<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: A scorecard for the P4: full or fail?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/02/a-scorecard-for-the-p4-full-or-fail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/02/a-scorecard-for-the-p4-full-or-fail/</link> <description>Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Henry Gao</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/02/a-scorecard-for-the-p4-full-or-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-81991</link> <dc:creator>Henry Gao</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:40:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=8204#comment-81991</guid> <description>Thanks Andrew for your kind comments. I’m glad you liked the piece.
I fully agree with you that it is very difficult to link PTAs or expand existing PTAs: the larger the membership, the harder it is to push for new liberalization or even maintain existing levels of liberalization. At the end of the day, unfortunately, most such PTAs are decided by the lowest common denominator.
Now with regard to the P4 Agreement in particular, the accession of the US will change everything. To start with we have what I would call a “Gulliver in Lilliput” situation (of course the Gulliver here would never be captured by the Lilliputians). Worse still, the US has its own PTA model which they are most likely to impose on the P4 Members. Would the P4 become a better or worse deal (in the eyes of a free trade zealot like me) after this? I am not very sure.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Andrew for your kind comments. I’m glad you liked the piece.</p><p>I fully agree with you that it is very difficult to link PTAs or expand existing PTAs: the larger the membership, the harder it is to push for new liberalization or even maintain existing levels of liberalization. At the end of the day, unfortunately, most such PTAs are decided by the lowest common denominator.</p><p>Now with regard to the P4 Agreement in particular, the accession of the US will change everything. To start with we have what I would call a “Gulliver in Lilliput” situation (of course the Gulliver here would never be captured by the Lilliputians). Worse still, the US has its own PTA model which they are most likely to impose on the P4 Members. Would the P4 become a better or worse deal (in the eyes of a free trade zealot like me) after this? I am not very sure.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Andrew Elek</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/02/a-scorecard-for-the-p4-full-or-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-81637</link> <dc:creator>Andrew Elek</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:25:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=8204#comment-81637</guid> <description>Dear Professor Gao,
This is a very interesting and helpful assessment.
My working assumption is that linking PTAs is hard, and tends to dilute quality as more are added.
I (and I think other readers of the EA Forum) would welcome a similar assessment of the ASEAN-Australia-NZ agreement.
Best wishes,
Andrew Elek</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Professor Gao,<br
/> This is a very interesting and helpful assessment.<br
/> My working assumption is that linking PTAs is hard, and tends to dilute quality as more are added.</p><p>I (and I think other readers of the EA Forum) would welcome a similar assessment of the ASEAN-Australia-NZ agreement.</p><p>Best wishes,</p><p>Andrew Elek</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
