It should be noted that with regard to the qualification of the original criteria, there is a difference in treatment between inputs originating and outside a free trade agreement. Inputs originating from a foreign party are normally considered to originate from the other party when they are included in the manufacturing process of that other party. Sometimes the production costs generated by one party are also considered to be those of another party. Preferential rules of origin generally provide for such a difference in treatment in determining accumulation or accumulation. This clause also explains the impact of a free trade agreement on the creation and diversion of trade, since a party to a free trade agreement is encouraged to use inputs from another party to allow its products to originate.  For example, suppose Japan sells bikes for $50, Mexico sells them for $60, and they both expect a US dollar of $20. If tariffs on Mexican products are removed, U.S. consumers will transfer their purchases of Japanese bicycles to Mexican bicycles. The result is that Americans will buy from a more expensive source, and the U.S. government does not receive customs revenue. Consumers save $10 per bike, but the government loses $20. Economists have shown that when a country enters such a “trade” customs union, the cost of trade diversion can outweigh the benefits of enhanced trade with other members of the customs union.
The result is that the customs union could degrade the country. It is also important to note that a free trade agreement is a reciprocal agreement that is authorized by Article XXIV of the GATT. Autonomous trade agreements for developing and least developed countries are permitted by the 1979 decision by the signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (“empowerment clause”) on differentiated and more favourable treatment, reciprocity and increased participation of developing countries. It forms the legal basis for the WTO`s Generalized Preference System (GSP).  Free trade agreements and preferential trade agreements (as mentioned by the WTO) are considered an exception to the MFN principle.  The pros and cons of free trade agreements affect employment, business growth and living standards: few issues divide economists and public opinion, as does free trade. Studies show that economists at U.S. university faculties are seven times more likely to support a free trade policy than the general public. In fact, the American economist Milton Friedman said: “The economic profession was almost unanimous on the question of the desire for free trade.” The second way of looking at free trade agreements as public goods is related to the growing trend that they are “deeper”. The depth of a free trade agreement relates to the additional types of structural policies it covers. While older trade agreements are considered more “flat” because they cover fewer areas (for example.
B tariffs and quotas), recent agreements cover a number of other areas, ranging from e-commerce services and data relocation. Since transactions between parties to a free trade agreement are relatively cheaper than those with non-parties, free trade agreements are considered excluded. Now that deep trade agreements will improve the harmonization of legislation and increase trade flows with non-parties, thereby reducing the exclusivity of free trade agreements, next-generation free trade agreements will take on essential characteristics for public goods.  Economists have attempted to assess the extent to which free trade agreements can be considered public goods.