Evaluation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There was much opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Japan, but I will still attempt to evaluate the contents of the agreement.

The 31 rules of the agreement relax foreign investment restrictions on transmissions, financing, retail and public enterprises, etc. More than a few items benefit and are of importance to the Japanese economy.

Japan relies on trade for survival and strategically should oppose increases in foreign market transparency. It is safe to say that the government negotiated well.

Japan decided to lift tariffs on 98% of 9,018 goods. I noticed that mass media, politicians, and others argued that this will only make it difficult to protect our weakened agricultural sector. Almost no mention was made of the beneficial application that good food will be cheaper to import.

Analysis of the TPP should consider not only GDP and producers, but also increased consumer surplus. We can also find significant points on that topic in the TPP.

I was concerned as to whether it prioritizes our national interests. Intellectual society has been thrust into the midst of agricultural and industrial societies, leaving Japan no choice but to subsist for the next 100 years on intellectual property. At the onset of the creation of these international rules, it seemed that the advantages of IP consumers would be diminished in favor of protecting agricultural providers.

Of course, the Japanese government also understands the situation. In this agreement, despite the problems with agriculture and IP, they seem to have endeavored to acquire benefits for many economic industry fields.

First transmissions. Procedures and rulings were made transparent, and foreign investment restrictions were relaxed. In e-commerce, it was determined that tariffs would not be levied on digital content, and restrictions requiring internal server establishment for online sales were removed.

In financing, foreign investment restrictions were relaxed. Convenience store and retail branch store restrictions were repealed. There are also large government service and public enterprise market openings. These measures also cover important industrial areas pertaining to the growth of Japan.

In intellectual property, the created copyright system closely resembles that of the US. It strengthens the rights of the holder (the provider). It reduces consumer surplus. Even outside of business, from the perspective of a country with excessive imports like Japan, this benefits the US.

However, there are also good points in this section: the introduction of preventative measures for Internet piracy, the prohibition of equipment that evades access control, stronger control of bootleg editions, and recompense claim rights for providers.  These measures will also have a great positive effect on Japan’s business world.

The US could be expected to first attempt to demonstrate the merits by pushing for the  creation of a treaty with participating nations, but at the same time, I hope for us to pinpoint the demerits and properly establish a domestic copyright system.