One of the largest questions in terms of international cooperation is that of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The TPP tends to be regarded as an issue primarily through an American perspective, however, its ratification and signage is significant in terms of Asian perspectives, as well as the direction of the international system as a whole. To this day, the clearest explanation of the issue is whether or not such a large free trade agreement would be beneficial for the international system and individual states in regards to both economics and politics. For such a large, international trade issue, it seems most appropriate to analyze the issue in reference to the liberalist theory of international affairs, more specifically, the neoliberal institutionalist theory of international affairs. Although other theories like Marxism may prove to be useful in analyzing the issue, the specific focus on neoliberal institutionalism on the creation and benefits of large, multinational agreements and its ability to predict numerous outcomes makes it the most useful in regards to the TPP. Using neoliberal institutionalism, I hope not to provide a solution to the issue, mainly due to the lack of public transparency of specific negotiation criteria and policies and extreme complexity of the many economic issues involved, but rather provide insights and predictions into the future of the issue and how it may affect the international community going forward.
Neoliberal institutionalism holds several key assumptions at its heart, mainly regarding the idea that the international system is inherently anarchic but that the effects of such anarchy can be significantly limited and controlled at the systemic level of analysis. The control of such inherent human behaviors allows for neoliberal institutionalism to take a more positivist approach and incorporate the rational actor model, allowing for predictions to be made. With these key ideas in mind, neoliberal institutionalism has been able to create and uphold concepts such as path dependence and complex interdependence. What is especially pertinent about these ideas is that neoliberal institutionalism does not take into account government type as strongly classical liberalism does, therefore democracy is not a prerequisite for path dependence or complex interdependence to be achieved. Understanding the make-up of neoliberal institutionalism is important in regards to analysing the TPP, as it provides a basis in which such analysis could be rationally made and logically followed. Ideas such as path dependence and complex interdependence would not be relevant in regards to TPP analysis if the TPP did not fit the characteristics assumed by neoliberal institutionalism itself. Clearly, all prerequisites are apparent and thus such analysis is possible and appropriate for analyzing the TPP. The focus of the analysis will thus be based on the impact of the TPP on how its institutionalization would influence the international system through ideas such as path dependency and complex interdependence.
The analysis of this issue is not limited to neoliberal institutionalism, as ideas such as Marxism may very well be as relevant to the discussion, even if it takes a more normative approach to international affairs overall. Marxism would be appropriate in the discussion of the TPP as the agreement focuses on maximizing the capabilities of capitalism and free trade in regards to the global economy and international trade. These inherent values of the TPP are subject to critique from a Marxist point of view, which described capitalism as an exploitative system in which the bourgeoisie takes advantage of the proletariat by possessing the means of production. The TPP could also potentially be described as a system meant to support the prevailing class system that Marxists wish to abolish, as it puts power into the hands of large business interests such as agriculture and only focuses on potential consequences that affect the bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat. The issue when it comes to analyzing the TPP in regards to the Marxist point of view is that it does not make any predictions or solutions in regards to the agreement, but rather critiques the entire foundation that the TPP rests upon. The international issue of TPP membership is only a side effect of the main issue for Marxists theorists, capitalism itself. Thus, no further analysis can be made other than the fact that the TPP would be another institution that would serve the purpose of the bourgeoisie, rather than the proletariat. This analysis is not necessarily any less significant in the realm of international affairs, but it does not come to a novel conclusion, as a Marxist critique would conclude in the same answer as it is founded upon, that the capitalist economic structure is inherently exploitative and must be abolished. Thus, neoliberal institutionalism is a more useful theory for analysing the TPP in this specific case, as it has the ability to provide novel, unique predictions based on the structure and members of the agreement due to its inherent foundation in functionalism.
The issue of the TPP stems from balancing between the economic and political gains/losses of superpowers such as China and the United States. With these states and large states that have already joined the TPP, such as Canada and Mexico, the TPP would cover about 40% of the global economy (James McBride & Chatzky, 2019). The bulk of this addition however would be the addition of the economic superpowers themselves, China and the United States. The opinions on the economic advantage or disadvantage of the TPP are focused mainly on whether or not the potential loss of domestic labour jobs to other TPP members would be worth the substantial increase in international trade competitiveness and volume associated with a free trade agreement. Although, economic analysis has reported that there are significant gains to be made from the TPP for both the superpowers. The United States has been estimated to gain $2.8 billion in interregional agricultural production by the year 2025 (Burfisher et al., 2014). Also, China would be able to advance its manufacturing based economy by providing 95% of manufactured exports to the TPP and remain a net exporter in the partnership, while being able to take advantage of the agricultural imports made available by free market access to American and Canadian agriculture (Devadason, 2014). However, from a neoliberal institutionalist analysis, these economic opinions can only be given weight if they include an understanding of the political aspects associated with international trade, namely interdependence and subsequent complex interdependence. The US and Chinese membership in the TPP would not only build and strengthen the economic connection between the two superpowers, but would contribute to a greater interdependence with one another in the midst of a great power conflict. It is no secret that under the Trump administration, the United States and China have broken down economic, diplomatic, and political ties with one another, with frequent threats of sanctions, the closing down of consulates, and other such issues. From a neoliberal perspective, the breakage of such bonds is bound to lead to the greater possibility of conflict, as it would lessen the interdependence between the two superpowers and would lead to what can best be described as a classic Thucydides trap. The TPP agreement on the other hand would build up the economic interdependence between the two states, making conflict between the two superpowers much more costly if it were to occur. This interdependence also occurs between the other states within the agreement, as prospective members such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and the many others, would be directly affected by such a conflict economically, incentivising these states to act as peacekeepers and negotiators between the two superpowers. This then leads to the concept of path dependence, a form of interdependence that focuses on the mechanisms of international institutions.
Former Secretary of State James Baker once cautioned that it would be a grave mistake for the United States to allow for the Pacific to be split into two and allow "a line to be drawn down the middle of the Pacific" separating the United States from Asian states (Lewis, 2011). This warning can be backed by the concept of path dependence, which aims at creating and maintaining that certain outcomes can only come from certain mechanisms/paths, usually international institutions. When creating these paths, new outcomes, challenges, and opportunities arise, whether intended or unintended, and thus must be dealt with by all actors that are attempting to build the path. Path dependence is upheld by neolibeal institutionalists as a significant piece of international affairs as path dependent processes cannot be turned back without significant costs once they have reached a certain level. The TPP can be analyzed using this concept from the point of view that if the agreement were to be joined by all prospective states, such as the United States and China, withdrawal from the agreement based on issues such as intellectual property infringement policies, internet provider infringements, and agricultural export subsidies would risk the advantages gained from agreed policies such as increased market access and the elimination of thousands of tariffs (Fergusson et al., 2013). This would then increase the costs of reversing or withdrawing from the TPP and encourage further development of the partnership through frequent meetings and communication between members. In this case, the cost of conflict between TPP members would exponentially increase, as all advantages gained through the TPP would be put at risk if conflict were to occur, thus further incentivising peaceful cooperation and communication and disincentivizing violence or military options. It also acts as a limiting factor in terms of the amount of choices states have in order to achieve certain outcomes. For example, if the United States would like intellectual property reform in Vietnam or if New Zealand wanted dairy export reform in Canada, no one would not have the ability to cut down interdependence ties economically or diplomatically in the form of sanctions, tariffs, or physical intimidation, but rather would have to go through the TPP mechanism in order to achieve suitable negotiations, thus limiting the amount of opportunities for states to break down cooperation and trust, and thus maximizing the amount of control over anarchy in the international system. Path dependence however is not the deepest form of interdependence that the TPP may bring however, as it may very well bring about what neoliberal institutionalists describe as the most stable international system: complex interdependence.
Complex interdependence takes the concept of interdependence to its farthest, and most stable conclusion. The goal of complex interdependence is to create deep ties between actors that are reinforced by international institutions and create a system in which communication between actors is high frequency and high quality, rather than maintain a system of interdependence that is dependent on states individually upkeeping interdependent ties. Complex interdependence relies on all actors understanding the “shadow of the future” which refers to common knowledge between all actors that they will have to interact with each other multiple times in the near future, thus incentivizing cooperation and trust between actors. Complex interdependence also maintains that interdependent ties should be very deep and span numerous types, such as economic and diplomatic. If these ties weaken, then the probability of conflict is increased as states may believe that they have reached the “last move”. The TPP from a complex interdependent standpoint is a great move towards deepening interdependent ties between states, as well as cementing them in international institutions other than the TPP itself. This is done by progressing the goals of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the World Trade Organization, Association of South East Asian Nations plus three, and Association of South East Asian Nations plus six, thus adding to the significance of these international institutions (Capling & Ravenhill, 2011). As many of the current and prospective TPP members are a part of many of these international institutions, ties of interdependence are thus deepened and numerous path dependencies can be developed, significantly increasing the cost of weakening ties between states, defection of cooperation, and most importantly conflict. Thus, from a neoliberal point of view, the TPP would be one of the greatest steps toward complex interdependence as it would be able to simplify the dozens of preferential trade agreements that states hold with each other both within the region and with other regions, allowing for higher quality communication, as states would not have to internally calculate the regional effects of renegotiating singular trade agreements. This would also allow for much larger interregional institutions and agreements to be made between the Asian-Pacific and the European Union, creating a significantly deeper complex interdependence relationship in the systemic relationship than possible in the modern day. However, complex interdependence includes all actors from a neoliberal perspective, which may not completely remain true for large non-state actors such as NGOs or unions when analyzing the TPP. Under the current system of preferential trade agreements between independent states, non-state actors are able to introduce their interests by lobbying their host state’s government and reap benefits from trade negotiations, however, this would not prove to be as useful in the TPP as the non-state actors would not have a direct link to the TPP to voice its concerns. However, this does not mean that there will not be a mechanism in the future for non-state interactions. If such a mechanism does happen to be brought about and agreed upon by TPP members, then non-state actors would actually have higher quality interdependent links to all TPP members than before, as they would be able to express their interests to all actors involved in one place. An example of this would be that large multinational corporations and international interest groups would be able to voice copyright infringement concerns at TPP conferences, as such policy would fall under the TPP agreement (Gordon, 2012). Thus, whether or not the TPP would be able to incorporate non-state actors into its complex interdependence is a significant question that must be addressed from a neoliberal perspective.
With all this in mind, a prediction of the TPP issue would be quite simple from the neoliberal institutionalist perspective, states such as the United States and China absolutely should and will join the partnership. However, this prediction is very simplified and would assume that cooperation and trust are common in the international system, which is simply not true. Neoliberal institutionalism understands that all actors are rational actors on the systemic level, and thus have certain priorities that they wish to obtain. World leaders like Trump have been able to slow and possibly even reverse the progress of the liberal world order that has dominated the international system since the end of the Cold War. Thus, in order to make predictions on the state of the TPP, it is important to understand the state of neoliberal institutionalist thought in general. Popularist, realist leaders all over the world have managed to gain power to the point where international agreements and many interdependent ties have been significantly broken down. The United States alone has pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization and the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union with its infamous Brexit situation. Alongside the breakdown of international agreements has also been the increase in foreign interference and conflict, with cyber attacks from state and non-state actors occurring daily and threats of sanctions occurring nearly weekly between numerous powers. Thus, the hopes of the TPP issue being solved at the present moment do not seem to be great, as the United States is at the forefront of both the shift away from the TPP and neoliberal institutionalism. However, the TPP is an Asia-Pacific oriented deal, which also happens to be where neoliberral institutionalist theory seems to be thriving most. With the advent of China’s belt and road initiative and the increase in economic and political significance of Asia-Pacific trade overall, it is not surprising that the TPP has been able to transform into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in the meanwhile. This initial step of creating an international institution between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam, indicates that neoliberal institutionalist thought is still significant within the international system and that the TPP is still very much possible in the near future. Depending on the results of the next United States election, I see the TPP and neoliberal institutionalism overall as having a possible resurrection through Chinese and American membership and cooperation. How I expect this progress to come about is through the building of interdependence between China and the United States under the next American Presidential administration, starting from the removal of sanctions and the reinstitution of foreign consulates. The next logical step would then be America's reinstatement to international institutions/agreements such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate agreements. If both of these criteria are met, I believe that TPP negotiations would be possible in the near future as the international system would attempt to bounce back from a realist, protectionist moment. Thus, even though the TPP has proven to be quite unwieldy since its inception, I expect it to make progress in the coming years as the benefits of interdependence, path dependency, and complex interdependence, are too strategically valuable to the entire international system for the TPP to fall through from a neoliberal perspective.
References
Burfisher, M. E., Dyck, J., Meade, B., Mitchell, L., Wainio, J. T., Zahniser, S., Arita, S., & Beckman, J. (2014). Agriculture in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2677704
Capling, A., & Ravenhill, J. (2011). Multilateralising regionalism: What role for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? The Pacific Review, 24(5), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2011.634078
Devadason, E. S. (2014). The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): The Chinese perspective. Journal of Contemporary China, 23(87), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2013.843890
Fergusson, I. F., Cooper, W. H., Jurenas, R., & Williams, B. R. (2013). The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Negotiations and Issues for Congress. 66.
Gordon, B. K. (2012). Trading Up in Asia: Why the United States Needs the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 17–22. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23218036
James McBride, & Chatzky, A. (2019, January 4). What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp
Lewis, M. K. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership: New Paradigm of Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 34(1), 27–52. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/bcic34&i=29
Comments