Minh, P.N., Nhieu, N.T., Van Anh, H.T. and Linh, N.K. (2018), “Impacts of new generation of free trade agreements (FTAs) on the development of export-import markets of members – Vietnam case study”, Вьетнамские сиследованя, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 18-31. Although they take different approaches to analytical methods, most of these studies show similar results on the importance of tariff reduction and elimination for economic development and well-being. In this article, the authors have an ex-post assessment of the impact of NAFTA on some critical factors of the Vietnamese economy, such as domestic consumption, factors of production, trade balance and state budget, in the scenario of removing the customs barrier from the industrial sector by establishing a SAM based on the latest Vietnamese input-output table for 2012, then using static CGE modeling. Others agree that the environment is another victim of free trade. Simply put, you can`t have free trade and “save the planet,” says Alf Hornborg, a professor of human ecology at Lund University in Lund, Sweden, and notes: foreign trade. World prices of imported products and export goods are considered exogenous, Sf denotes external savings and the external trade balance is given by: Phat, L.T.N. and Hanh, N.K.
(2019), “Impact of removing industrial tariffs under the European-Vietnam free trade agreement: A computable general equilibrium approach”, Journal of Economics and Development, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 2-17. doi.org/10.1108/JED-06-2019-0011 Especially when the production tax rate is set at 10 and 20 per cent, state income falls by only 2.72 and 3.1 per cent, while social assistance increases by 11.57 and 14.13 per cent respectively. These interesting results show that the fluctuation in government income is lower than social assistance if the tax rate on production changes. In other words, if the government sacrifices its revenues, the positive impact on the economy is far greater than its deficit. Although Azevêdo has argued that other factors are responsible for 80 percent of job losses worldwide, it is remarkable that the director of the world`s largest free trade advocate acknowledged that 20 percent of all job losses on the planet are due to free trade.
That would certainly be a strong argument against free trade, not for that. And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that free trade agreements with countries like Korea and Colombia are not “job creation measures.” This is hardly a resounding tribute to free trade. The candidate at the time, Donald Trump, promised during his election campaign to end the United States` participation in NAFTA. As president, Mr. Trump negotiated a new three-circle pact to replace NAFTA and announced in October 2018 that NAFTA would be replaced by USMCA – the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. It remains to be seen how effective this new agreement will be in mitigating some of the consequences of barrier-free trade. In the first scenario, the industrial tariff is used as an exogenous variable, while other different endogenous variables are clarified when the industrial tariff is adjusted in the simulation procedures. Concretely, the authors will adjust the industrial sector`s tariff rate to 0 per cent to assess the impact of evFTA on the economy.
The removal of this tariff will lead to significant changes in other areas of vsAM, such as.B. household consumption, factors of production, commercial value, national income and social assistance. Ganguly, A. and Das, K. (2017), “Multi-sector analysis of foreign investment and trade liberalization in India: a CGE modelling approach,” Global Business Review, Vol. . .