A 2016 study by political scientists Todd Allee and Andrew Lugg of the University of Maryland found that of the 74 previous trade agreements signed by TPP members since 1995, the TPP text is closest to that of previous U.S. trade agreements.  A 2017 study showed that the TPP has gained great value over other trade agreements in terms of a government`s ability to freely adopt and implement rules in certain areas of law and order.  The Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that “the isYS provisions in the TPP are a significant improvement over previous agreements.”  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.  PIIE asserts that some of the innovations contained in the TPP`s ISDS rules “are generally rejected by the U.S. business community.”  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.”  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.  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.  In May 2015, U.S. Congressman Sander Levin argued that it was difficult to impose trade agreements because he questioned Vietnam`s willingness to comply with TPP labor standards. According to a report by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, there is a significant gap between the labour standards of previous U.S. free trade agreements and the effective application of those rules.  However, PIIE analysts note that studies show that the presence of “sticks” (possible suspension of trade benefits) and “carrots” (technical assistance) in trade agreements increases the likelihood that work commitments in trade agreements will have a positive effect; there are sticks as well as carrots in the TPP.  According to a report by The Office of the Chief Economist of Global Affairs Canada, ratification of the TPP would increase Canada`s GDP by $4.3 billion by 2040.   This situation is mainly due to preferential access to markets in the Asia-Pacific region.   According to the report, ratification by the other signatories to the TPP, but Canada`s failure to ratify the agreement, would lead Canada to face GDP losses estimated at $5.3 billion by 2040.   The content of the TPP goes far beyond the standards developed by the World Trade Organization. The TPP contains a negative list of all sectors covered for trade liberalization, with the exception of the clearly mentioned sectors.
The TPP provides for a new regime for e-commerce, the treatment of foreign investors, broader protection of intellectual property, labour laws and a neutrality agreement with state-owned enterprises.  According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the TPP imposes “binding and fully enforceable obligations” on signatories to “protect the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively” and to “protect child and forced labour from discrimination in the workplace.”  The obligations include “acceptable working conditions laws for minimum wage, hours of work and safety and health in the workplace.”  The USTR insists that countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, if they do not impose provisions on forced labour, human trafficking and collective bargaining, will no longer enjoy the economic benefits of the TPP agreement.  The United States “is not ready to reintegrate this agreement on the national territory,” Cutler says, noting that it will be some time before Biden disagrees within the