3) We call on all countries to adopt an economic policy that stimulates productivity and innovation, including in the commercial and non-market sectors, as the failure of domestic policy is a considerable nuisance to maintain the counter-reaction to trade. These include investment-enhancing tax policies, worker training systems that are better connected to the needs of employers, and competition policies that are favourable to more productive market players. This is important because critics are more blaming globalization if policy makers do not pursue an effective growth policy. As economist Benjamin Friedman observed in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, growth leads to more tolerant societies, improves civic discourse and generally leads to more humane societies and more open to trade. Economic decline or stagnation leads to the contrary. In these difficult times, the challenge of globalization is an easy outcome for many people, rather than tackling the more difficult task of implementing domestic, educational, scientific and labour policies that promote growth. If countries and regions introduced a more efficient growth policy based on productivity gains and innovation, the animus of globalization would diminish. But for too long, the debate over trade and globalization has taken place between what former U.S. Health, Education and Social Welfare Minister John Gardner once called “non-critical lovers and unpleasant criticisms.” On the one hand of this debate, there are those who have never concluded a trade agreement that they have not appreciated, who believe that unilateral trade liberalization is an unprivileged good, regardless of the behaviour of partner countries, and who believe that the application of trade against the mercantilist measures of other nations is by definition protectionist. On the other hand, there are those who reflexively oppose the continued opening up of the world economy, even with agreements that include strong and enforceable norms against commercialism and who would prefer to return in time to more nationalistic economies. The world`s elites cannot just wave their flags for globalization and tell opponents and skeptics, including those with legitimate complaints, to “move on.” The best way forward is to resume the call for market-based globalization, with minimal mercantilist distortions, while recognizing that national governments are also required to pursue a domestic policy that ensures that their citizens can compete and prosper successfully. The agreement is supported by strong evidence on both sides of the Atlantic that the EU and the US have a comparable regulatory and procedural framework for inspections of manufacturers of human medicines.

Since May 2014, teams from the European Commission, relevant EU, EMA and FDA authorities have been reviewing and evaluating their respective surveillance systems and working closely together to reach the stages of the agreement. At the same time, more and more nations have turned to a mercantilist policy to help domestic industry and gain an unfair advantage in global competition for market share and employment in many sectors. This has the counterproductive effect of launching a race to the bottom, with citizens accusing globalization and inviting their leaders to respond with more protectionism on substantive issues.