Regional trade agreements do seem to be on the rise. As of this writing, the United States is
negotiating two major regional compacts: one with the European Union (the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership or TTIP) and the other with 11 countries circling the Pacific (the Trans-Pacific
Partnership or TPP). Successful conclusions to either or both would certainly lead to a decrease in
trade barriers for the participants, but perhaps not for nonparticipants. Two points are worthy of note.
The first is that the negotiating focus of both the TTIP and the TPP is on reducing nontariff barriers,
particularly by promoting regulatory convergence through the adoption of common standards on such
wide-ranging issues as food safety, government procurement rules, restrictions on state-owned
enterprises, licensing standards, Internet freedom, and the protection of intellectual property, as well as
labor and environmental standards. The second noteworthy point is that none of the major emerging
economies—Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC)—are participants of either of these nascent
regional compacts.
B. European Union
One of the most well-known, and most developed, trade agreements is that of the European Union. It
is also quite significant because the EU is the United States’ largest trading partner, and vice versa.
The EU is made up of 28 member countries, with five candidate countries: Montenegro, Serbia,
Macedonia, Turkey, and Iceland. The EU population far surpasses the United States’ (508 million
compared with 316 million, as of this writing) and its combined gross domestic product is roughly
equivalent to that of the United States’ GDP (both just under $16 trillion).
When the financial crisis that began in 2008 spread around the world through the web of global
financial and economic ties, not only were weak banks revealed, but also weak countries. The very
success of the EU in increasing trade and other economic ties among its member countries became a
weakness: The economically weaker countries acted as a further drag on the stronger economies.
Some of the strongest economic ties in the European Union are those that link the 17 countries that
have adopted the euro as their common currency. In the usual course, as a national economy
deteriorates, its currency is devalued in relation to other currencies and the economic hardship stays
primarily a domestic problem. However, within the Eurozone, for example, Greece’s currency can’t fall
to reflect the degree of its economic difficulties because the value of the euro is tied to perceptions of
the total group of Eurozone countries. But when the world sees weakness not just in Greece, but also
in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, even the economically strong Eurozone countries suffer the
downward revaluation of the currency. If the stronger economies do not have faith in future change,
and cannot compel such change as a condition of their support, they may determine that the better
choice for the long run is to abandon the euro. That step could lead to the disintegration of the
European Union itself.
III. Globalization and Countervailing Forces
Understanding what globalization is not may be as important as knowing what it is: It is not
homogenization. The goal is not to make us all the same. But the goals do include increased choice
through the sharing of diversity, as well as appropriate protection of historical, social, and cultural
identities.
What has also become clear is that the process of globalization has not been uniformly beneficial. One
reason for disparate results may be whether the local government develops in tandem with the economy
and is able to and does capture an appropriate portion of the wealth created to put to use on behalf of its
population.