The second way in which free trade agreements are seen as public goods is related to the changing trend towards them becoming "deeper". The depth of a free trade agreement concerns the additional types of structural policies it covers. While older trade agreements are considered "flat" because they cover fewer areas (such as tariffs and quotas), recently concluded agreements deal with a number of other areas, from services to e-commerce to data localization. Since transactions between parties to a free trade agreement are relatively less onerous than transactions with non-parties, free trade agreements are generally considered to be excluded. Now that deep trade agreements will improve regulatory harmonization and increase trade flows with non-parties, thereby reducing the applicability of the benefits of the FTA, next-generation free trade agreements retain essential features of public goods. [19] In the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), free trade agreements were initially defined to cover only trade in goods. [5] Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) defines "economic integration agreement" as an agreement with a similar purpose, i.e. to promote the liberalization of services. [6] However, in practice, the term is now often used to refer to agreements that include not only goods, but also services and even investments.

Environmental provisions have also become increasingly common in international investment agreements, such as free trade agreements. [7]:104 Another reason for blocking free trade is the young industry argument. It states that if a country is relatively new to a given sector, it would fight against international competition. It should therefore invest in this new industry and protect it in order to diversify its economy and enable the industry to compete in the future. In particular, it is justified to impose tariffs on sectors where a country has a latent comparative advantage, that countries can develop infrastructure and economies of scale in that sector and, therefore, subsequently benefit from a comparative advantage13. The creation of businesses will lead to the relocation of consumption from an inexpensive producer to an inexpensive producer, which will increase trade. On the other hand, trade diversion will have the effect of shifting trade from a lower-cost producer outside the area to a more expensive one under the free trade agreement. [16] Such a postponement will not benefit consumers under the free trade agreement, as they will be disinterested in the possibility of buying cheaper imported goods. . . .