Why are Bilateral Trade Agreements so Popular, and Does it Matter?
On 15 August 2004, Mongolia signed a trade and investment framework agreement (TIFA) with the United States (US), a precursor to a bilateral trade agreement (BTA). Prior to this, Mongolia was the only country that had not signed either a TIFA or a BTA with another country, or had not joined a regional or plurilateral trade agreement (PTA). Every other country in the world today is a member of at least one BTA, and most are members of multiple BTAs.1 If PTAs were considered the main threat to the world trade system in the 1990s, the concern has since shifted toward BTAs. BTAs have been proliferating at an astounding pace recently.
KeywordsEuropean Union Fair Trade World Trade Organization Free Trade Agreement North American Free Trade Agreement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baldwin, Richard E. 1996. “A Domino Theory of Regionalism.” In Richard E. Baldwin, P. Haaparanta, and J. Kiander (eds.), Expanding Membership of the EU. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- —. 2006a. “Managing the Noodle Bowl: The Fragility of East Asian Regionalism.” CEPR Discussion Paper 5561. London: CEPR.Google Scholar
- Bhagwati, Jagdish N. 2003. “The Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements.” Testimony before US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, 1 April.Google Scholar
- —. 2005. “From Seattle to Hong Kong.” Foreign Affairs 84/7, (WTO Special Edition). December.Google Scholar
- —. 2006. “Why Asia Must Opt for Open Regionalism on Trade.” The Financial Times. 3 November.Google Scholar
- Feridhanusetyawan, Tubagus. 2005. “Preferential Trading Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region.” IMF Working Paper 149. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- FTA Watch 2006. “Overview of Bilateral Free Trade and Investment Agreements.” Background paper prepared for the Fighting FTAs workshop, Bangkok, 27–29 July.Google Scholar
- Grether, Jean-Marie and Marcelo Olarreaga. 1998. “Preferential and Non-preferential Trade Flows in World Trade,.” Staff Working Paper ERAD-98–10. WTO, Geneva.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, Peter. 2002. New Regionalism and New Bilateralism in the Asia-Pacific. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
- Menon, Jayant. 1996. Adjusting towards AFTA: The Dynamics of Trade in ASEAN. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
- —. 2005. “Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks: Regional Cooperation Arrangements in Southeast Asia.” Discussion Paper 41. Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo.Google Scholar
- Min Gyo Koo. 2006. “From Multilateralism to Bilateralism. A Shift in South Korea’s Trade Strategy?” In Vinod K. Agrawal and Shujiro Urata (eds.), Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific. London: Routledge, 140–59.Google Scholar
- Panagariya, A. 1999. “The Regionalism Debate: An Overview.” World Economy 22:477–511.Google Scholar
- Ravenhill, John 2006. “The Political Economy of the New Asia-Pacific Bilateralism: Benign, Banal, or Simply Bad?” In Vinod K. Agrawal and Shujiro Urata (eds.), Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific. London: Routledge, 27–49.Google Scholar
- Scollay, R. and J. P. Gilbert. 2001. “New Regional Trading Arrangements in the Asia Pacific?” Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Tonelson, Alan. 2002. “There’s Only So Much That Foreign Trade Can Do.” Washington Post. 2 June.Google Scholar
- Tumbarello, Patrizia. 2005. “Regional Trade Integration and WTO Accession: Which Is the Right Sequencing? An Application to the CIS.” IMF Working Paper WP/05/94. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Reference to Commentary
- World Bank. 2005. Global Economic Prospects: Trade, Regionalism and Development. Washington, DC.Google Scholar