As of January 2025, South Korea had 22 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) in effect with 59 countries. More are in the stage of negotiation and talks on conditions.

An overview of Norway`s concessions given in the various free trade agreements between the EFTA-states and the applicable countries or group of countries, as well as the bilateral agreements between Norway and the applicable countries or group of countries.

The different agreements cover trade in industrial products, including fish and other marine products, and processed agricultural products. Basic agricultural products are covered by agreements concluded bilaterally between Norway and the country or group of countries concerned.

This data set also includes the concessions offered to the countries that are a part of the Norwegian scheme of the General System of Preferences.

According to a July 2021 survey, approximately two-thirds of Adults living in the United States considered international trade a good thing for the country. Of those who identified as Democrats, roughly 84 percent believed free trade agreements to be a positive thing for the country.

International merchandise trade data grouped by free trade agreement and by commodity. Users have the option of selecting imports or exports, as well as specifying either total values or any of the section, division or group values of the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS). Users also have the option of selecting any of the country groups with whom Canada has a free trade agreement or is currently negotiating or discussing the possibility of such an agreement. Data are on a customs basis and not seasonally adjusted.

Panama Imports: CIF: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data was reported at 3,732,102.000 PAB th in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3,875,799.000 PAB th for 2015. Panama Imports: CIF: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data is updated yearly, averaging 2,502,636.000 PAB th from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2016, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4,092,181.000 PAB th in 2014 and a record low of 1,118,630.000 PAB th in 2001. Panama Imports: CIF: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Institute of Statistics and Census. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Panama – Table PA.JA003: Imports: By Country.

This dataset provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing the relationship between productive capabilities and trade agreement formation across 95 countries from 2011 to 2017. It combines bilateral trade agreement status, productive capability measures, and sectoral productivity differentials for 8,575 unique country pairs, creating a novel resource for studying economic development and trade integration. The database merges information from multiple authoritative sources: trade agreement indicators from the CEPII Gravity database, maritime distances from CERDI-SeaDistance, productive capability measures from UNCTAD's Productive Capabilities Index (PCI), and sectoral productivity differentials from the RPROD database. Each observation represents a bilateral country relationship in a given year, with detailed information on trade agreement status, economic capabilities, geographic distance, and productivity measures. Key variables include:

-Binary indicators for active trade agreements -Productive Capability Index (PCI) for both origin and destination countries -Balassa-Samuelson effect measures capturing sectoral productivity differentials -Bilateral maritime distances and connectivity measures -Trade flow values and related economic indicators

This unified dataset is particularly valuable for researchers studying:

-Trade agreement formation and economic development -Productive capability thresholds in international trade -Regional patterns in economic integration -Development policy and trade liberalization sequencing

The data structure allows for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, providing a rich foundation for investigating how domestic economic capabilities influence international trade relations. The time period (2011-2017) represents a relatively stable era in international trade, making it ideal for studying structural relationships without the confounding effects of major global disruptions.

China and Australia signed the Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) in 2015, which aims to eliminate or reduce trade barriers between countries through tariffs or quotas. Eliminating trade barriers has expanded China’s agricultural imports from Australia. ChAFTA will strengthen the trade relationship between the two countries, enabling agricultural product imports to have a trade creation effect. This article systematically evaluates the trade effects of ChAFTA on the scale of China’s agricultural product imports based on data from 2000 to 2020. Two statistical methods, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) are applied to estimate the trade effects of agreements. Empirical studies have shown that ChAFTA has a significant trade creation effect on China’s agricultural product imports, while the trade diversion effect is insignificant. When time fixed effects and export country fixed effects are controlled, the PPML method exhibits stronger explanatory power compared to OLS and the estimated trade creation effect is more significant. The empirical research results remain robust even after considering the impact of WTO. There are no endogeneity issues in the results after adding lead variables. By incorporating lagged terms, we find there is no phase-in effect. Empirical research on heterogeneity analysis of agricultural product classification found that ChAFTA had the most significant impact on the import of forest products and aquatic products, followed by textiles and agricultural products.

The foreign trade policy of the European Union is one of the most notable policy areas which is managed centrally by the institutions of the EU, rather than by member states. The EU negotiates regional trade agreements on behalf of its members with partner countries, in order to facilitate greater flows of goods and services, and to open up new export markets for European businesses. The EU's regional trade agreements The EU has engaged in a number of distinct phases where it has negotiated regional trade agreements with partner countries. In the early 1990s it concluded a host of agreements with Central & Eastern European countries who aimed to join the union in the future (and did so in 2004 and 2007). In the 2000s and early 2010s, the EU concluded a new round of trade agreements with candidate countries in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, such as Albania (2006 & 2009), Montenegro (2008 & 2010), Serbia (2010 & 2013), among others. Since the latter half of the 2010s, the EU has turned its attention towards East Asia, concluding agreements with Japan (2019), Singapore (2019), and Vietnam (2020).

The average for 2024 based on 176 countries was 70 points. The highest value was in Singapore: 95 points and the lowest value was in North Korea: 0 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Panama CF: Imports: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data was reported at 1,337,061.000 PAB th in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,271,764.000 PAB th for 2015. Panama CF: Imports: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data is updated yearly, averaging 921,382.000 PAB th from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2016, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,871,795.000 PAB th in 2012 and a record low of 498,510.000 PAB th in 2002. Panama CF: Imports: America: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Institute of Statistics and Census. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Panama – Table PA.JA011: Colon Free Zone: Imports.

We study the relationship between participation in free trade agreements (FTAs) and the sustainability of democracy. Our model shows that FTAs can critically reduce the incentive of authoritarian groups to seek power by destroying protectionist rents, thus making democracies last longer. This gives governments in unstable democracies an extra motive to form FTAs. Hence, greater democratic instability induces governments to boost their FTA commitments. In a dataset with 116 countries over 1960-2007, we find robust support for these predictions. They help to rationalize the rapid simultaneous growth of regionalism and of worldwide democratization since the late 1980s.

Ghana Imports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data was reported at 4,398.400 GHS mn in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 6,418.000 GHS mn for 2015. Ghana Imports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data is updated yearly, averaging 3,124.800 GHS mn from Dec 2009 (Median) to 2016, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 6,418.000 GHS mn in 2015 and a record low of 972.100 GHS mn in 2009. Ghana Imports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ghana Revenue Authority. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ghana – Table GH.JA014: Imports: by Region.

Ghana Exports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data was reported at 905.400 GHS mn in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,037.300 GHS mn for 2015. Ghana Exports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data is updated yearly, averaging 743.850 GHS mn from Dec 2009 (Median) to 2016, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,037.300 GHS mn in 2015 and a record low of 149.900 GHS mn in 2010. Ghana Exports: Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ghana Revenue Authority. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ghana – Table GH.JA007: Exports: by Region.

Due to the regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP) coming into force on January 1, 2022, Japan's exports to RCEP members were forecast to increase by 5.5 percent relative to its exports to RCEP member countries in 2019. Overall, the economic effects across RCEP member countries were predicted to amount to close to 42 billion U.S. dollars.

With its fifteen member countries, the RCEP constitutes the largest trading bloc worldwide, covering approximately 30.5 percent of the world's gross domestic product.

European Union (FDI) Foreign Direct Investment: Flow: Inward: EU 27E: North America Free Trade Agreement data was reported at 258,367.400 EUR mn in 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of -110,220.000 EUR mn for 2019. European Union (FDI) Foreign Direct Investment: Flow: Inward: EU 27E: North America Free Trade Agreement data is updated yearly, averaging -29,102.200 EUR mn from Dec 2013 to 2020, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 387,623.600 EUR mn in 2015 and a record low of -305,432.100 EUR mn in 2017. European Union (FDI) Foreign Direct Investment: Flow: Inward: EU 27E: North America Free Trade Agreement data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Eurostat. The data is categorized under Global Database’s European Union – Table EU.O002: Eurostat: Foreign Direct Investment: Inward: By Country: BPM6.

An overview of Norway’s Concessions given in the various free trade agreements between the EFTA states and the relevant countries or group of countries, as well as the bilateral agreements between Norway and the relevant countries or group of countries. The different agreements cover trade in industrial products, including fish and other marine products, and processed agricultural products. Basic agricultural products are covered by agreements concluded bilaterally between Norway and the country or group of countries concerned. This data set also includes the Concessions offered to the countries that are a part of the Norwegian scheme of the General System of Preferences.

The Agricultural Tariff Tool is a web application that queries tariff schedules and rate information resulting from Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). All exporters/importers need to determine how competitive their product will be in a market. One of the key cost components is the import tariff that will be applied to a product by the importing country. The FAS Agricultural Tariff Tool will allow exporters/importers to quickly and easily determine the tariff rate that will be applied to their product by the importing country.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Agricultural Tariff Tracker For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This dataset tracks Cambodia’s export values from January to September 2024 under Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and the GSP-MFN (Generalized System of Preferences – Most Favored Nation) scheme. It includes monthly export data to key trade partners such as the United States, European Union, ASEAN, Japan, China, and others. The figures reflect fluctuations in export performance across different markets, with notably high volumes to the U.S., ASEAN, and the EU during the mid-year period.

Paraguay Imports: Registered: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data was reported at 1,279,236.014 USD th in 2024. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,415,718.953 USD th for 2023. Paraguay Imports: Registered: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data is updated yearly, averaging 126,200.730 USD th from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2024, with 64 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,473,520.263 USD th in 2022 and a record low of 5,359.000 USD th in 1961. Paraguay Imports: Registered: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Central Bank of Paraguay. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Paraguay – Table PY.JA010: Imports: by Economic Zones.

The European Union is an active member of the World Trade Organisation that promotes free trade in the world. In the WTO, the European Union is actively involved in the Doha Development Round which began in 2001. Since 2007, it has also been engaged in a number of bilateral trade negotiations for a new general of trade agreements with countries such as India, Ukraine, Canada, as well as completing negotiations earlier this year on trade deals with Peru and Colombia and the countries of Central America, as well as signing a far-reaching agreement in October 2010 with South Korea. In November 2010, the European Commission launches a new trade policy. The main objective of this new policy will be to ensure that the development of international trade is a vector of job creation in the European Union. In his State of the Union speech, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso announced the main objective of this new policy: “We also want to see support for the Doha Round. Trade boosts growth and prosperity. We will also pursue bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements. In October, the Commission will present a renewed trade policy to drive new benefits for Europe.” In this context, the Trade Directorate-General (DG TRADE) of the European Commission has been keen to measure public opinion on international trade, in order to: - Assess the impact of international trade on the lives of EU consumers - Evaluate the role of the EU in international trade - Assess the future challenges of European Union trade policy Two-thirds of Europeans think that the EU has benefited a lot from international trade. As for their individual experience, more people think that they are personally benefiting from trade today than disagree. Half of Europeans are aware of the origin of the products and services they purchase. This awareness is higher for some items (62% for food) than for others (44% for high-tech services such as a mobile phone provider). A relative majority of Europeans thought that the EU was the biggest world player in international trade. Nearly two thirds of respondents thought that European products and services can compete well with those from outside the EU. More than six in ten Europeans on average believe that the priority for future EU trade policy should be to create employment. #####The results by volumes are distributed as follows: * Volume A: Countries * Volume AA: Groups of countries * Volume A' (AP): Trends * Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries * Volume B: EU/socio-demographics * Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: http://www.gesis.org/en/home/