According to the Congressional Research Service, “Tufts` study, as an unconventional framework for the analysis of trade agreements, has attracted particular criticism, while the computable general Equilibrium (CGE) models used in Peterson`s study are the standard in commercial analysis.  Fabio Ghironi, a professor of economics at the University of Washington, describes the models of the World Bank and the Peterson Institute in more favourable terms than Tufts` analysis.  The Peterson Institute for International Economics asserts that “the TPP involves more protection of workers` rights than any previous U.S. free trade agreement.”  In January 2016, Human Rights Watch said that the secondary TPP agreements with Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei were “a unique and significant step in efforts to protect workers` rights in trade agreements,” but said there was still much to be expected to be followed: “Compliance with the rules requires subjective assessments by the United States. , which can take years to implement foreign policy objectives and face obstacles. commercial interests and other political considerations.  Economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson, who have studied in depth the adaptations of U.S. labour markets to the shocks of trade competition caused by China support the TPP.  They assert that the TPP would “promote trade in knowledge-intensive services, in which U.S. firms have a strong comparative advantage,” assert that “killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to the United States” and assert that it would pressure China to raise the rules and regulatory standards to those of the TPP members.  Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics predict that the TPP would increase U.S.
revenues by $131 billion per year, or 0.5% of GDP. Exports from the United States would increase by $357 billion per year, or 9.1%, as a result of the agreement.  However, two tufts University economists argue that Petri`s research is based on unrealistic assumptions such as full employment: lost jobs are immediately replaced in other industrial sectors.  According to Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, “Petri and Plummer believe that labour markets are flexible enough to compensate for job losses in sectors of the economy affected by job losses elsewhere. Unemployment is excluded from the outset – an integrated result of the model that TPP supporters often distort.  Rodrik notes that “the Petri Plummer model is directly based on decades of academic business modelling, which distinguishes a clear distinction between microeconomic effects (the design of resource allocation by sector) and macroeconomic effects (compared to the general level of demand and employment). In this tradition, trade liberalization is a microeconomic “shock” that affects the composition of employment, but not its overall level.  “This is another wake-up call for the United States,” says Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a long-time U.S. trade agent who was involved in the TPP negotiations. “Now you have two mega-agreements in the region, and both will lead to greater integration between the members of these different blocs.” In November 2009, President Obama announced the united States` intention to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations for an ambitious next-generation Asia-Pacific trade agreement that reflects U.S. economic priorities and values. With this agreement, the Obama administration is trying to stimulate economic growth in the United States and support the creation and commitment of quality American jobs by increasing exports to a region that encompasses some of the world`s most robust economies and accounts for nearly 40% of global GDP. The Obama administration is working closely with Congress and a large number of interest groups to reach a strong agreement on the problems