Trade, investment and the global economy: Are we entering a new era for health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although officially dead due to US withdrawal from agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) is now in a ‘zombie’ state being resurrected in different ways by most of its remaining 11 member countries. This renders the analysis of its health implications both current and timely. This article, drawing on our own health impact assessment of the TPP and other analyses and commentaries, critically reviews some of the major ways in which the TPP, as a representative of so-called 21st-century regional trade agreements, poses a threat to global health equity. Four specific ways are identified and reviewed: (1) It increases restrictions on public health regulations (despite the tobacco partial carve-out) specifically through changes in the Technical barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) chapters, and its new Regulatory Chapter. (2) Its flawed Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system (with several cases affecting health services/insurance and indirectly health through cases challenging environmental protection) continues to benefit investor over public health and sustainability. (3) Its labour and environmental chapters are largely hortatory and concerned with ensuring increased trade by TPP rules, and not stronger labour rights or environmental protection per se. (4) There is little aggregate economic benefit, but disequalizing income distributions, and no accounting for public costs (e.g. trade adjustment compensation for negatively affected economic sectors, increased patent drug costs).The article concludes by locating the content and implementation of agreements as the TPP as a form of international law that entrenches a discredited neoliberal economic model of enormous benefit to capital and limited benefit to most of the world’s peoples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".