Negotiations for a single agreement with all ACP Pacific states are underway. These so-called dynamic commercial benefits are not only very important sources of increase in medium- and long-term growth rates. They are also more difficult to model and study empirically for developing countries such as African ACP countries. Most importantly, it is difficult to find appropriate data for sophisticated models that take into account the specific economic and political situation in ACP countries. As a result, most researchers focus on traditional static gains from trade, which lack these more advanced effects. In summary, improving performance in these different areas of action could not only improve growth on the basis of existing trade flows and foreign direct investment (partly in the form of increased technology). It would also help to attract more on the type of FDI (and therefore on exports), which is closely linked to a development benefit. As Mr. Moran, foreign investment in the form of large facilities, with advanced management technologies and practices, a strong export orientation and integration into the supply chain of the multinational company, are much more likely to be affected by the hospitality industry than sub-installations that produce for the local market and are protected from international competition.12 The main argument in favour of this second objective was relatively obvious. , the export performance of ACP countries has been far from satisfactory in recent decades. Despite non-reciprocal trade preferences granted to ACP countries under the precedents of the Cotonou Agreement (Lomé I-IV agreement), the share of ACP countries in the EU market has therefore increased from 6.7% in 1976 to 2.3% in 2008.1 Additional market access preferences alone should not benefit ACP countries. Another possible reason for the slow progress is the huge lack of confidence in the negotiations.
ACP governments are concerned that they will not be able to cope with the consequences of comprehensive EPAs, which could significantly alter their societies and economies.4 Local firms may not be able to compete with more efficient EU producers, ACP governments could lose the customs revenue they need to finance public spending, or agreements could be sufficiently restrictive to allow sufficient political flexibility for the development of their countries. In addition, CEPOL countries are concerned that the EU will not provide the financial and technical assistance it has provided in the past in the coming years. Chang et al. have broadened the analytical framework and examined various other policy complementarities for the nexus of trade9. In addition to good government rules, they found that high levels of human capital, well-developed financial markets, good public infrastructure and sufficient labour market flexibility play an important role in the relationship between trade and economic growth rates.