The Pros And Cons Of The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Just one year ago, the 2016 United States Presidential Election was the focus of every news source and article. The primary candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, openly denounced each other’s stance on many different economic and social policies. They did concur on one issue, however, as both candidates openly denounced the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would have been the most progressive trade deal for the United States in years, and was fully endorsed by the Obama administration. In addition to the United States, TPP would have been a multilateral trade deal between eleven other countries including Canada, Mexico, and several others in the Asia-Pacific region.

After five years of negotiations

This decision drastically impacts many U.S. industries, and this has already become apparent in the agricultural economy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership offered benefits to many different agricultural sectors. According to a detailed benefits report by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, the TPP enabled free market access for certain agricultural products by reducing many agricultural export tariffs like the elimination of a 10% tariff on U.S. cotton exported into Vietnam or the 90% reduction in Japan’s gate price for pork products. As a part of the massive trade deal, all countries would have been forced to eliminate export subsidies on all agricultural goods sold in TPP partner countries. Furthermore, the American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that annual net farm income could have increased by $4.4 billion and direct U.S. agricultural exports would have increased by approximately six percent or $5.3 billion per year (American Farm Bureau). The trade deal would have additionally been very critical in the development of foreign food safety laws according to many of its provisions. Although the U.S. food safety laws would not have changed under TPP, the deal “does work to ensure that foreign partners develop and implement food safety standards in a transparent way, using science-based criteria – as we do in the U.S”

departure from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was disadvantageous for many aspects of the U.S. economy, the impact on global trade is far more substantial. In fact, the absence of the massive U.S. market has created problems in the standards, rules, and regulations of the original TPP agreement. Accordingly, the eleven other countries have insisted on renegotiating the rules and potentially lowering the standards, which could make it more difficult for later U.S. reentry into the agreement. According to Deputy Secretary of Commerce to the Obama administration, Bruce Andrews, this is especially critical to the global economy, because “If TPP had gone into force, the Chinese, by necessity, would eventually have wanted to be part of it to enjoy its benefits…China would have to do some serious economic reform and open their market from their current closed state” (Rich). Mr. Andrews’ point is very daunting when one considers his observation that if TPP does not progress as a trade model for this region, China will likely receive better terms from other countries without having to open its