sue Kirsa BPharm, GradDipHospPharm President, SHPA Federal Council, and Director of Pharmacy [email protected] Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, Vic., 3002Search for more papers by this author Sue Kirsa BPharm, GradDipHospPharm, Corresponding Author Sue Kirsa BPharm, GradDipHospPharm President, SHPA Federal Council, and Director of Pharmacy [email protected] Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, Vic., 3002Search for more papers by this author First published: 13 April 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2055-2335.2007.tb00025.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References 1 Fact Sheet: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Reform. Available from <www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/24693658DD49E286CA2572750081DB74/$File/PBS%20Reform%202Feb07.pdf>. 2 Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council. National guidelines to achieve the continuum of quality use of medicines between hospital and community. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services; 1998. 3Harvey KJ, Harris AH, Bulfone L. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007: reform or fracture [editorial]? eMJA Rapid Online Publication; 13 June 2007. 4Faunce TA. Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [viewpoint]? eMJA Rapid Online Publication; 13 June 2007. Volume37, Issue2June 2007Pages 93-94 ReferencesRelatedInformation

What Should be Prepared for the Mutual Accreditation for Medical Health Licenses When Korea Opens to Physicians and Dentists from the Rest of the World

What Should be Prepared for the Mutual Accreditation for Medical Health Licenses When Korea Opens to Physicians and Dentists from the Rest of the World

Potential impact of AUSFTA on Australiaˈs blood supply

• Australia is largely self-sufficient in its supply of safe, fresh blood products because of the goodwill of non-remunerated, volunteer donors, plus rigorous testing and processing standards. • CSL Limited is the sole provider of plasma fractionation services in Australia, enjoying exclusive rights under the Plasma Fractionation Agreement with the Australian Government. • In the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), Australia agreed to review its current contract with CSL Limited, and to recommend to the states and territories that the process be opened up to overseas tender. • Overseas tenders for off-shore fractionation services are likely to be highly competitive due to their low manufacturing costs and accumulated expertise. • Off-shore fractionation could compromise the safety of Australia's blood supply through delays in processing and transportation, issues related to quality control, and even the siphoning of stock to overseas markets. This could compromise the long-term care of Australian patients and create a serious national security risk in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. • Australia's AUSFTA obligation to recommend changes does not equate to an obligation to actually proceed. The states and territories should carefully consider whether such changes would be in our national interest. • The long-term security of the Australian people in the current security environment is dependent on continuance of an onshore fractionation plant and appropriate back-up facilities.

The assessment of pharmaceuticals for government subsidy in Australia: recent developments

SUMMARYAustralia has a well-developed system for the appraisal of pharmaceuticals and other health technologies. In January 1993, Australia was the world leader with mandatory economic evaluations for the government to consider subsidising pharmaceuticals on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. At the end of 2006, the Guidelines to sponsors underwent substantial revisions. In addition, other fundamental changes have recently occurred that present new challenges to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC); these include the requirement for greater transparency of the PBAC process and appraisals following the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, and the appraisal of vaccines by the PBAC.This editorial describes some recent developments and their key features in the appraisal of pharmaceuticals in Australia. The PBAC standards and technical requirements seem to have lost ground on the world stage. For example, the lack of a reference case and absence of probabilistic sensitivity analysis requirements have hindered the ability to make judgements on the relative value for money of new pharmaceuticals. Thus, the guidelines do not go far enough to advance standards for best practice. A better approach may have been to specify an objective list of criteria for judging the quality of submissions. Nevertheless, this latest (2006) revision to the PBAC guidelines is a highly useful and comprehensive guide on health technology assessment.

Australian Wine Exports and the AUSFTA

Abstarct Using data from the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, this paper explores the potential effect of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) on Australian wine exports to the United States. Specifically, it examines the relationship between the Australian–US real exchange rate, and wine sales of nine different categories of Australian wine exports between 1990 and 2004. The analysis indicates that sales of mid-valued red wine, white wine and sparkling wines are more sensitive to changes in price than other types of wine. This suggests that AUSFTA is likely to generate a larger proportional impact on sales of these wines than other varieties.

Intellectual Property Rights: Governing Cultural and Educational Futures

This article uses Nikolas Rose's theory of governmentality to examine ways in which intellectual property is imbricated in a broad spectrum of globalised and globalising discourses. Using the 2004 Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement as a case in point, it shows how discourses of culture, trade, foreign policy, and security intersect and potentially restrict access to cultural knowledge and textual resources for young people and educators.

The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement: An economic evaluation

A bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Australia and the United States came into effect on 1st January 2005. Since the U.S. is one of the main trading partners for Australia, it was anticipated that the FTA would bring a substantial increase in Australia's bilateral trade with the United States. It would also have important implications for Australia's other main trading partners such as Japan, and China. This paper seeks to provide a quantitative assessment of the impact of the FTA by undertaking simulations using the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model. By simulating the GTAP multi-country CGE model, the paper evaluates various economy-wide effects, sectoral level effects, and trade diversion and trade creation effects in the two countries in response to bilateral free trade. It will also identify the effects on trading partners outside the FTA. The results will provide a preliminary indication of the magnitude of welfare gains involved.

Free trade in mad cows: how to kill a beef industry

Australia is the world's second largest beef exporter, dominating the highest value beef markets of Japan and Korea. Australia's competitiveness is underpinned primarily by its freedom from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)—better known as ‘Mad Cow’ disease—thanks to strict animal feeding and importation regulations adopted in 1966. Why then would the Australian beef industry appear to agree to soften prohibitions on beef imports from BSE-affected countries, which would have the effect of opening Australia to BSE and potentially destroying its BSE-free status, along with its prime Asian markets? Our analysis begins with commitments that appear to have been made under the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement. If our interpretation is correct, these commitments would compel Australia to accommodate US trade goals by recognising and adopting the weaker international standards on meat trade. To understand why the US would want Australia to abandon its stringent BSE safeguards, we consider wider US policy on BSE and beef exports, and its strategy for re-entering the valuable Japanese and Korean markets. To explain why the Australian beef industry might allow its interests to be sacrificed to serve US trade goals, we examine institutional and ownership features of the industry. Government pre-emption or ‘capture’, we suggest, explains industry subservience. The apparent willingness of the Australian government to sideline its country's economic interests in order to serve those of a foreign power raises the question of Australian exceptionalism.

The Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Authority: Potential AUSFTA Impacts on Safety and Cost-Effectiveness Regulation for Medicines and Medical Devices in New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand have agreed in principle to the creation of a single agency for the regulation of pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic products in a trans-Tasman market. The Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority (ANZTPA) is being developed to replace both the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe). This article explores the possibility that the ANZTPA, by inheriting significant obligations imposed on the TGA under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), may significantly impact upon the regulation of medicines and medical devices (as well as blood products) in New Zealand. It explores the related legal obligations and their likely consequences for New Zealand: particularly quality, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness evaluation processes in this area, such as those of the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (Pharmac).

Potential impact of AUSFTA on Australia's blood supply

Australia is largely self-sufficient in its supply of safe, fresh blood products because of the goodwill of non-remunerated, volunteer donors, plus rigorous testing and processing standards. CSL Limited is the sole provider of plasma fractionation services in Australia, enjoying exclusive rights under the Plasma Fractionation Agreement with the Australian Government. In the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), Australia agreed to review its current contract with CSL Limited, and to recommend to the states and territories that the process be opened up to overseas tender. Overseas tenders for off-shore fractionation services are likely to be highly competitive due to their low manufacturing costs and accumulated expertise. Off-shore fractionation could compromise the safety of Australia's blood supply through delays in processing and transportation, issues related to quality control, and even the siphoning of stock to overseas markets. This could compromise the long-term care of Australian patients and create a serious national security risk in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Australia's AUSFTA obligation to recommend changes does not equate to an obligation to actually proceed. The states and territories should carefully consider whether such changes would be in our national interest. The long-term security of the Australian people in the current security environment is dependent on continuance of an on-shore fractionation plant and appropriate back-up facilities.

Robbery under arms: Copyright law and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement

This article considers the radical, sweeping changes to Australian copyright law wrought by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 (AUSFTA). It contends that the agreement will result in a “piracy of the public domain”. Under this new regime, copyright owners will be able to obtain greater monopoly profits at the expense of Australian consumers, libraries and research institutions, as well as intermediaries, such as Internet service providers. Part One observes that the copyright term extension in Australia to life of the author plus 70 years for works will have a negative economic and cultural impact — with Australia’s net royalty payments estimated to be up to $88 million higher per year. Part Two argues that the adoption of stronger protection of technological protection measures modelled upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (U.S.) will override domestic policy–making processes, such as the Phillips Fox Digital Agenda Review, and judicial pronouncements such as the Stevens v Sony litigation. Part Three questions whether the new safe harbours protection for Internet service providers will adversely affect the sale of Telstra. This article concludes that there is a need for judicial restraint in interpreting the AUSFTA. There is an urgent call for the Federal Government to pass ameliorating reforms — such as an open–ended defence of fair use and a mechanism for orphan works. There is a need for caution in negotiating future bilateral trade agreements — lest the multinational system for the protection of copyright law be undermined.

Special Interest Groups and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement

In the political economy model of Grossman and Helpman (1995), two incumbent governments attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA), while special interest groups in each country influence negotiations by offering financial contributions to their governments. As a consequence, a set of politically sensitive industries is excluded from the proposed FTA. Using the empirical methodology of Gawande, Sanguinetti, and Bohara (2001), this paper shows that the Grossman-Helpman (1995) model successfully predicts the set of excluded industries for the recently implemented Australia-United States FTA. It is also shown that the set of exclusions favours Australian interest groups, which could indicate that the gains from the FTA are lower for the government of Australia than for the government of the United States.