Global Development and Environment Study Finds TPP Will Cost US Nearly 500,000 Jobs

Posted on by

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, formerly the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development. Originally published at Project Syndicate

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is being portrayed as a boon for all 12 of the countries involved. But opposition to the agreement may be the only issue that the remaining US presidential candidates can agree on, and Canada’s trade minister has expressed serious reservations about it. Are the TPP’s critics being unreasonable?

In a word, no. To be sure, the TPP might help the US to advance its goal of containing China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region, exemplified in US President Barack Obama’s declaration that, “With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do.” But the economic case is not nearly as strong. In fact, though the TPP will bring some benefits, they will mainly accrue to large corporations and come at the expense of ordinary citizens.

In terms of gains, one US government study on the topic projected that, by 2025, the TPP would augment its member countries’ GDP growth by a meager 0.1% at most. More recently, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) estimated that, by 2032, the TPP would increase America’s economic growth by 0.15% ($42.7 billion) and boost incomes by 0.23% ($57.3 billion).

But TPP advocates have largely ignored these results, preferring to cite two studies by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, a well-known cheerleader for economic globalization. In 2012, the PIIE claimed that the TPP would boost total GDP in member countries by 0.4% after ten years. In January, it declared that TPP would augment total GDP by 0.5% over the next 15 years. In a World Bank study released the same month, the authors of the PIIE research projected a 1.1% average increase in GDP in TPP member countries by 2030.

Something is clearly amiss.

A closer look reveals that these studies’ findings concerning the TPP’s purported benefits lack supporting economic theory, credible modeling, or empirical evidence. The only advantages presented that are consistent with mainstream research methodology are tariff-related trade benefits. But if the PIIE authors had used conventional methods to estimate total gains from trade, such benefits would comprise a very small share of the alleged gains from the TPP. According to the PIIE and the World Bank, about 85% of overall growth from the TPP is due to “non-trade measures” and related foreign investments.

Meanwhile, the studies ignore employment and income distribution – where some of the leading risks of trade liberalization lie. Instead, they simply assume that all countries are at full employment and have a consistent income distribution, trade balance, and fiscal position.

The ITC study, which used a slightly different model, predicts an increase in the trade deficit that would destroy 129,484 American jobs (yet, inexplicably, it estimates that the TPP would raise employment by 128,000 jobs). It also projects a net increase in exports of $25.2 billion in 2032 (in 2032 US dollars), a small fraction of the PIIE’s projection of $357 billion in 2030 (in 2015 dollars).

For our study, my colleagues and I used the PIIE’s own 2012 estimates of trade-related gains, despite our reservations, along with more realistic economic specifications, including for income distribution and employment. We projected downward wage pressure, which, by depressing domestic demand, would lead to lower employment and higher inequality in all country groupings. Projected job losses would total some 771,000 across the TPP countries, including 448,000 in the US alone. These losses would offset any growth benefits, with the US and Japan suffering small net income losses (-0.5% and -0.1%, respectively).

Even if the TPP is found to conflict with the national or public interest, participating countries are obliged to follow its provisions. Powerful lobbies, mainly from the US, made sure of that. And, unfortunately, that is not all they did.

Despite being portrayed as a trade deal, the TPP is not even really about trade. Many TPP countries are already among the world’s most open economies, with most merchandise trade among them having already been liberalized by earlier agreements and unilateral initiatives. The main remaining trade constraints involve non-tariff barriers, such as US agricultural subsidies, which the TPP does not address.

Instead, the TPP’s most important provisions strengthen, broaden, and extend intellectual property rights. That will give pharmaceutical companies much longer monopolies on patented medicines and keep cheaper options – both generics and alternatives that are deemed too similar – off the market, hurting both consumers and governments that provide subsidies.

Moreover, the TPP weakens national regulation, such as over financial services, and strengthens the rights of foreign investors, at the expense of local businesses and the public interest. Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions allow foreign investors to pursue binding private arbitration against governments if new regulations reduce their expected future profits.

Governments that lose those lawsuits will be obliged to compensate foreign investors; but even those that win will incur high legal costs. In fact, potential ISDS compensation payments or settlements alone could far outweigh the TPP’s limited economic benefits. Fear of incurring such high costs are likely to weaken governments’ incentives to implement regulations that hurt foreign corporate interests, even if they serve the public good.

Finally, though the TPP’s biggest impact will lie outside the trade realm, the agreement has been used to undermine multilateral trade-liberalization efforts. The most obvious victim has been the World Trade Organization’s ongoing Doha Development Round negotiations, but Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the ASEAN Economic Community will also suffer.

The TPP’s advocates have, for years, been grossly exaggerating the deal’s projected benefits, while downplaying its potentially high risks and costs, most of which will be incurred by ordinary citizens. The reality is that the TPP will have a barely perceptible impact on GDP, benefit large corporations almost exclusively, and significantly constrain the policy space governments need to accelerate economic development and protect the public interest. Some partnership that is.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. allan

    45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes [CNN]

    16. April 10, 2012: Forrestal Lecture at the Naval Academy
    “As part of that same trip last November, the President built momentum for a new far-reaching trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we are negotiating with eight other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to trade, although that is crucial for boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs here at home. It’s also about agreeing on the rules of the road for an integrated Pacific economy that is open, free, transparent, and fair. It will put in place strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation — all key American values. And it will cover emerging issues such as the connectivity of regional supply chains, the competitive impact of state-owned enterprises, and create trade opportunities for more small-and-medium-sized businesses.”

    So transparent that the FOIA request for my TPP emails won’t be released until after the election.

    1. jrs

      What more reason does anyone need NOT to vote for Hillary? And to vote Sanders if today is finally your voting day – don’t let them steal if, you’ve waited too long to finally vote, Sanders for the win!

      Silence here on Hillary’s part may as well be an admission of guilt, if you have nothing to hide and all that …

      Hudson today on whether Americans will start emigrating (due to TPP, cuts in Social Security etc. – this is why we vote Sanders). Says there is nowhere for them to go because they don’t know a foreign language, I think this is overstates it, as if they prepare ahead of time they could learn one tolerably, but that’s all very middle class. And I’m middle class and I think about being forced (not choosing but having no other choice economically) to leave ALL THE TIME and I’m making it … for now.

  2. weinerdog43

    I think the single best thing Mr. Sanders can do after today is to sink this trade agreement. There is no question that the powers are lined up to ram this thing through. If he is given a speech platform at the Dem convention, his call to kill the agreement could really help.

    I’m not willing to give that nitwit Trump the benefit of the doubt, but combined with Bernie’s appeal, it might just be enough to derail this nightmare.

    1. jrs

      If Trump is good for ANYTHING, he will go after Hillary not releasing the TPP emails.

      Of course I suspect Trump is not good for anything and will be lost in his own boundless narcissism, obsessed with his own legal issues, because it more directly effects him and his narcissistic supplies. Afterall he is really neither a public champion nor a tactically smart politician but merely a rather blinkered narcissist. But I wish to be wrong.

      And yes Sanders should slam the TPP.

  3. cnchal

    . . . the US International Trade Commission (ITC) estimated that, by 2032, the TPP would increase America’s economic growth by 0.15% ($42.7 billion) and boost incomes by 0.23% ($57.3 billion).

    The ITC study, which used a slightly different model, predicts an increase in the trade deficit that would destroy 129,484 American jobs (yet, inexplicably, it estimates that the TPP would raise employment by 128,000 jobs). It also projects a net increase in exports of $25.2 billion in 2032 (in 2032 US dollars), a small fraction of the PIIE’s projection of $357 billion in 2030 (in 2015 dollars).

    When the Chinese official in charge of bullet train development can swindle a billion+ dollars all by himself, when hedge fund honchos pay themselves a billion + per year, when the Walton family amasses a $100 billion + fortune on the backs of Chinese slaves and American taxpayers, when American companies stash $2 trillion+ in the attic never to touch a peasant again, it is blatantly obvious the fatuous precision of these numbers are not even rounding errors.

    Bandying about billions to impress and deceive the rubes, when the TPP’s purpose is to screw the rubes. Typical of big business and big government.

  4. Edward Qubain

    There were similar warnings about NAFTA, as I recall. Perot famously spoke of the giant sucking noise of jobs going to Mexico. The fact that the Democrats are doubling down on these disastrous trade agreements tells you they could care less about American jobs. After NAFTA they can’t plead ignorance.

  5. JM

    This is why I love Naked Capitalism. Jomo Kwame Sundaran is a great heterodox economist who has done a lot of work with UNCTAD and is credible. He mentions how TPP has dealt a major blow to the Doha round, a forum where developing countries can cooperate to not get such a shitty deal. This is often overlooked in other coverage. Bravo for continuously providing a platform for heterodox economists!

  6. Ignacio

    I just want to add as a working hypothesis that Sanders gets elected and captured by the stablishment to push for TPP approval. We migth finally notice how bad is the state of democracy if the Syriza case wasn’t enough.

Comments are closed.