As for the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the most important trade deal in years — support from the economics profession has been muted. However, some of that might be because of the intellectual-property protections in the treaty, which many consider a trade restriction rather than a liberalization.
Pointer from Mark Thoma.
On the other hand, Greg Mankiw writes,
I would guess that TPP would also poll well among economists. FYI, here is CEA chair Jason Furman singing the praises of TPP, and here is an open letter from a sizeable group of past CEA chairs.
Apart from mood affiliation, economists should not feel compelled to support every trade agreement. In fact, there is no reason to presume that a trade agreement actually promotes free trade. One country can do its part to promote free trade without having to negotiate an agreement with anyone. Just eliminate trade barriers, regardless of what other countries do.
It is likely that every trade agreement includes at least some measures that are protectionist. Maybe you can say something good about an agreement “on net, relative to the status quo.” But in a better world, there would be no trade treaties–just free trade.
UPDATE: Jeff Frankel gives the upbeat view of the TPP.
In theory omnibus free-trade agreements are great. In practice I’m suspicious of them. The reason being that they are so complex they necessarily involve an international brokering class from outfits like Albright-Stonebridge and Kissinger & Associates. In this way it’s like Davos: everybody there ultimately has more in common with each other than the countries that issue their passports. I have a hard time believing the incentives aren’t really perverse behind the closed doors we are told are necessary.
If we value exit over voice my vote is to muddle through on trade-issues with a series of bi-lateral agreements. Those would be subject to capture-by-experts too, but I doubt the cost of the public’s due diligence would be nearly so high.
Just eliminate trade barriers, regardless of what other countries do.
While this is good policy in the sense that unilateral free trade is better for both sides than bilaterally restricted trade, the downside is that it deprives you of a bargaining chip to get other countries to eliminate trade restrictions.