The TSA is open to all WTO members who wish to open up trade in services. China has asked to participate in the talks. The EU supports its request because it wants as many countries as possible to join the agreement. The Trade in Services Agreement (TSA) is a draft international trade agreement between 23 parties, including the European Union and the United States. The agreement aims to liberalize global trade in services such as banks, health care and transport. [1] The secrecy of the agreement was criticized in June 2014 following the publication by WikiLeaks of a secret draft of the annex to the proposal last April. [2] Another publication took place in June 2015[3] and another in May 2016. [4] In accordance with Article XXI, certain commitments may be amended subject to certain procedures. Countries likely to be affected by such changes may invite the changing member to negotiate compensatory adjustments; these must be conceded on the basis of the MFN. With regard to specific commitments, the agreement adopts the approach of gradual liberalisation by establishing, step by step, specific packages of commitments.52 Market access for the first package is, however, provided for in the agreement. In accordance with Articles 18 and 19, service providers of contracting parties should receive equal treatment and national treatment, and contracting parties should not maintain or adopt measures that would limit the number of service providers and the value of transactions and service assets.53 In this context, China has committed to establishing a single timetable for its specific obligations for all ASEAN members. 54 The Trade in Services Agreement is the agreement of the Trade in Goods Agreement, but it was concluded more than two years later in 2007.
The structures of the two agreements are quite similar, but they deal with different subjects. Compared to trade in goods, trade in services is more complex. This is one of the reasons why the China-ASEAN Services Trade Agreement was concluded as a result of the trade agreement. The most recent CGE literature has also focused on services in the study of regional integration issues. This is very similar to global or country analyses, with the exception of EU-motivated work and European integration, which focuses more on the impact of differences in national services regulation. For example, Lejour et al. (2008) highlight efforts within the EU to deepen the integration of European services markets. The EU is not (yet) a customs union for services (Langhammer, 2005) and further integration in this area is politically controversial. Mr Lejour et al. believe that while there are potential benefits from further integration of EU markets, orders of magnitude depend on the extent to which barriers within the EU protect rents or actually entail significant costs. That is why they support the idea that the way we deal with barriers to trade in services is important.
Political economic factors (generally not found in CGE models) are also important. Kox and Lejour (2006) predict that the initial 2004 EU Services Directive could have increased domestic trade in services by 30-60% and direct investment in services by 18-36%. The revised directive, adopted in 2006, is unlikely to have any effect of this nature, as important aspects of the original proposal have been removed, including acceptance of country-of-origin regulation.
