scholarly journals The PBS in a globalised world: free trade and reference pricing

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Searles
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Reference Pricing ◽  
The Us ◽  
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

In January 2005 Australia implemented the Australia? United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The agreement had placed domestic health policy and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in particular, on the trade negotiating table. At the time Australians were told the PBS would not be undermined, but why was it included in a trade agreement? This article argues that recent reforms to the PBS partially delivered on an issue that the US has compelled its trade negotiators to ensure since 2002: the elimination of reference pricing. In Australia, reference pricing, as used by the PBS, had been credited with obtaining money when buying new medicines.

Free Trade as a Strategic Instrument in the War on Terror?: The 2004 US-Moroccan Free Trade Agreement

2005 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 597-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory W. White
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Cleavages ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government

In June 2004, the United States signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Morocco. FTAs are typically thought of as economic agreements, but the agreement with Morocco has an explicit security component. Indeed, US officials have cast the agreement as an opportunity to support a close ally in the region, and its signing coincides with Morocco's denomination as a non-NATO ally of the US. Yet even if the FTA achieves its stated economic goals — a very tall and ambitious order — it remains to be seen whether or not the benefits will extend to a society divided by enormous social cleavages. As a result, the US-Moroccan FTA and Morocco's new found stature in US security policy paradoxically run the risk of deepening societal resentment within Morocco toward the government and, by extension, the US.

scholarly journals The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA): its implications for Australia-United States relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-53
Author(s):  
Johni Robert Verianto Korwa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Strategic Alliance ◽  
International System ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The Us

Australia is currently faced with a strategic and economic dilemma regarding its interactions with China and the United States (US). On the one hand, it should maintain and strengthen its strategic relations with the US as an ally in order to contain a rising China. On the other hand, Australia should ensure its economic growth by strengthening trade relations with China. This paper aims to examine the implications of the new China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) for the ANZUS strategic alliance. Through Qualitative Approach, this article analyzes the issues with the use of realist and liberal perspectives in international relations. By assessing two previous events involving the triangular Australia-US-China relationship (the case of the Taiwan conflict, and the US development of a National Missile Defense system), this paper concludes that ChAFTA may tend to undermine the ANZUS alliance. Three reasons for this conclusion are identified: a fundamental shift in the way Australia perceives China; ChAFTA offers more benefits to Australia than the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA); and finally Australia may consider ChAFTA as being more in its national interests in the international system than the ANZUS alliance.

scholarly journals Correction: Patents, pills and politics: the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Ken Harvey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

Re: ?Patents, pills and politics: the Australia? United States Free Trade Agreement and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?, by Ken Harvey, (Aust Health Rev 2004, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 218-226). Under the heading ?A brief history of patent law relevant to pharmaceuticals?, in the second paragraph, the second sentence was: ?Before TRIPS, many developing countries provided no patent protection on pharmaceutical products, or they recognised patents on products but not process?. The corrected version should be ?. . .process but not products?.

scholarly journals Patents, pills and politics: the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Harvey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
History Of ◽  
Innovative Drugs ◽  
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

There is tension between the need of the pharmaceutical innovator for intellectual property protection and the need of society for equitable and affordable access to innovative drugs. The recent Australia?United States Free Trade Agreement provides a nice illustration of this interplay between patents, pills and politics. This article provides a brief history of patent law as applied to pharmaceuticals, describes how the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme got caught up in AUSFTA negotiations, analyses the clauses that are likely to impact upon the PBS and describes the political process that reviewed and ultimately amended the AUSFTA.

US-Mexico Free Trade: Implications for the United States

1992 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney Weintraub
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Changing Attitudes

The Moment of Truth has come for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Congress will have to stop talking and vote to accept or reject the agreement negotiated among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The disagreement on NAFTA in the United States is about free trade with Mexico, not with Canada. A US-Canada free trade agreement (FTA) already exists.This controversy over NAFTA has been fierce in the United States, much more so than in Mexico. This comparison speaks volumes about changing attitudes. It was almost unthinkable a decade ago that Mexico would so drastically alter its traditional position of maintaining economic and political distance from the United States. This change would not have been possible but for la decena trágica, the years of the 1980s. Beyond that, Mexico has more at stake in a free trade agreement. It has the smaller economy (about 1/27th that of the United States) so that changes, for better or worse, are magnified.

scholarly journals O Congresso dos Estados Unidos e os impasses na aprovação do NAFTA | The Congress of the United States and the impasses in the approval of NAFTA

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. e57624
Author(s):  
Angelo Raphael Mattos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

A partir das competências constitucionais do Congresso dos Estados Unidos em política externa, das plataformas dos partidos Democrata e Republicano de 1992, bem como dos argumentos a favor e contra a implementação do North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), o artigo objetiva compreender e discutir as razões da dificuldade enfrentada por Bill Clinton para aprovar o NAFTA no Congresso dos EUA em 1993. Os resultados das análises dos diferentes grupos domésticos, incluindo os atores Executivo e Legislativo, indicam que posições ideológicas, sobretudo presentes no Partido Democrata, como questões trabalhistas e ambientais, representaram o principal fator de resistência ao NAFTA no Capitólio.Palavras-chave: Congresso; Estados Unidos; NAFTA.ABSTRACTBased on the constitutional powers of the United States Congress in foreign policy, the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties of 1992, as well as the arguments for and against the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the article aimed to understand and discuss the reasons for Bill Clinton's difficulty in passing NAFTA to the US Congress in 1993. The results of the analyzes of different domestic groups, including the Executive and Legislative actors, indicate that ideological positions, especially present in the Democratic Party, as labor and environmental issues, represented the main factor of resistance to NAFTA in the Capitol. Keywords: Congress; United States; NAFTA. Recebido em: 08 fev. 2021 | Aceito em: 20 set. 2021.

Assessing the Impact of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) on Australian and Global Medicines Policy

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Alured Faunce ◽  
Evan Doran ◽  
David Henry ◽  
Peter Drahos ◽  
Andrew Searles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The Impact

The Investment Provisions of the Canada—United States Free Trade Agreement: A Canadian Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 394-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Raby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
The World ◽  
Trading Partners

This is a good deal, a good deal for Canada and a deal that is good for all Canadians. It is also a fair deal, which means that it brings benefits and progress to our partner, the United States of America. When both countries prosper, our democracies are strengthened and leadership has been provided to our trading partners around the world. I think this initiative represents enlightened leadership to the trading partners about what can be accomplished when we determine that we are going to strike down protectionism, move toward liberalized trade, and generate new prosperity for all our people.On January 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada signed the landmark comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries that already enjoyed the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. The FTA was subsequently ratified by the legislatures of both countries, if only after a bitterly fought election on the subject in Canada. On January 1, 1989, the FTA formally came into effect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document