tip off

Sorry, but free trade agreements are duds, no matter how ‘nuanced’

Bilateral free trade agreements like the one negotiated with Japan deliver few benefits. The only worthwhile trade reform is unilateral tariff reductions. Don’t hold your breath for that.

Remember the Australia-US free trade agreement? That FTA obsessed the political class in Canberra for much of 2004, with the Howard government and News Corporation outlets desperate to use it to wedge Labor leader Mark Latham, and considerable focus on how much benefit it delivered to Australian farmers.

Back in 2010, to the considerable dismay of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Productivity Commission looked at the value of bilateral FTAs, including the AUSFTA (we’ll use the term “free trade agreement”, however much it’s a misnomer). Despite extensive work of its own, and consideration of the work of economists in Australia and internationally, the PC was unable to find anything beyond potential “small” benefits from FTAs, albeit offset by “material” negotiating costs to government. It concluded about trade in goods:

Despite the potential for increased bilateral trade flows, once account is taken of the offsetting effects of trade creation and trade diversion and the resource allocation effects associated with changes in trade, the resulting changes in economic activity and income are likely to be small.”

And there had been “limited success” in using opportunities for freer trade in services under AUSFTA, it found. Benefits from liberalisation of investment rules had been “modest”. Other outcomes in areas like regulation had been “mixed” — indeed, the intellectual property components of the AUSFTA was a net cost to Australia. The PC found:

The changes following the AUSFTA have make it less likely that an appropriate balance between supplier and user interests prevails in Australia’s intellectual property system.”

Of course, it was too early to tell if some benefits would accrue from the AUSFTA — we’re still, 10 years in, another eight years away from the end of US tariffs for Australian beef. US negotiators ensured that, basically, half a generation of US beef farmers would die before they had to compete with Australian beef.

Still, the AUSFTA is a splendid example of the howling gulf between political journalists, who see FTAs, particularly those announced with elaborate theatre and plenty of colour and movement in foreign capitals, as significant events, and economists, who see little of interest in what at best are trade diversion agreements.

And ultimately the real issue about FTAs isn’t whether Australia got a “good deal” or not, or how long the Japanese take to reduce their beef tariffs. As the PC patiently explained in its report, the best trade reform one can undertake is unilateral — dump your own tariffs regardless of what other countries do, because the benefits of reducing tariffs are mainly domestic, rather than flowing to foreign exporters …

It also dismisses what it calls the “bargaining coin” theory, that we should hold off on tariff reductions until we can negotiate their reduction in exchange for other countries reducing theirs, noting that simply delays giving ourselves the benefits of unilateral tariff reductions. “Free trade agreements” are basically a deal to stop punching yourself in the face so much if the other guy agrees to  hit himself less.

At least the FTA with Japan will include removal of the remaining tariffs on new motor vehicles from Japan, although manufacturers are already hemming and hawing about passing on the cut to consumers. Seemingly left intact, however, is the absurd punitive tariff on imported second-hand cars, which continues to punish Australian consumers by depriving us of the sort of second-hand import market that New Zealand consumers enjoy.

And free trade agreements are often sold by both governments and the political media as a great example of the close relationship between the respective leaders. The AUSFTA was hailed at the time as a political masterstroke by John Howard and a demonstration of his close relationship with George W. Bush, forged in the heat of the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq. So, too, with this one: political journalists have overnight been regaling us with stories of how the two conservative prime ministers, Abbott and Abe, “nuanced” the final details over a “private dinner”, although in the same breath they report the deal had been struck before the leaders sat down to their sushi.

These days the AUSFTA is barely remembered, except as an example of the need to avoid bowing to US demands on intellectual property. The Japan-Australia deal will go the same way. As the Productivity Commission shows, if we want to have a really good FTA, we should get busy negotiating one with ourselves.

18
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Like a bunch of feathers tied to a piece of string, for a cat, aren’t they? …. Or “Honours”?

  • 2
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Sooo … I should have held off on my new mitsubishi for just a little longer? Bugger. #ThanksAbbott

  • 3
    Migraine
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    One positive aspect of AUSFTA was that it became easier for Australian researchers to go and work in the US. Unfortunately, this has also worked out to be more to the US’ advantage than Australia’s …

  • 4
    MJPC
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    BK, please don’t take away Citizen Abbott’s moment of glory, when he comes back there still Arthur up in NSW doing the rounds of ICAC trials and PUP Senators about the spoil his hoped for dream run in the Senate come July.
    I am excited to learn I will be able to buy a new Jap car for $1500 less, good for the economy and environment I am certain. Shame it will be as a result of the destruction of the Australian auto industry; the auto workers can extend their redundancies that much more now.

  • 5
    The Pav
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    The cargo cult mentality of the LNP led by dictator Abbott has resulted in a PUP,

    Calling this a free trade agreement is the same as calling Richmond a football team.

    Free Trade means Free Trade it isn’t that complicated but in this case a budget in alleged crisis takes a further hit just in case that maybe some time in the future the sons of sons of sons of cattle farmers may get to shift a feww extra steaks.

    Abbott sold the mine but kept the shaft just for party propaganda benefits

  • 6
    Damien Cruickshank
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Economists support ANY movement towards tariff reductions. Yes, negotiated bilateral tariff reduction goes a small way for everyone, but as you say, unilateral tariff reductions help the most. Tariffs are the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot, just because Japan does. It’s stupid, and I can’t believe some politicians still support them.

  • 7
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Don’t worry you’re in good hands with the negotiation skills of T rAbbott and co. Wait till they stitch up China as well. Riches to be had for all, especially the farmers. The farmers will now owe a great thanks to the ever diminishing National Party.

  • 8
    Hunt Ian
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    As Bernard says, it is not clear what the gains will be: all we can say is they will come in soon for Japan and long after for the limited range of products whose tariffs will be lowered. When Bernard talks of simulations, though, we must know the assumptions. The trouble with economists is that their theory does not tell us that unilateral removal of tariffs will improve things. We simply don’t know. We do not live in a perfectly competitive international market and tariff removal could be damaging to industries like the car industry, if Abbott had not so thoughtfully shoved it offshore.

  • 9
    Scott
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    It’s funny…when ever any one mentions that Productivity Commission report into bilateral trade, no one mentions the Dissenting Appendix A (which disagrees a lot with the findings and recommendations).
    The dissenting opinion was, after all, written for the international trade expert specifically hired for the study from the WTO, Andrew L Stoler.
    Maybe best to read the entire report, rather than just the findings page, hey BK?

  • 10
    Iskandar
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Did I hear Abbott say cheaper electronic goods from Japan? I looked over the items on my desk and found: laptop (China), printer (Thailand), scanner (Indonesia), digital camera (Malaysia), desklamp and speakers (China, again). No FTA as far as I know with those countries. The trip sounds like another taxpayer-funded junket to allow Abbott and company to grand-stand. Even down to the obligatory lycra and pushbike.

  • 11
    rossmcg
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Islander

    And most of your “Japanese” cars come from Thailand. Don’t hold your breath waiting got a discounted Corolla.

  • 12
    Glen
    Posted Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    There was once an “economically illiterate” PM who unilaterally cut tariffs by 25%, to the Country Party’s chagrin. History is written by the winners.

  • 13
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Glen - funny about that but who remembers such ancient history? What’s the axiom - “those who forget history…?”

  • 14
    ggm
    Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    I am probably confused, but I thought the USA had secured ‘most favoured nation’ clauses with every economy it did *any* FTA deal with. Thus, whilst Australia may have secured at worst equal treatment, I don’t believe in the long term it can have secured a competitive advantage respecting tariffs and the USA, to sell to Japan.

    There must be some other tariff blocker preventing US sale of meat and ag. products we’re ahead on. Hormones or something. As to the rest of it, I don’t believe there is anything short of an impost to be negotiated. Coal is coal.

  • 15
    chpowell
    Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    These days the AUSFTA is barely remembered, except as an example of the need to avoid bowing to US demands on intellectual property” (snip)

    I remember when Senator Mark Vaile fell asleep across the table from his counterpart, Robert Zoeller. That’s why Australia pays $5B more today pa for drugs from US Pharma co’s.

    And before you pooh pooh IP restrictions advocated by the USA, I strongly suggest that Mr. Keane acquaints himself with the onerous conditions of the Trans Pacific Partnership (which our Foreign Minister has already signed us up for, erm, ‘sold us down the river’.

  • 16
    Ian
    Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    MJPC @4

    And that $1500 saved by the Jap car buyer is not even a net gain to Australia since it is offset by losses in customs duty revenue which has to be made up from somewhere, perhaps by ditching single parent payments… oh hang on Labor got there first. Abbott can doubt find some other “welfare” payment to cut thank God.

  • 17
    Ian
    Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Ian Hunt @8

    Tariff reductions give advantages to countries with already developed and competitive manufacturing sectors not to countries like Australia which struggles to be competitive for many reasons.

    Read “The Open Veins of Latin America” by Eduardo Galleano to get an idea of what “free” trade brings to small under-developed countries and in this context we are one of those. It is a very readable and extensively researched book.

  • 18
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    CHpowell brings up what is the main point, we seem to send in clowns rather than negotiators. We get our pants pulled down every time.

    Allowing US copyright to apply here was ridiculous, while they were changing their copyright laws to allow Mickey Mouse another 50 years of copyright protection. Big Pharma hates the Oz buying system and this was up for grabs for a while, I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before the government gets sued. And didn’t we allow US companies to sue governments her as part of the FTA.

    Our negotiators go in saying ‘how far would you like us to bend over’, and the other side just keeps saying ‘a bit further’ and we oblige.

    We should not be signing up to any of these, we are incompetent at it.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...