Bilateral Agreements

  • Uncategorized


Nameof author



TheUnited States and China have a heightened competition over theirinfluence in South Korea which has sparked many debates in therespective capitals Washington, Beijing, and Seoul (Estevadeordal,2016).Some of the advantages associated with the continuation of thesebilateral agreements are the increase in inter-regional economicintegration. The United States and China are some of the leadingeconomies, and hence they offer a lot of opportunities to thepartnering countries (Estevadeordal,2016).Economic integration results from sharing technology and theprofessional skills and hence, increasing the domestic production.Bi-Lateral Agreements open up marketing opportunities for the UnitedStates. Hence, the growth in the national income out of increasedforeign trade. These agreements aid in minimizing the transactionbarriers between the countries such as tariffs, quotas and attractthe foreign investors who add on to the country’s capital stocks(Estevadeordal,2016).

TheAmerican employment sector is shifting in importance from themanufacturing to the service industry. Bilateral trade increases theeconomic transition as more clients can be obtained to consume theservices (Estevadeordal,2016).This type of trade increases the American sources of raw materialssuch as fuels for the production of power which runs the industries.These materials are obtained from the partner countries at a lowprice which reduces the national expenditure. The savings can bereinvested in other productive places.

However,the bi-lateral agreements are of disadvantage to the United States asthey led to a trade deficit for the nation which needs to be balancedwhile observing the free trade policy (Estevadeordal,2016).America faces the risk of losing its market share and the death ofsome industries as the tariff-free imports from the other countriespose high levels of competition for the local industries(Estevadeordal,2016).Due to these events, it is projected that the rate of unemployment inthe nation is likely to increase which would result in reducedstandards of living (Estevadeordal,2016).As far as many benefits are anticipated with the bi-lateralagreements, there is an equal proportion of challenges likely to beencountered.


TheEuropean Union is an economic bloc comprising of those nationsprimarily located in Europe (Verney&amp Ifantis, 2013).The candidate countries include Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia,Montenegro, and Albania. There are many trading opportunities thatthe United States can derive from these nations. These states offer achance to penetrate into the European Union since the sustainedfriendship with such countries would continue even after they areawarded the full membership of the union (Verney&amp Ifantis, 2013).There are many advantages of trading with such nations such asincreased market size for the goods, capital, and the humanresources. In 2013, the World Bank reported the GDP of Albania was12.92 billion U.S. dollars while that of Macedonia stood at 10.2billion dollars (Verney&amp Ifantis, 2013).The GDP for Montenegro was estimated at 4.416 U.S dollars while theSerbian GDP stood at 45.52 billion dollars and that of Turkey at822.1 dollars (Verney&amp Ifantis, 2013).Though there are high disparities in the total GDP of the candidatenations, there is a moderate rate of GDP growth, and the per-capitaincomes of these nations show that they are developed countrieshence they qualify to be members of the European Union.

Someof the pending applications for the World Trade Organization (WTO)include Iran and Algeria (Hoekman&amp Mavroidis, 2015).The World Bank estimated their GDP in the year 2013 to be 368.9billion U.S. dollars and 210.2 billion U.S. dollars respectively(Hoekman&amp Mavroidis, 2015).These countries offer an excellent trading opportunity for the UnitedStates such as increased product and factor markets (Hoekman&amp Mavroidis, 2015).These states have high national income which translates to moretrading opportunities for the members of the trading WTO. Hence theyshould be awarded membership.

Urdinez,Burian &amp de Oliveira (2016) stated that MERCOSURis an agreement signed by the states of Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil,Paraguay and Uruguay to promote free trade in the region. Theorganization has some associate members such as Chile, Peru, Ecuadorand Colombia. Bolivia is the forerunner for full membership but doesnot ascend to the common external tariff. According to the World Bankstatistics of the year 2013, the GDP of the four nations stood at277.2, 202.3, 94.47 and 378.4 billion U.S dollars respectively(Urdinez, Burian &amp de Oliveira, 2016).The United States may benefit from trading with such countriesthrough the reduction of tariff barriers. These countries have manyideological differences that contrast the objectives of the treatyand therefore should not be enrolled as member states.

Accordingto Estevadeordal(2016),the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) nations are classified asdeveloping economies. Some of the associate member nations includeAnguilla, Bermuda. The associate island countries are the BritishVirgin Islands, Turks and Caicos and the Cayman. In the year 2008,the GDP of Anguilla was estimated to be 108.9 million U.S dollars,and that of the British Virgin Islands was 839.7 million dollarswhile that of Turks and Caicos Islands was 11,500 U.S Dollars(Estevadeordal,2016).In 2012, the World Bank estimated the GDP of Bermuda to be 5.474billion U.S dollars. The GDP of the Cayman Islands was 1.012 in the1996 World Bank report (Estevadeordal,2016).America can derive some advantages by trading with these nations suchas the sustainable growth of the capital investments and a widermarket for the finished products and the services. All thesecountries have growing economies and should be included in theorganization, to add more impact on the efforts(Estevadeordal,2016).


Estevadeordal,A. (2016).&nbspGoverningregional integration for development: monitoring experiences,methods and prospects.Routledge.

Ghemawat,P. (2013).&nbspRedefiningglobal strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences stillmatter.Harvard Business Press.

Hoekman,B. M., &amp Mavroidis, P. C. (2015).&nbspWorldTrade Organization (WTO): Law, Economics, and Politics.Routledge.

Urdinez,F., Burian, C. L., &amp de Oliveira, A. J. (2016). MERCOSUR and theBrazilian Leadership Challenge in the Era of Chinese Growth: AUruguayan Foreign Policy Perspective.&nbspNewGlobal Studies,&nbsp10(1),1-25.

Verney,S., &amp Ifantis, K. (2013).&nbspTurkey`sRoad to European Union Membership: National Identity and PoliticalChange.Routledge.

Close Menu