New U.S. Trade Agreements Could Grow The Economy
The Agreement
The May 8 U.S.-UK accord does far more than merely reduce some tariffs, (although significant tariff reductions in such areas as steel, aluminum, cars, beef, and pharmaceuticals are certainly beneficial).
As trade expert Shanker Singham explains, the pact is a broader framework agreement that points toward future negotiations regarding: (1) free digital trade between the two nations; (2) coordination on foreign investment screening; and (3) the elimination of technical barriers to trade, which are a type of ACMD.
The third category is particularly important. National requirements that imports must meet the same technical standards that are imposed on domestic producers are an especially pernicious sort of technical trade barrier. Future U.S.-UK agreement for the mutual recognition of technical standards would eliminate a serious barrier to numerous cross-border transactions.
The paring back of additional ACMDs, through regulatory reforms in each country, could be the subject of additional U.S.-UK negotiations. In an April 2025 executive order, President Trump already committed to the unilateral rolling back of ACMDS embodied in anticompetitive federal regulations.
The Agreement in Context
The U.S.-UK pact is the first fruit of a new Trump trade strategy to use tariffs as an incentive to 'cut deals' with individual nations whose trade practices are seen as harmful to America. It reflects a negative Administration view of the approach taken in prior trade negotiations.
U.S.-led Post World War II trade liberalization negotiations, under the General Agreement for Tariffs and Trade (and later the World Trade Organization), succeeded in reducing tariffs and various non-tariff barriers at the border. Unfortunately, however, they made little progress in dismantling+- ACMDs.
ACMDs are internal ('behind the border') government-imposed regulations, policies, or practices that distort from open trade, competition on the merits, and property rights protections. They favor certain firms or industries, rather than letting competition and consumer choice drive outcomes.
ACMDs have proliferated around the world, especially in the East Asian economies of Japan, Korea, and most notably China, driving their export-led growth models. These ACMDs have suppressed US exports and contributed to rising imports, which have led to excessive supply absorbed by the US consumer. ACMDs have also badly damaged the gross nationalpProduct per capita of the countries that engage in them.
The Competere consulting firm, led by Shanker Singham, has developed an economic model (the ACMD model) to measure the GDP per capita impact of ACMDs.
The econometric model evaluates the effects on GDP growth of three sets of legal policies {'pillars') that support a competitive, high-growth economy: property rights protection, domestic competition, and international competition. The model has been applied to assess GDP changes in multiple countries.
Significantly, improving a country's ACMD index scores in domestic competition provides by far the largest boost to GDP per capita. Property right improvements come in second and international trade improvements (such as tariff reductions) come in third.
That means getting rid of anticompetitive regulatory restrictions provides the 'biggest bang for the buck.'
Implications for Trade Negotiations
The implications of this model are clear. U.S. trade negotiators may want to use the carrot of American tariff reductions (coupled with the repeal of anticompetitive federal regulations) to achieve the elimination of significant foreign ACMDs.
To the extent this strategy succeeds, higher economic growth should accompany new export opportunities for American firms. This would be an economic win-win for both the United States and its negotiating partners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
India Remains Corruption Hotspot As U.S. Enforcement Recalibrates
Earlier this month, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to prosecute Boston-based Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, closing an investigation into bribery by its Indian subsidiary but requiring the company to 'disgorge' nearly $4.7 million in profits, which will be given to the U.S. government. The decision is significant for two reasons. It is the first public Foreign Corrupt Practices (FCPA) resolution since the Trump administration's early-2025 pause on such cases. Trump's DOJ grounded its decision in its recently revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy ('CEP'), providing clear criteria for the government to decline to bring charges against a company. Second, it underscores the simple reality that India continues to be a high-risk jurisdiction for businesses operating there in terms of corruption—and no changes in Washington have made the risks go away altogether. The Bribery Scheme The Liberty Mutual case reflects the Trump administration's unique approach to FCPA prosecutions. According to the DOJ, Liberty General Insurance paid roughly $1.47 million to officials at six state-owned banks in India over a five-year period in exchange for customer referrals, disguising the payments as marketing expenses and routing them through third parties. The scheme generated more than $9 million in revenue. Liberty Mutual discovered the problem during an internal investigation and disclosed it to the DOJ in March 2024. Doing so proved decisive. The DOJ emphasized that Liberty Mutual's early reporting was critical to its decision not to prosecute. The Department described the company's cooperation as 'full and proactive.' Its remediation included a thorough root-cause analysis, a reorganization to strengthen legal and compliance resources and new restrictions on how employees use messaging applications for business purposes. The Department cited all these factors in its decision. By declining prosecution, the DOJ avoided bringing criminal charges against the company. But by requiring disgorgement, it signaled that foreign bribery still carries real costs, even in an enforcement environment where prosecutions appear to have become more selective. FCPA Enforcement Under Trump II Liberty Mutual's is the first case decided under the Trump administration's revised enforcement guidelines. In June, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that tghe DOJ would focus FCPA cases on conduct that had implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness or involved serious transnational crimes. The early-2025 pause in foreign bribery cases, combined with new enforcement criteria, led many to assume the FCPA was dormant, if not dead, under the Trump administration. That assumption was misplaced. The Liberty Mutual resolution shows the Department of Justice is still pursuing corporate misconduct abroad, even as it recalibrates how those cases should be resolved. What has changed is the path to resolution. The updated Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy now gives companies clear guidelines: disclose early, cooperate fully, remediate credibly and avoid aggravating circumstances. Then criminal prosecution can be taken off the table. But the DOJ's insistence on disgorgement makes equally clear that declinations are not exonerations. Companies will still surrender profits earned through the misconduct, preserving deterrence while rewarding transparency. Corruption Risks In India This matters in markets like India, where corruption is structural and persistent. India ranks behind only China and Brazil in the number of corporate FCPA resolutions since 2015, spanning sectors from insurance and healthcare to defense and infrastructure. That reality has not changed even if Washington's approach to enforcement has. The Liberty Mutual case is the latest reminder of the structural challenges of operating in India. The company joins a long list of companies whose Indian operations have triggered U.S. enforcement. In 2011, spirits company Diageo paid more than $16 million to settle charges that its Indian subsidiary made illicit payments to Indian government officials. In 2012, Oracle paid more than $2 million to settle charges that its Indian subsidiary structured transactions with phony vendors to create slush funds for potential bribes. In 2017, Mondelez resolved allegations that its Indian unit used a consultant to bribe government officials for licenses. In 2018, Stryker Corporation paid a penalty related in part to misconduct in India, where improper payments were disguised as discounts and marketing expenses. The nature of the Indian market puts companies at risk. State-owned entities dominate critical sectors of the economy from banks and insurers to energy and healthcare. That means routine business dealings often involve individuals classified as 'foreign officials' under the FCPA, greatly expanding exposure. Business development is frequently referral-driven, creating incentives to curry favor with gatekeepers at public institutions. Heavy reliance on intermediaries makes oversight challenging and regulatory complexity adds further pressure, encouraging the temptation to make improper payments. These risks are not theoretical: they are embedded in the operating environment. That is why India repeatedly appears in enforcement dockets and why it remains a priority jurisdiction for compliance and risk officers. What It Means for Business The practical message of the Liberty Mutual case is twofold. First, FCPA enforcement is alive under Trump. It may look different with fewer prosecutions and more reliance on disgorgement and voluntary disclosure incentives, but companies cannot assume that risk has vanished. The DOJ has shown that even amid political skepticism about the statute, it will still act where misconduct is clear. Second, India continues to pose serious corruption risk to companies operating there. Special, locally informed compliance controls are indispensable. These include deeper due diligence on intermediaries, close scrutiny of marketing and promotional spending and rigorous oversight of referral arrangements with public-sector actors. Without these, companies operating in India continue to confront a perilous environment in terms of the temptations of corruption—and the risk of getting caught.
News24
2 minutes ago
- News24
Trump administration should release its 100 000 pages on Jeffrey Epstein, judge says
The Trump administration should release its Jeffrey Epstein files rather than ask the courts, ruled a US judge. The government has 100 000 pages, compared to the 70-odd grand jury pages, said Judge Richard Berman. Berman said that the Trump administration's motion appeared to be a diversion. A US judge said on Wednesday that the Trump administration is in a better position than federal courts to release materials that would satisfy public curiosity about the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. In rejecting the Justice Department's bid to unseal records from the grand jury that indicted Epstein in 2019, Manhattan-based US District Judge Richard Berman wrote that the 70-odd pages of materials the grand jury saw paled in comparison to the 100 000 pages the government had from its Epstein investigation but was not releasing. The judge said the bid to persuade him to unseal the records was an apparent distraction from the Justice Department's decision in July not to release its files and directly cited another judge's decision earlier this month not to release similar materials from the grand jury that indicted Epstein's longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. 'The instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession,' Berman wrote. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Berman's decision came as US President Donald Trump has faced criticism from his conservative base of supporters and congressional Democrats over the Justice Department's decision not to release the files from its Epstein investigation. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. His death in jail and his friendships with the wealthy and powerful sparked conspiracy theories that other prominent people were involved in his alleged crimes and that he was murdered. Trump, a Republican, had campaigned for a second term in 2024 with promises to make public Epstein-related files, and accused Democrats of covering up the truth. But in July, the Justice Department declined to release any more material from its investigation of the case and said a previously touted Epstein client list did not exist, angering Trump's supporters. To try to quell the discontent, Trump in July instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek court approval for the release of grand jury material from Epstein's case. READ | Trump's name appears in Jeffrey Epstein files - but it's 'fake news' says White House Evidence seen and heard by grand juries, which operate behind closed doors to prevent interference in criminal investigations, cannot be released without a judge's approval. Justice Department investigations typically collect more material than prosecutors ultimately present to grand juries. Some of that evidence is sometimes eventually disclosed to the public during criminal trials. The Justice Department does not routinely disclose its evidence in cases where a defendant pleads guilty or, like Epstein, never faces trial, but it would not require judicial approval to release such materials. The grand jury that indicted Epstein heard from just one witness, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and saw a PowerPoint presentation and call logs, Berman wrote. READ | Under pressure, Trump urges Bondi to release 'whatever she thinks is credible' on Jeffrey Epstein On 11 August, a different Manhattan-based judge, Paul Engelmayer, denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and exhibits from Maxwell's case, writing that the material was duplicative of public testimony at her 2021 trial. Jared Siskin/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her conviction for recruiting underage girls for Epstein. 'A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion - aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such,' Engelmayer wrote. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty. After losing an appeal, she asked the US Supreme Court to review her case.
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bank Of Thailand Says Limited Room Left For Easing
Bank Of Thailand Deputy Governor Piti Disyatat says the Central Bank will have to see a 'significant material deterioration' in its economic growth outlook, or face unexpected shocks to justify more rate cuts (Source: Bloomberg)
