Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Kolev, Galina V.
Matthes, Jürgen
Egger, Peter
Erhardt, Katharina
Sieksmeier, Nicola
Willmann, Gerald
Raza, Werner G.
Year of Publication: 
[Journal:] Wirtschaftsdienst [ISSN:] 1613-978X [Volume:] 96 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] Springer [Place:] Heidelberg [Year:] 2016 [Pages:] 159-171
Springer, Heidelberg
2016 soll das Abkommen zur Transatlantischen Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft abgeschlossen werden. Die Befürworter von TTIP sind der Auffassung, dass gemeinsame Regeln, Industriestandards und Zulassungsverfahren von EU und USA zu Weltstandards werden können und den beteiligten Ländern entscheidende Vorteile bringen. Kritik bezieht sich nicht nur auf die mangelnde Transparenz des Verhandlungsprozesses, sondern vor allem auf die Handhabung von Umweltstandards und öffentlichen Aufträgen sowie auf die Arbeitsmarktregulierung, die Lebensmittelgesetze und die Investitionsschutzabkommen.
Abstract (Translated): 
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is the most important trade policy decision that European leaders have faced in many years. The new generation of free trade agreements, including TTIP, aim at deep economic integration. Thus, they are essentially focused upon the removal or alignment of standards, regulations and administrative procedures that impede international trade and investment. Therefore, TTIP goes beyond the dimensions of traditional preferential trade agreements in the sense that it not only concerns tariffs and non tariff barriers to trade in goods, but it also concerns trade in services and the foreign investment environment. Regulatory cooperation under TTIP might thus well extend into core domains of public policy, including health and food safety or environmental regulation. Regulation, however, confers both benefits and costs to society. A proper assessment of TTIP must therefore also consider the benefits of regulation to society and must embed regulatory cooperation between the EU and US into a firm democratic framework. The potential of such an agreement is substantial, due to improved market access, regulatory cooperation and greater global reach, while the downside risk is limited. While some of the arguments critical of TTIP are justified, others seem rather excessive and seem intent on stirring up unnecessary anxiety among the population. An objective and constructive discussion is crucial to ensure that the needs of the population are heard during the negotiation process and that an agreement capable of achieving majority support can be concluded. The debate over TTIP has to consider not only the economic effects of increased trade but also the legal and political dimensions of the trade agreement.
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.