The logic of formal trade agreements is that they reduce penalties for deviation from the rules set out in the agreement.  As a result, trade agreements make misunderstandings less likely and create confidence on both sides in the sanction of fraud; this increases the likelihood of long-term cooperation.  An international organization such as the IMF can further encourage cooperation by monitoring compliance with agreements and reporting violations.  It may be necessary to monitor international agencies to detect non-tariff barriers that are disguised attempts to create barriers to trade.  The second way of looking at free trade agreements as public goods is related to the growing tendency to make them «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.  In the first two decades of the agreement, regional trade increased from about $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1 trillion in 2016. Critics are divided on the net impact on the U.S.
economy, but some estimates justify the net loss of domestic jobs at $15,000 a year as a result of the agreement. , it is between the United States, Canada and Mexico that this agreement should remove customs barriers between the various countries. Regional trade agreements are very difficult to conclude and claim when countries are more diverse.