MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3125927825

Playing from Strength: Canada’s Trade Deal Priorities for Financial Services

2016· article· en· W3125927825 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChinaGeneral partnershipNegotiationFinancial servicesGovernment (linguistics)BusinessOrder (exchange)International tradeFinancePolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The financial services sector plays a crucial role in the growth of the Canadian economy. How and where Canada looks abroad for opportunities will be critical in determining the future success of this industry. The announcement by the United States President-elect that he would withdraw his country’s signature from the recently concluded Trans Pacific Partnership, may in fact create the conditions for a flurry of negotiations aimed at concluding narrower deals. This Commentary summarizes the important competitive strengths that Canada has built in financial and related services, and ranks the markets which Canadian trade policymakers should prioritize in order to exploit these advantages. To evaluate high priority countries for Canada’s trade negotiators, we created a ranking methodology. Specifically, we sought to answer two questions that evaluate attractiveness and feasibility respectively: • Where would opening up trade in financial services provide the greatest benefit to the Canadian economy? • Where is it most realistic, given what we already know about these particular countries? Results from analyzing these two questions suggest a set of five priority markets. First, is the continued importance of TPP signatories, Mexico, the United States, and Chile, all of which Canada has agreements with, as well as Australia, Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, with which Canada does not. Although the TPP is unlikely to survive, something like it, or a “plan B” involving the TPP signatory countries, should be on the Canadian government’s agenda. China is next on our priority list. From an attractiveness standpoint, China ranks at the top, as it is a fast-growing emerging market but remains fairly closed, meaning there is much potential in principle for a trade agreement with that country to have a positive impact on Canada. The next country on our priority list, India, is another large emerging economy that is strong from an attractiveness perspective but with whom our assessment of the feasibility of doing a deal is less glowing. Nevertheless, despite labour market concerns that have derailed previous attempts to conclude a trade agreement, India remains a strong candidate. ASEAN countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand continue to be valuable targets for Canadian trade negotiators. All have different strengths and weaknesses, but both individually and as a group they offer much from a Canadian perspective. In the Americas, we suggest that smaller partners such as the Dominican Republic could be new and interesting targets for Canada. While not themselves powers in financial services, they have shown a clear interest in liberalizing trade, including in services, and have good growth prospects in the heart of what is a fast-evolving Caribbean basin. Even in the current environment, Canada can likely successfully promote services trade liberalization, focusing on areas of existing and emerging advantages such as financial and related services – many of which it shares with the United States – and on markets that are likely to be more promising and receptive. Such sectoral and bilateral approaches continue to hold a lot of potential for growth.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,259
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,762

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle