Economic background. The FTA talks between the United States and Korea began in November 2004 when the two countries agreed, at a Trade Ministers’ meeting held in Chile, to hold preliminary working-level talks to examine the feasibility of an FTA between the two countries.14 The driving forces behind the US–Korea FTA can be analyzed from many different angles. First, from the US economic perspective, Korea provides a major export market, and the United States wants to increase access to products and services markets in which it has a competitive advantage, such as in agricultural and pharmaceutical goods, as well as the financial services market. Because Korea, in Washington’s view, has a low level of openness in these markets, the United States can expect the FTA to yield large increases in exports.15 For this reason, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has emphasized the economic importance of the FTA with Korea, in contrast to other post-NAFTA US FTAs, which were more politically motivated.16 In addition, the United States can seek to benefit US businesses by adopting a 12 See Korea Trade Association, 2012 Daemi Muyeok Donghyang [State of Korea–US Trade] (28 February 2013). 13 See ‘US Senate Points Out 4 Potential Points of Discussion Regarding FTA’, Xxxxxxx.xx.xx supra note 7. 14 ‘XXXXX Chronology’, supra note 2.
Economic background. The FTA talks between the United States and Korea began in November 2004 when the two countries agreed, at a Trade Ministers’ meeting held in Chile, to hold preliminary working-level talks to examine the feasibility of an FTA between the two countries.14 The driving forces behind the U.S.-Korea FTA can be analyzed from many different angles. First, from the U.S. economic perspective, Korea provides a major export market, and the United States wants to increase access to products and services markets in which it has a competitive advantage, such as in agricultural and pharmaceutical goods, as well as the financial services market. Because Korea, in Washington’s view, has a low level of openness in these markets, the United States can expect the FTA to yield large increases in exports.15 For this reason, the Office of the United States 2010). However, it should be noted that if the “Chinese Diversion” effect—encompassing Korean products made in China but destined for the U.S. market, which are not accounted for in the Korean statistics—is duly accounted for, the United States may still be the largest trading partner of Korea. See, e.g., U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES, EXHIBIT 14: EXPORTS, IMPORTS AND BALANCE OF GOODS BY SELECTED COUNTRIES AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS (Feb. 11, 2009), available at xxxx://xxx. xxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxx-xxxxx/Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx/0000xx/00/xxx00.xxx (reflecting cumulative 2008 U.S. imports from China and Korea, amounting to US$337.79 billion worth of imports from China, compared to US$48.08 billion worth of imports from Korea in the same period).
Economic background. 2012 was a very successful year for the Bayer Group. In the Consumer Care segment, OTC medi- cations grew faster than the market average. The economic situation of Bayer Bitterfeld GmbH is dominated by its close economic ties with its parent company Xxxxx XX and with the Bayer HealthCare subgroup. The company is part of the Product Supply organizational unit within Bayer‘s worldwide production network. As a contract manufacturer, Bayer Bitterfeld GmbH is only indi- rectly affected by economic and external market factors. Its manufacturing services are invoiced on the basis of cost plus a margin of 6% (since January 1, 2011). Invoicing is on a full-cost basis, including general administration expenses.
