Robert Z. Lawrence, a Harvard economist, argues that the model used by Tufts researchers “is simply not able to credibly predict the effects of the TPP” and argues that the model used by Petri and Plummer is superior. [19] Lawrence argues that the model used by Tufts researchers “does not have the granularity that allows it to assess variables such as exports, imports, foreign direct investment and changes in the industrial structure. As a result, his predictions ignore the benefits to TPP economies resulting from increased specialization, economies of scale and better consumer selection. [19] Lawrence also notes that the model used by tufts researchers indicates that the TPP will fall by 5.24% in non-TPP developing countries such as China, India and Indonesia, which is very skeptical of Lawrence: “It is not credible that a trade agreement of this magnitude could lead the rest of the world into recession. [19] Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, a well-known skeptic of globalization, says that Tufts researchers “do a bad job of explaining how their model works, and the details of their simulation are a little dark… lack of sectoral and country-by-country details under Capaldo; his attitudes remain opaque; and its extreme Keynesian assumptions are agitated with its medium-term perspective. [18] The original TPP contained measures to reduce both non-tariff barriers and tariff barriers[10] and to establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDR). [11] [12] THE U.S. International Trade Commission,[13] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would lead to positive economic outcomes for all signatories if ratified, while an analysis with an alternative methodology by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would have a negative impact on signatories. [Note 1] Many observers have argued that the trade agreement would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the dependence of signatories on Chinese trade and to bring the signatories closer to the United States. [23] [24] [25] [26] The Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that “the provisions of the ISDS contained in the TPP represent a significant improvement over previous agreements.” [101] PiIE notes that the ISDS mechanism in the TPP complies with environmental, health and safety rules; Ensure transparency in litigation procedures and eliminates shopping in the forum. [101] PIIE asserts that some of the innovations contained in the TPP`s ISDS rules “are generally rejected by the U.S.

business community.” [101] Piie asserts that ISDS rules are necessary because they stimulate investment: “Empirical evidence has shown that contracts, including these provisions, have a positive impact on foreign direct investment flows between signatory countries.” [144] PIIE challenges the assertion that ISDS “lacks integrity to arbitrators” and finds that arbitrators take an oath of impartiality and elect both parties in a case to arbitrators. [101] PiIE agrees that secrecy has gone too far in many ISDS cases, but notes that “TPP negotiators have opened up greater transparency to these criticisms” and ISDS cases. [101] The agreement reduces by more than 18,000 tariffs. [87] Tariffs on all U.S.