We assess the outcomes for the negotiating parties in the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the remaining eleven parties go ahead with the agreement as negotiated without the United States, as compared to the outcomes under the original twelve-member agreement signed in October 2016. We find that the eleven-party agreement, now renamed as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), is a much smaller deal than the twelve-party one, but that some parties do better without the United States in the deal, in particular those in the Western Hemisphere-Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. For the politically relevant medium term, the United States stands to be less well-off outside the TPP than inside. Since provisional deals can be in place for a long time, the results of this study suggest that the eleven parties are better off to implement the CPTPP, leaving aside the controversial governance elements, the implications of which for national interests are unclear and which, in any event, may be substantially affected by parallel bilateral negotiations between individual CPTPP parties and the United States.

中文翻译：

---

量化跨太平洋伙伴关系的全面渐进协议

与2016年10月签署的最初的十二人协议下的结果相比，如果其余十一个缔约方继续在未经美国同意的情况下进行谈判，则我们将评估跨太平洋伙伴关系谈判方的结果。我们发现十一方协议（现更名为跨太平洋伙伴关系全面进步协议）比十二方协议要小得多，但是在没有美国参与的情况下，有些缔约方做得更好，特别是西半球的加拿大，墨西哥，智利和秘鲁。就政治相关的中期而言，美国在TPP之外的富裕程度要比其内部的小。由于临时交易可以长期存在，