Caracteristicile producătorilor asiatici de automobile

I. INTRODUCTION

According to BusinessDictionary.com, a Free Trade Agreement might be defined as a ‘treaty between two or more countries designed to establish a free trade area, where commerce in goods and services can be conducted across their common borders, without tariffs or hindrances but (in contrast to a common market) capital or labor may not move freely’; in addition to this, it may be added that ‘member countries usually impose a uniform tariff (called common external tariff) on trade with non-member countries’. Therefore, subsequent to a thorough analysis of this particular definition and several other general ones, certain statements can be established in order to clearly reveal the advantages and perhaps disadvantages of such agreements amongst various states.

First and foremost, the primary objective of the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) is to secure the trade liberalization, in spite of the emerging traditional debate, which argues the occurring possibility of the danger that they might divert rather than create trade; however, the records to date undoubtedly suggest that there has been little diversion with respect to these treaties and that their applicability along with the one of regional agreements has been effective in encouraging wider trade liberalization. Thus, a practical advantage of the FTAs consists in the fact that they are quicker and easier to negotiate rather than multilateral agreements, given the reduced number of parties at the table, which also ensures them the opportunity to gain certain benefits that might be otherwise harder to obtain in bigger forums.

In terms of the trade liberalization, it may be stated that the latter can be viewed as an important factor which determines particular changes to the participant countries in two ways: by diverting goods and services from the states that become relatively disadvantaged as a consequence of the liberalization and by displacing the higher cost of these goods and services; obviously, liberalization that supersedes goods with cheaper goods is irrefutably preferable and it is the likelihood of some trade diversion that has brought objections to bilateral and regional free trade agreements as opposed to multilateral agreements. Traditionally, trade benefits have been most apparent in FTAs where member countries have vastly different economic structures, taking into account that the comparative advantage in distinct areas of production entitles partners to a considerable gain as a result of specialization. A refinement of this analysis demonstrates how trade increases the prices of the cheaper good in each of the trading partners, while lowering the prices of the scarcer (imported) good to more than offset this. Obviously, the most important attraction of an FTA is that members obtain preferred access to the markets of other partners, which is not, nonetheless, a factor that can guarantee optimal outcomes on the long term; this depends on the overall impact of the arrangements and other concurrent trade policies. Trade agreements establish rules for regulating trade and trade-related activity, as well as incorporating commitments to remover trade barriers and in addition to this, the record has shown that member of trade agreements can also secure agreements in FTAs for rules that confer advantages upon their trading partners and reduce trade irritants and restrictions that could not otherwise be ensured from certain trade agreements.

On the other hand, though, there are specific drawbacks that can be identified regarding the issue of FTAs, which emphasize the importance of creating the appropriate framework of policies, taking into consideration the fact that the absence of such a setting may lead to a diminished rather than enhanced economic welfare. Moreover, another aspect worth analyzing is represented by the concern that they are not good vehicles for liberalizing trade in sectors on which the parties outside the agreement have a major influence. FTAs generate economic advantages only when negotiated with states that are significant trading partners, therefore this might be considered as one of the key aspects to be taken into account before deciding upon such an agreement. Furthermore, Free Trade Agreements also increase the complexity of the international trading system and can raise transaction costs for businesses, given the occurrence, enforcement and compliance with different rules negotiated under different agreements, as well as the existence of various dispute settlement mechanisms, different standards regimes and other harmonization arrangements.

One of the Free Trade Agreements notified to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/ World Trade Organization is the AFTA agreement, standing for ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Free Trade Area, which is ultimately a trade bloc agreement supporting local manufacturing in all ASEAN countries. Bearing in mind the fact that the ASEAN economies represent a market of more than 566 million people, accounting for more than $1,400 billion in global and that the main key elements of this FTA include liberalized trade in goods and services, rules to govern trade, movement of people, enhanced protection for investment, measures to improve business flows or dispute settlement, the recent free trade agreement between the ASEAN countries is a positive message coming from the Asian governments revealing that they still see considerable value and importance of free trade and capital flows, despite the ongoing economic downturn. Asia is, indeed, setting the pace for the rapidly changing world order in the region and in various many ways, these countries have represented the catalyst of this change, by reaching out beyond their borders, trying to capitalize on each other’s strengths and to benefit from Asia’s continued economic prospects in the forthcoming decades. Amongst the benefits of the ASEAN FTA that can be identified, it is worth mentioning the fact that Thailand, for instance, at the ASEAN meeting in Bangkok in August 2009, achieved two essential advantages that will subsequently be effective in January, 2010: Thai investment in China will be enhanced as a result of the treaty and in addition to this, reduced tariffs on products with India will also be enforced. At the same time, South Korea’s case can be exemplified, as well: the developing nations of ASEAN obviously need the capital, advanced technology, skill sets and financial expertise from Korea; in return, along with the cheaper labor and other costs for Korean companies investing in the region, ASEAN can also offer South Korea its expanding marketplace which has the potential to offset decreasing consumer sales prospects in the West.

Since 1995, about 11 trade agreements have been signed each year; between January 2004 and February 2005 alone, the World Trade Organization received 43 notifications, setting thus a historical record. FTAs involving East Asia are proliferating at a mind-boggling pace and especially in light of their large and fast-growing markets. Although many countries in the region are seen as attractive partners for bilateral or regional trade deals, according to a report by Carsten Fink, a senior economist for international trade at the World Bank, recently, Southeast Asian states have been hesitant to enter such bilateral or regional agreements. To support this argument, as of 2003, East Asia averaged only two FTAs per country, compared to a world average of five trade deals per state. Nowadays, in spite of the fact that the region seems to record a certain recovery related to this issue, the actual deals are not terribly exhilarating.

As far as the benefits of this particular ASEAN FTA are concerned, countries have many reasons to strike trade deals, as they lead to more open markets, even if liberalisation occurs only with respect to certain trading partners. As such, countries have two strong reasons to liberalize: first, they may face less resistance from vested interests suffering from foreign competition and second, if the outcome of preferential liberalisation proves successful, support for opening multilateral markets may be strengthened.

However, despite the benefits above, a World Bank study shows recently that while most Asian countries are negotiating free trade agreements, very few of those deals have resulted in any real benefits. Many FTAs do not offer much and although most trade deals focus on gains in economic welfare and tend to generate quick results, smaller countries often end up with an unfair deal.

According to Mr. Fink's report, the contributions of East Asian FTAs are not limited to particular sectors: construction and distribution services received the most attention in trade deals, with more than 50% of sub-sectors and modes showing improved or new liberalization commitments; these were followed by tourism, business, communications, and recreational, cultural and sporting services, where about 40% of sub-sectors and modes revealed that the FTA added value. The smallest contributions were made in education, environmental, health, transport, and financial services, with only 25% to 31% of subsectors and modes showing improved or new FTA commitments. For financial services, the comparatively modest contribution of FTAs may also be due to the already wide coverage of GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) - an outcome of the post-Uruguay Round financial services negotiations in 1997.