Our overall results mask a great heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between EU countries, trading partners and types of trade agreements. For example, higher-income EU countries (Belgium/Luxembourg, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) recorded significantly higher quality gains than other EU countries. For the group of low-income EU countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain), the effects of trade agreements have had an almost exclusive impact on lower prices and not on quality improvements. Steiner U (2004) Unilateral actions: the case of international environmental problems. Resour Energy Econ 26 (4): 373-391 additional benefits serve as an additional sanction system for the IEA. We look at the International Environmental Agreement (IEA) with ancillary benefits. For a number of reasons, we view this estimate as a lower limit for the actual welfare gains of trade agreements. Both the added value and the primary value generated by the fight against climate change are key factors essential for the implementation of full participation in the International Environmental Agreement (IEA). This paper presents a new IEA model with additional benefits, which uses a repeated game with each country`s linear and square emission reduction functions. This study also examines the impact of additional benefits on the condition of full participation in the IEA. The additional benefits serve as a complementary sanction system for the IEA. Our key findings show that the additional benefits can facilitate full participation in the IEA, indicating that they should be taken into account in climate change negotiations. We calculate the overall impact of EU trade agreements by comparing the current situation to a counterfactual scenario in which the EU has not signed trade agreements.
Comparing the CPI in both scenarios allows us to answer the question of how poorer EU12 consumers would have been without agreement-based trade liberalisation over the past two decades. Instead, globalization and trade deals give both give and take — and the United States has many reasons to believe that it has taken much more — and many more people — than is generally accepted in our limited trade debates. . . .