Regions

TTIP and Norway: Impact and trade policy options

This study analyzes TTIP, its implications for Norway and Norway’s trade policy choices. TTIP will hardly be concluded under Obama's presidency, but the agreement could become a reality within a few years. TTIP aims at comprehensive cooperation in the regulatory area. In the short term there will be limited harmonization of standards but regulatory cooperation between different systems. In the long term, the goal is stronger cooperation in the regulatory area. TTIP will from what we know not lead to a lowering of European health regulations or a "race to the bottom". If TTIP is realized and Norway remains outside, the EEA Agreement will be little affected and the overall economic impact is moderate. If Norway joins TTIP, there will be a significant real income gain, with estimates ranging from 2236 to 6772 NOK per capita in the various scenarios. There is considerable variation across sectors. With Norway outside TTIP there will be a moderate negative impact for a majority of the sectors, especially some manufacturing sectors that face tougher competition in the EU and USA export markets. The oil industry will benefit from increased demand and higher prices. If Norway joins TTIP, a clear majority of industries will benefit; especially business services and a number of other service industries. The public sector gains from TTIP, mainly due to cheaper inputs. TTIP will contribute to the dismantling of import protection for Norwegian agriculture and without compensating measures, production and employment will be reduced. TTIP will still allow some import protection and this margin of maneuver, which depends on future negotiations, is important for the outcome. With a larger margin of manoeuvre and unchanged budgetarty support, most of Norway’s agriculture can be maintained. With less margin of manoeuvre, it will be more challenging. Norwegian accession to TTIP may occur in the form of a standard trade agreement in which Norway or EFTA are formally equal to the EU and the United States. Alternatively, Norway may participate in a European pillar as in today's "Open Skies" agreement on air traffic. If TTIP succeeds in establishing comprehensive regulatory cooperation, the latter solution is most likely. Such a solution implies that Norway will become more closely integrated with the European Union also in trade policy towards third countries. Norwegian entry into TTIP implies that we have to accept the established rules and negotiate bilaterally with the EU and the USA on market access. The negotiations with the USA will apply to all aspects of market access, while negotiations with the EU will apply only to areas in which the EEA agreement is not already deeper. The negotiations with the EU for TTIP entry will thus include, among other issues, tariffs for seafood and agriculture. As an alternative to membership in TTIP, Norway or EFTA may initiate a trade agreement with the USA. Such an agreement would likely be less extensive in the regulatory area. Such an agreement will also provide an economic gain for Norway, but less than accession to TTIP. For Norway as a whole, accession to TTIP creates a real income gain between 12.5 and 35 billion NOK according to various scenarios, while a free trade agreement with the United States results in a gain of about 7.4 billion NOK. TTIP also includes negotiations on so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), whereby foreign-owned companies can sue a state if they are unfairly or inappropriately treated. Such rights also exist in national law but international tribunals have to some extent extended the interpretation of what is considered unfair. The European Union has proposed a solution in TTIP with a permanent court as well as rules that discipline the interpretation of the principles, and thus avoids that ISDS unduly interferes into the states’ "right to regulate". This and many other issues are analysed in this report and six background papers.

How to Deal with North Korea: Lessons from the Iran Agreement

The current and oft repeated pattern of responses to North Korean nuclear and missile provocations has failed to produce results. With the stakes becoming increasingly high it is time that a new approach is explored. The success to date of the deal to cap Iran’s nuclear program offers clues to a different approach with North Korea. North Korea’s position now is stronger than ever before it has more bargaining chips. Conversely the threats posed by North Korea have never been greater. A negotiated settlement is the only acceptable outcome. The key will be to have a broad enough agenda for negotiations to ensure all parties see benefit: addressing the nuclear and missile issues, economic issues (removal of sanctions) and security issues (a Korean peace treaty to replace the armistice). The alternatives to negotiations are war or another nuclear weapon state with a de facto nuclear deterrent capability. Neither prospect will make any nation in the region more secure.

Annerledesdemokratiet

Listening to aid recipients in "aid-development" debate: findings from "The listening project" and Jerge-Tal village in Kyrgyzstan

Foreign aid is an important aspect in understanding human development in aid-dependent societies. Original assessments of aid are generally based on the viewpoints of aid agencies, while the opinions of aid recipients often remain ignored. This perpetuates inconsistencies in understanding foreign aid, leaving a knowledge gap. In-depth analysis of aid efforts and recipients’ perceptions can shed light on the advantages/limitations of such aid, and enable appropriate development-oriented strategies. This article brings new empirics to bear on the foreign aid debate. It builds on ‘The Listening Project’ (LP), which has explored the ideas and insights of those on the receiving end of foreign aid. Inspired by “listening to people” approach, this article demonstrates the central importance of explicating empirical data and including such findings in the debate on foreign aid and development. Presenting empirical evidence on aid reception in the village of Jerge-Tal, Kyrgyzstan, the author examines whether and how feedback from aid recipients is in line with the patterns and recommendations of the LP. Both these studies add to the growing literature on foreign aid for development by virtue of “listening to aid recipients” in donor–recipient relations. The conducted benchmark analysis reveals that the characteristics of aid provisions in Jerge-Tal village comply with the patterns and common assessments discovered by ‘The Listening Project’. Key findings relate to greater opportunities for public participation, ownership and coordination of the aid programs and development projects. Aid recipients of LP stress the issues of appropriate knowledge on aid-recipient societies; of aid as “business model” with irrational allocation of budget and recruitment of recipients that creates “project societies” instead of the intended civil societies. The study of aid recipients in Jerge-Tal village brings an example of aid-recipient empowerment and participation in development achieved through cooperation with international and local aid agencies together with the Kyrgyz state. Potential policy implications refer to the fostering of collaborative activities between aid agencies, aid recipients and state institutions as a condition for effective aid management and coordination.

Georgia elections: Georgian Dream still at the helm

Contrary to expectations that the election results would necessitate a new coalition government, the recent parliamentary elections in Georgia have secured a constitutional majority for the Georgian Dream. This is evidence that Georgia remains steadfast in its Euro-Atlantic course, as well as signalling growing political stability and a sustained commitment to reforms. However, concerns are rising over the new government’s super-majority and the recent introduction of constitutional amendments that could threaten the system of checks and balances. Upholding its democratic credentials will also depend on the government’s ability to preserve political pluralism, ensure the development of media freedoms, continue work towards a depoliticized judiciary, and move beyond its retributive style of governance. Moreover, enduring economic problems and the unresolved issue of the breakaway territories Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where local governments have been deepening their relations with Moscow, remain key challenges. These will all need to be addressed, at home and among Georgia’s Western partners, as the country continues to aspire to EU and NATO membership.