The Experts below are selected from a list of 16884 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Richard Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • foreign direct investment and Trade in health services a review of the literature
    Social Science & Medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard Smith
    Abstract:

    Globalization is a key challenge facing health policy-makers. A significant aspect of this is direct Trade in health services, a result of the rise of transnational corporations, challenges in health care financing, porous borders and improved technology creating the scope for increased 'foreign direct investment' (FDI) in health care. This has gathered momentum with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which aims to further liberalize Trade in services, and within which FDI has been noted as perhaps the most critical area for Trade Negotiation. Given the rapid development of this area, there are little empirical data. This paper therefore seeks to provide the first comprehensive and systematic review of evidence concerning FDI and health services. This process included electronic bibliographic database searches, website searches and correspondence with experts in the area of Trade in health services, from which 76 papers, books and reports were reviewed. Perhaps due to the rapid developments in this area, most of the literature is speculative, polarized between those arguing for the benefits of liberalization and those arguing against. However, there seem to be three issues which emerge as of most importance: (i) the extent to which a national health system is commercialized per se is of more significance than whether investment in it is foreign or domestic; (ii) the national regulatory environment and its 'strength' will significantly determine the economic and health impact of FDI, the effectiveness of safeguard measures, and the stability of GATS commitments; and (iii) any Negotiations will depend upon parties having a common understanding of what is being negotiated, and the interpretation of key definitions is thus critical. Each of these issues is explored in some depth, with the overall conclusion that countries should take a step back and first think through the risks and benefits of commercialization of their health sector, rather than being sidetracked in to considering the level of foreign investment.

Peter A Petri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • going it alone in the asia pacific regional Trade agreements without the united states
    Social Science Research Network, 2017
    Co-Authors: Peter A Petri, Michael G Plummer, Shujiro Urata, Fan Zhai
    Abstract:

    The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017 led the remaining 11 countries in that Trade and investment agreement to explore alternative ways to sustain economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. This Working Paper shows that, without the United States, these 11 countries can achieve significant gains from high-quality, TPP-like agreements among themselves and from what might have to be a less rigorous but wider agreement in a separate, 16-member Asian Trade Negotiation, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Either of these multilateral options would yield benefits greater than those that would flow from bilateral agreements between individual countries and the United States alone, and gains from such accords could grow over time. For example, expanding the TPP without the United States to five other Asia-Pacific economies, all of which have expressed interest in the TPP in the past, would yield global income gains that rival those expected from the original TPP that included the United States, and the gains are even larger for some members. The United States, meanwhile, would suffer losses from such arrangements in two ways: first, because it would forego the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the relatively large TPP agreement, and second, because the new Asia-Pacific agreements would reduce US exports to the region as countries shift their Trade to competitors of the United States. In the longer run, a new Asia-Pacific agreement or agreements would keep Trade liberalization on the global agenda and likely attract further interest from large partners, including Europe. Eventually, the United States might observe that it is losing out and change its mind about joining these larger Trade blocs.

Fan Zhai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • going it alone in the asia pacific regional Trade agreements without the united states
    Social Science Research Network, 2017
    Co-Authors: Peter A Petri, Michael G Plummer, Shujiro Urata, Fan Zhai
    Abstract:

    The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017 led the remaining 11 countries in that Trade and investment agreement to explore alternative ways to sustain economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. This Working Paper shows that, without the United States, these 11 countries can achieve significant gains from high-quality, TPP-like agreements among themselves and from what might have to be a less rigorous but wider agreement in a separate, 16-member Asian Trade Negotiation, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Either of these multilateral options would yield benefits greater than those that would flow from bilateral agreements between individual countries and the United States alone, and gains from such accords could grow over time. For example, expanding the TPP without the United States to five other Asia-Pacific economies, all of which have expressed interest in the TPP in the past, would yield global income gains that rival those expected from the original TPP that included the United States, and the gains are even larger for some members. The United States, meanwhile, would suffer losses from such arrangements in two ways: first, because it would forego the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the relatively large TPP agreement, and second, because the new Asia-Pacific agreements would reduce US exports to the region as countries shift their Trade to competitors of the United States. In the longer run, a new Asia-Pacific agreement or agreements would keep Trade liberalization on the global agenda and likely attract further interest from large partners, including Europe. Eventually, the United States might observe that it is losing out and change its mind about joining these larger Trade blocs.

Wooton Ian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Quebec, Scotland, and substate governments' roles in Canadian and British Trade policy : lessons to be learned
    'SAGE Publications', 2021
    Co-Authors: Paquin Stéphane, Rioux X. Hubert, Eiser David, Roy Graeme, Wooton Ian
    Abstract:

    Following Brexit (the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community at the end of 31 January 2020), the British government stated that it hoped to reach a new Trade agreement with Canada to be modelled after the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the first free-Trade deal for which Canadian provinces were directly involved at every stage of Negotiations. In the UK, while there are mechanisms for the involvement of devolved regions in European policy, there is no clear constitutional doctrine as to the roles they should play in elaborating Trade policy more generally. Moreover, the asymmetric nature of the UK’s devolution system complicates the involvement of its devolved governments in Trade Negotiations. By providing a specific focus on the cases of Quebec and Scotland, this article provides a comparison of substate governments’ roles in Trade Negotiation and Trade promotion. It concludes that, while there seems to be only limited scope for substate governments’ formal input into future Trade Negotiations, their Trade and investment promotion organizations allow them to pursue different objectives over Trade outcomes within a unified national framework

  • Quebec, Scotland, and substate governments' roles in Canadian and British Trade policy : lessons to be learned
    'SAGE Publications', 2020
    Co-Authors: Paquin Stéphane, Rioux X. Hubert, Eiser David, Roy Graeme, Wooton Ian
    Abstract:

    Following the Brexit vote in 2016, the British government stated that it hoped to reach a new Trade agreement with Canada rapidly, to be modeled after the Canada-E.U. "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement" (CETA). This agreement was the first Canadian free Trade deal for which Canadian provinces were directly involved at every stage of Negotiations. In the UK, whilst there are mechanisms for the involvement of devolved regions in European policy, there is no clear constitutional principle or doctrine as to the roles they should play in elaborating Trade policy more generally. Moreover, the asymmetric nature of the UK’s devolution system, as to compared to Canada’s mostly symmetric federal system, complicates the involvement of the devolved governments in Trade Negotiations. By providing a specific focus on the cases of Quebec and Scotland, the two countries’ most active and most autonomous substate units on the international scene, this article provides a comprehensive comparison of the two systems across the sectors of Trade Negotiation and Trade promotion. It concludes that whilst there seems to be only limited scope for formal input into future Trade Negotiations led by both Canada and the UK as a whole, Trade and investment promotion organizations in each substate jurisdiction provide one effective avenue through which different objectives over Trade outcomes could be achieved within a unified national framework

Paquin Stéphane - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Quebec, Scotland, and substate governments' roles in Canadian and British Trade policy : lessons to be learned
    'SAGE Publications', 2021
    Co-Authors: Paquin Stéphane, Rioux X. Hubert, Eiser David, Roy Graeme, Wooton Ian
    Abstract:

    Following Brexit (the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community at the end of 31 January 2020), the British government stated that it hoped to reach a new Trade agreement with Canada to be modelled after the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the first free-Trade deal for which Canadian provinces were directly involved at every stage of Negotiations. In the UK, while there are mechanisms for the involvement of devolved regions in European policy, there is no clear constitutional doctrine as to the roles they should play in elaborating Trade policy more generally. Moreover, the asymmetric nature of the UK’s devolution system complicates the involvement of its devolved governments in Trade Negotiations. By providing a specific focus on the cases of Quebec and Scotland, this article provides a comparison of substate governments’ roles in Trade Negotiation and Trade promotion. It concludes that, while there seems to be only limited scope for substate governments’ formal input into future Trade Negotiations, their Trade and investment promotion organizations allow them to pursue different objectives over Trade outcomes within a unified national framework

  • Quebec, Scotland, and substate governments' roles in Canadian and British Trade policy : lessons to be learned
    'SAGE Publications', 2020
    Co-Authors: Paquin Stéphane, Rioux X. Hubert, Eiser David, Roy Graeme, Wooton Ian
    Abstract:

    Following the Brexit vote in 2016, the British government stated that it hoped to reach a new Trade agreement with Canada rapidly, to be modeled after the Canada-E.U. "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement" (CETA). This agreement was the first Canadian free Trade deal for which Canadian provinces were directly involved at every stage of Negotiations. In the UK, whilst there are mechanisms for the involvement of devolved regions in European policy, there is no clear constitutional principle or doctrine as to the roles they should play in elaborating Trade policy more generally. Moreover, the asymmetric nature of the UK’s devolution system, as to compared to Canada’s mostly symmetric federal system, complicates the involvement of the devolved governments in Trade Negotiations. By providing a specific focus on the cases of Quebec and Scotland, the two countries’ most active and most autonomous substate units on the international scene, this article provides a comprehensive comparison of the two systems across the sectors of Trade Negotiation and Trade promotion. It concludes that whilst there seems to be only limited scope for formal input into future Trade Negotiations led by both Canada and the UK as a whole, Trade and investment promotion organizations in each substate jurisdiction provide one effective avenue through which different objectives over Trade outcomes could be achieved within a unified national framework