Are US Textile and Apparel Imports Using Free Trade Agreements? (Updated February 2017)

Free trade agreements (FTAs) are arrangement among two or more countries under which they agree to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff (NTB) barriers on trade among themselves (Cooper, 2014). Theoretically, companies shall be interested in increasing imports from FTA regions because of the duty free treatment (i.e. trade creation effect). Particularly not paying import tariff duty can be a great cost advantage for textile and apparel (T&A) companies given the fact that the average US import tariff rate was still as high as 8% for textiles and 11.6% for apparel in 2016 (WTO, 2017).

fta-2017

Despite the potential benefit of using FTAs, data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel show that 85.7% of US T&A imports came from non-FTA regions in 2016. Interesting enough, although more FTAs have taken effect in the United States, T&A imported under FTA as a percent of total T&A imports dropped from 15.1% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2016.

Among the FTAs in force, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican-Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) altogether accounted for 75.9% of the value of total U.S. T&A imports under FTAs in 2016.

us-fta-utlization-2016

Statistics further reveal that sometimes companies did not claim duty free benefits of FTAs even though they imported T&A from the FTA region. For example, in 2016 about 29.9% of U.S. T&A imports from South Korea, 24.3% from CAFTA-DR and 16.3% from NAFTA and 12.9% from Columbia did not enjoy the duty free treatment granted by the respective FTAs.

fta-rule-3

Some industry experts say the complex T&A rules of origin is a major factor why US T&A companies are not using FTAs enough. According to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), there are more than 20 different tariff lines dealing with various T&A rule of origin situations under respective FTAs.

short-supply-2016

Additionally, U.S. T&A importers seem to use the “short supply list” mechanism–an exception to the yarn forward rules of origin under FTAs, more actively. For example, in 2016 around 2.4% of US T&A imports under FTAs took advantage of the “short supply list” mechanism, increased from only 1.2% in 2008. Similarly, a record high of 6.2% of U.S. T&A imports under the CAFTA-DR used the short supply list in 2016.

Sheng Lu

Made in the USA Textiles and Apparel:Facts and Future

The presentation is the outcome of Jillian Luetje‘s honor project in FASH455 (Fall 2016). In the project, Jillian explored the facts and future of “Made in USA” textile and apparel based on her research of existing literature and interviews with U.S. trade officials. The presentation intends to help the audience (especially those new to the area of textile and apparel trade and trade policy) have a basic understanding of the topic.  

Key findings:

  • Textile and apparel manufacturing in the USA is NOT totally gone.
  • The U.S. textile industry in particular relies on the Western Hemisphere supply chain and related free trade agreements
  • Made in the USA apparel is not going to increase any time soon.

Welcome for any comments and suggestions!

ILO Evaluates Trade Impact of Labor Provisions in Free Trade Agreements

labor provision

The International Labor Organization (ILO) releases a new study, which looks at how the increasing number of labor provisions in free trade agreements are impacting the world of work. According to the study:

Labor provisions in free trade agreements take into consideration any standard which addresses labor relations or minimum working terms or conditions, mechanisms for monitoring or promoting compliance, and/or a framework for cooperation.  (See appendix: evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements).

As of December 2015, there were 76 trade agreements in place (covering 135 economies) that include labor provisions, nearly half of which came into existence after 2008. This represents more than one-quarter (28 percent) of the trade agreements which the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been notified of, and which are currently in force. Over 80 percent of agreements that came into force since 2013 contain such provisions. Countries most active in promoting labor provisions in free trade agreements include: Canada, the European Union, the United States, Chile, New Zealand and Switzerland. Some South-South free trade agreements also include labor provisions.

The study finds that there is NO evidence to support the claim that implementation and enforcement of labor standards leads to reduced trade. The findings show that trade agreements, with or without labor provisions, boost trade between members of the agreement to a similar extent. For country-partner pairs that have a trade agreement with labor provisions in force, bilateral trade is estimated to be on average 28 percent greater than what would be expected without such an agreement.

Results further show that, on average, trade agreements that contain labor provisions impact positively on labor force participation rates, bringing larger proportions of male and female working-age populations into the labor force and, particularly, increasing the female labor force. The study assumes that labor provisions in trade agreements can raise people’s expectations of better working conditions, which in turn increases their willingness to enter the labor force.

However, the study found NO statistically significant relationship between labor provisions and labor market outcomes such as wages, share of vulnerable employment or gender gaps at the aggregate level (i.e. consider all countries). On the one hand, this implies that labor provisions at least do not lead to the deterioration of other labor standards in a country. On the other hand, it indicates that labor provisions in free trade agreements have limited impact on the outcomes of the labor market.

Additionally, the study stresses that interaction among stakeholders, capacity-building and monitoring mechanisms – with the support of social dialogue are critical to achieve positive outcomes in the labor market. In a case study on the Cambodia–US Textile Agreement specifically, the report finds strong firm-level intervention, such as monitoring and compliance, improved wages at the firm level, including a notable reduction of the gender wage gap. In another case study, it is found that capacity-building measures brought to Bangladesh after the Rana Plaza tragedy have resulted in some visible improvements with respect to the number of trade unions, building safety and amendments in labor law in the country.

Appendix: Evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements

labor provisions

Source: http://www.thirdway.org/memo/tpp-in-brief-labor-standards

USITC Studies the Impact of Trade on Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry

job impact of trade

employment in the US T&A industry

In its newly released Economic Impact of Trade Agreement Implemented under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a quantitative assessment on the impact of trade on manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry. According to the report:

  • Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry have been declining steadily over the past two decades. Between 1998 and 2014, employment in the NAICS 313 (textile mills), NAICS314 (textile product mills) and NAICS 315 (apparel manufacturing) sectors on average decreased annually by 7.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively.
  • Rising import is found NOT a major factor leading to the decline in employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313)–as estimated, imports only contributed 0.4 percent of the total 7.6 percent annual employment decline in the U.S. textile industry. Instead, more job losses in the sector are found caused by improved productivity as a result of capitalization & automation (around 4.6 percent annually) and the shrinkage of domestic demand for U.S. made textiles (around 3.5 percent annually) between 1998 and 2014.
  • Rising imports is the top factor contributing to job losses in apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315), however. As estimated by USITC, of the total 11.2 percent annual employment decline in apparel manufacturing, almost all of them is affected by imports (10.8 percent). On the other hand, increased domestic demand for apparel (such as from U.S. consumers) is found positively adding manufacturing jobs by 2 percent annually in the United States from 1998 to 2014.
  • To be noted, USITC did not estimate the impact of trade on employment changes in the retail aspect of the industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 80 percent of jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry came from retailers in 2015. These retail-related jobs are typically “non-manufacturing” in nature, such as: fashion designers, merchandisers, buyers, sourcing specialists, supply chain management specialists and marketing analysts.

2016 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

usfia 2016 cover_Page_1

The report can be downloaded from HERE

Key Findings of the study:

I. Business environment and outlook in the U.S. Fashion Industry

  • Overall, respondents remain optimistic about the five-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry. “Market competition in the United States” is ranked the top business challenge this year, which, for the first time since 2014, exceeds the concerns about “increasing production or sourcing cost.”

II. Sourcing practices in the U.S. fashion industry

  • U.S. fashion companies are more actively seeking alternatives to “Made in China” in 2016, but China’s position as the No.1 sourcing destination seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Meanwhile, sourcing from Vietnam and Bangladesh may continue to grow over the next two years, but at a slower pace.
  • U.S. fashion companies continue to expand their global reach and maintain truly global supply chains. Respondents’ sourcing bases continue to expand, and more countries are considered potential sourcing destinations. However, some companies plan to consolidate their sourcing bases in the next two years to strengthen key supplier relationships and improve efficiency.
  • Today, ethical sourcing and sustainability are given more weight in U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing decisions. Respondents also see unmet compliance (factory, social and/or environmental) standards as the top supply chain risk.

III. Trade policy and the U.S. fashion industry

  • Overall, U.S. fashion companies are very excited about the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and they look forward to exploring the benefits after TPP’s implementation.
  • Thanks to the 10-year extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), U.S. fashion companies have shown more interest in sourcing from the region. In particular, most respondents see the “third-country fabric” provision a critical necessity for their company to source in the AGOA region.
  • Free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs remain underutilized in 2016 and several FTAs, including NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, are utilized even less than in previous years. U.S. fashion companies also call for further removal of trade barriers, including restrictive rules of origin and remaining high tariffs.

The benchmarking study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2016 based on a survey of 30 executives from leading U.S. fashion and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers. In terms of business size, 92 percent of respondents report having more than 500 employees in their companies, while 84 percent of respondents report having more than 1,000 employees, suggesting that the findings well reflect the views of the most influential players in the U.S. fashion industry.

For the benchmarking studies in 2014 and 2015, please visit: https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Julia K. Hughes, President of the United States Fashion Industry Association

logo-1138967853headshot_USFIA-hughes_300x300px

Julia K. Hughes is President of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), which represents textile and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers based in the United States and doing business globally. Founded in 1989 as the United States Association of Importers of Textiles & Apparel with the goal of eliminating the global apparel quota system, USFIA now works to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers that impede the industry’s ability to trade freely and create economic opportunities in the United States and abroad. Ms. Hughes represents the fashion industry in front of the U.S. government and international governments and stakeholders.

Ms. Hughes has testified before Congress and the Executive Branch on textile trade issues. She is recognized as an expert in textile and apparel issues and frequently speaks at international conferences including the Apparel Sourcing Show, MAGIC, Foreign Service Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, Cotton Sourcing Summit, International Textiles and Clothing Bureau, Young Presidents’ Organization, World Trade Organization Beijing International Forum, and others.

Ms. Hughes served as the first President of the Organization of Women in International Trade (OWIT) and is one of the founders of the Washington Chapter of Women in International Trade (WIIT) and WIIT Charitable Trust. In 1992, she received the Outstanding Woman in International Trade award and in 2008, the WIIT Lifetime Achievement Award.

Ms. Hughes has an M.A. in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.

Special thanks to Samantha Sault, Vice President of Communication for the U.S. Fashion Industry Association for facilitating and supporting this exclusive interview. Ms. Sault is responsible for the development and execution of the association’s communications strategy, including public relations, policy research and messaging, and social media. Prior to joining the association, Ms. Sault honed her communications expertise at DCI Group, a global public affairs communications firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. Previously, she worked in media as a web editor and fact checker at The Weekly Standard and an editorial assistant at Policy Review, the journal of the Hoover Institution. She began her career in the apparel industry at 17 at abercrombie kids in Bethesda, Maryland.

Interview Part

Sheng Lu: Our students are interested in knowing who the members of the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) are. Can you name a few of your member companies?

Julia Hughes: Our members range from major global brands and fast-fashion retailers, to small importers and wholesalers. While all of our members must be doing business in the United States, our membership roster also includes some international companies with a retail presence in the United States. Some of our most actively engaged members include iconic brands and retailers like Ralph Lauren, Macy’s, Levi Strauss & Co., JCPenney, Urban Outfitters, PVH Corp., and American Eagle Outfitters. We also represent small and medium-size importers, wholesalers, and manufacturers that you might not know by name, but supply to many of your favorite brands and retailers—companies like Michar, MGF Sourcing, and Golden Touch Imports, to name a few.

Sheng Lu: The USFIA is an advocate for trade liberalization and removal of trade barriers. Can you talk with us about the benefits of free trade, especially for the fashion industry both in the United States and globally?

Julia Hughes: As you know, USFIA was originally founded in 1989 (then known as the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel) with the mission to eliminate the global quota system. We were successful! But of course, as you also know, that work is not over. The quotas may have gone away, but there still are import barriers that are unique to the apparel industry. USFIA member companies continue to face some of the United States’ highest tariffs. Textiles and apparel, combined with footwear, still account for some of the highest peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule, with many double-digit tariffs and a high of 32 percent.

Not only are these tariffs higher than on other products, but these tariffs also are a regressive tax. We believe it is simply wrong for a single mom to pay a 32 percent import tax for her baby’s onesies and a 16 percent tariff for her baby’s booties, while the wealthy pay a 1.2 percent tariff for their silk scarves. In total, apparel tariffs take more than $10 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Americans annually. So eliminating these tariffs would be an immediate benefit to American consumers and to American families.

But even removing these tariffs would not mean that there is “free trade.” For example, the fact that the United States maintains these peak textile and apparel tariffs creates problems for new policy initiatives to expand export markets for U.S. products. Market access for American brands and exports is hindered by prohibitively high tariffs in attractive third country markets such as India and Brazil. Our own peak tariffs only encourage other governments to maintain their own high apparel and textile tariffs to “protect” their domestic industries. American brands such as Levi’s and Polo are among the most recognized brands in the world. American yarn spinners and fabric makers operate highly efficient operations that make them among the world’s most competitive producers. For all of these companies, we need every opportunity to remove barriers to trade.

There is a great opportunity to create high-paying jobs here in the United States, too. Fashion brands and retailers offer quality design, product development, logistics, sourcing, and service jobs in the United States, along with manufacturing jobs. These jobs are supported by global value chains, and will be on track to grow IF free trade agreements contain rules of origin and market access provisions that will decrease the cost of those fashion products. This would not only help the brands and retailers grow and create more jobs, but also help consumers by providing access to affordable, high quality apparel.

Finally, free trade isn’t just about tariffs – but also non-tariff barriers like regulations, certifications, and testing requirements all represent non-tariff barriers to trade. And since today’s global brands are selling everywhere from the United States to the UK to Japan to Dubai, we are working to eliminate these barriers, too.

Sheng Lu: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a buzzword for the fashion industry, with Vietnam and China at the core of the discussion. Many people see Vietnam as an alternative sourcing destination to China for labor-intensive apparel and footwear products. You’ve visited both Vietnam and China recently. What’s your first-hand observation? How competitive is “Made in Vietnam” compared with “Made in China”?

Julia Hughes: The TPP is a top priority for USFIA and for our member companies. But unlike some, we do not see the TPP as creating an either/or scenario for sourcing apparel and footwear. China remains the top supplier to the U.S. market, and we do not see that changing any time soon. The breadth of manufacturing operations in China, combined with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and logistics operations, mean that sourcing executives are comfortable with placing orders and knowing that they will get the quality product that they want delivered on time.

However, you are correct that Vietnam is seen as an alternative sourcing destination.—not just by U.S. sourcing executives, but also for Chinese companies. Both the TPP and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement make Vietnam an especially attractive destination for making apparel and for investments in manufacturing yarns and fabrics. But Vietnam is not necessarily the destination for companies searching for lower prices.

Sheng Lu: In the 2015 USFIA Benchmarking Study, around one-third of respondents report sourcing from 6-10 different countries and another one-third report sourcing from 11-20 different countries. What are some of the reasons that U.S. fashion companies today would choose to have such a diversified sourcing base?

Julia Hughes: There are a couple reasons why companies have such diversified sourcing bases. First, it is a holdover from the quota era, because companies were pretty much forced to diversify their sourcing since they couldn’t import everything from China. Following the elimination of the quotas in 2005, companies had cultivated trusted suppliers all over the world in countries as diverse as Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Mexico, and Colombia, so there was no reason to leave these good suppliers after they had spent the time and resources developing their supply chain. Second, diversification is a method of risk management. There are lots of risks that could impact your supply chain—from natural disasters to labor strife to terrorist attacks. The last thing a company wants is to have all of their production in one place—because when disaster strikes, you won’t be able to get your product to your customers. By keeping a diverse supply chain, you can ensure that you’ll always have products moving to the shelves. Finally, different countries have different specialties—and truthfully, no one country can do it all. Companies don’t necessarily prefer to source fabric, yarn, zippers, and buttons from four different countries and ship to a fifth for cutting and sewing, but sometimes, that’s the way it must be done in order to produce the best product at the best price for your target customer.

Sheng Lu: We know that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has been extended for another 10 years. How has the U.S. fashion industry reacted to the AGOA extension? Are U.S. consumers going to see more “Made in Africa” apparel in the retail stores?

Julia Hughes: USFIA member companies are definitely looking at sourcing opportunities in Africa after the extension of AGOA. Today a little more than 1 percent of U.S. apparel imports come from Sub-Saharan Africa—and there are only a few countries that ship apparel to the U.S. market. Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, and Madagascar are the major producers of apparel today – representing 87% of the U.S. imports. The ten-year extension of AGOA is allowing companies to take a fresh look at what is available to source in Africa today, as well as to plan to long-term growth. Both PVH and VF, for example, have been very public about their commitment to develop a vertically integrated industry in Ethiopia.

What is exciting is that new sourcing supply chains are opening up in Africa. While the level of U.S. imports remains low there are some growing suppliers. For example, during March 2016–a month when the overall U.S. apparel imports plunged by -21 percent compared to March 2015—there were a few Sub-Saharan African suppliers that bucked the trend. U.S. imports from Madagascar jumped by 160 percent, from Ethiopia by 83 percent, and from Ghana by 371 percent!

Sheng Lu: Textile and apparel trade policy is always one of the most challenging topics for students in FASH455. Many students wonder why the rules governing the global textile and apparel trade are always far more complicated than most other sectors. For example, in the past, students had to learn about the quota system, from the Short-term Arrangement (STA) to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA). The quota system is gone, but it seems students now have to know even more “terms”: the yarn-forward rules of origin, short supply list, third country fabric provision, trade preference level (TPL) and earned import allowance… What makes the textile and apparel trade so unique in terms of trade regulations?

Julia Hughes: This is a great question–and one that does not have an easy answer. Absolutely, when I first started working with the industry, it was a revelation to understand about quotas and labeling requirements classification issues. Today, the industry is even more complicated. I think that a lot of the complexity today is due to protectionism. Negotiators looked for ways to limit the market opening impact of trade agreements, and to try to protect their domestic industry. This isn’t just an issue for the United States.  Starting with NAFTA in the 1990’s, the rules are more complicated in every free trade agreement—and none of the free trade agreements exactly matches the others. But the complexity isn’t just for FTAs, of course. Today, we also face more regulations, different labeling requirements for different countries (and unfortunately sometimes even different labels are required in different states!), and more testing and certification requirements.

Sheng Lu: Looking ahead in 2016, what important sourcing trends and trade patterns shall we expect in the U.S. fashion industry? What are the policy priorities for the USFIA this year?

Julia Hughes: The implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remains at the top of our list of policy priorities. But implementation is still a long way off, especially since the U.S. Congress is unlikely to vote on the agreement before the November elections. We don’t expect to see a huge shift to sourcing in Vietnam, Malaysia, and the other TPP partners in 2016-2017, since duty-free treatment is a long way off, but we do expect to see companies taking a closer look at opportunities there—and it helps that Vietnam is already the #2 supplier to the United States, so many companies are already sourcing there. We’re also prioritizing completion of the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (T-TIP) between the United States and European Union. The EU is a great source for luxury brands and companies manufacturing leather goods, but this agreement has an even greater potential in terms of regulatory harmonization, making it easier for many of our members to break into the retail markets in Europe. We’re also focused on enhancing the African Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA), cumulation of free trade agreements, and customs and ethical sourcing issues, too. As far as future trends, we’re looking forward to seeing the results of our third-annual Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which will give us a lot of insight into what brands are thinking about sourcing and expansion!

Sheng Lu: Last but not least, our students wonder what makes you and your staff personally interested in the fashion industry. Particularly, through your daily work, how do you see the impact of the fashion industry in the 21st century global economy?

Julia Hughes: My path to the world of fashion is from the policy side. I was always interested in international policy and after graduating from Georgetown University and SAIS, I was fortunate to hear about an opportunity to be the Washington Representative for Associated Merchandising Corporation (AMC). It was a terrific opportunity to be engaged in policy discussions, but also to spend time with the buyers, with the sourcing teams, and also with the overseas offices and vendors to understand the impact on trade policy on the clothes we wear. Let’s face it, it is a shock to realize the way that Congressional actions, and negotiations, can determine whether a jacket is made with down, or synthetic fibers, or cotton–or maybe it is manufactured to qualify as a shirt instead of a jacket. It also is inspiring to work with industry executives who are committed to fashion as well as doing good for the global economy. Textiles and apparel has always been an industry that can be a gateway for economic development–and I have seen the positive impact by creating jobs where there were none before–as well as expanding U.S. jobs in design, product development and compliance.

Samantha Sault: I have always loved fashion—in fact, my very first job in high school was folding clothes and working the register at abercrombie kids at the mall in my hometown!—but I never thought about fashion as a career until I had been working for a few years after college. I started my career in political media in D.C., and eventually started covering the intersection of fashion and politics for various publications, including exciting events like New York Fashion Week and President Obama’s first inauguration (and the First Lady’s fabulous dresses). After five years in media and public affairs, I found my way to USFIA and the business and policy side of the fashion industry. The most inspiring part about working in fashion has been getting to know our contacts at our member companies, and seeing how committed they are not only to their brands, but also to ethical sourcing and compliance. These are not just buzzwords—I’ve learned firsthand that many of the individuals at our member companies are deeply committed to ensuring that they are doing the right thing in their supply chains from the factory floor (especially for women) to the retail store, and it has made me appreciate these brands even more than I already did.

–The End–

Sourcing Practices and Free Trade Agreements: Discussion Questions Proposed by FASH455

trans-pacific-partnership

Sourcing Practices

#1 Many US fashion companies choose to continue to diversify their sourcing base and they are actively seeking supplementary sourcing destinations. How to explain this phenomenon?

#2 U.S. apparel imports from Vietnam has been growing rapidly in recent years. Why do you think Vietnam has been able to expand as a garment exporter so quickly, outperforming most of its Asian competitors?

#3 Why would, after everything that happened at Rana Plaza, U.S. apparel companies still outsource to Bangladesh?

#4 Why would U.S. fashion companies want to become more diversified with the countries and factories that they are currently sourcing from? Is there still room for expansion for larger corporations who are already quite diverse with their sourcing base? Why or Why not?

#5 Why does the U.S. fashion industry still hold a positive view on the future of the industry despite the reported rising pressures of increasing production or sourcing costs? If China is a major factor causing the pressure of rising production and sourcing cost, why didn’t U.S. fashion companies just move out of China and switch to source from elsewhere?

Free Trade Agreement and Rules of Origin

#6 America most often applies the “yarn forward” standard for textiles and apparel. This states that the fibers can be produced in any country, but the spinning into yarn must take place in free trade area. Do you think this is the most beneficial method the U.S. can use? Would the United States be able to, in reality, employ a “fiber forward” standard instead and use the land in the U.S. Midwest to use domestically grown cotton or wool?

#7 Two debates over free trade agreements (FTAs) include: 1) FTAs act as a “stumbling block” to global trade liberalization, and 2) FTAs act as a “building block” to multilateral trade liberalization. What is your view, especially based on our analysis on the impact of NAFTA, CAFTA-DR and TPP?

#8 In class we discussed the special relationship between NAFTA & CAFTA-DR and the US  textile industry. Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) help the U.S. textile industry further expand export opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region? On the other hand, how will TPP potentially affect the U.S. textile and apparel trade with the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR regions?

#9 Do you think that Rules of Origin (RoO)  are having a negative impact on the larger picture of global trade? Since RoO intends to limit preferential treatments to FTA member countries only, is this simultaneously hindering outside countries from maximizing their opportunities with countries they are not in an FTA with?

#10 If the “Yarn-Forward” rule were to be implemented by the TPP, what types of effects do you think we would see on US apparel consumers? What benefits would the US textile manufacturers have if this were to happen and would the benefits outweigh the cost to US consumers and the limits that would be placed on countries such as Vietnam?

[Please feel free to join our online discussion. For the purpose of convenience, please mention the question # in your reply/comment.]