Supporters of CBA argue that the community benefits approach improves the development process for the community, developers and local officials by creating a win-win overall scenario.  Some of the principles and objectives that CBA supporters want to promote are: the "CBAs" of some recent projects have not been accepted as legitimate CBAs by community supporters. For example, the "CBA" for the new Yankee Stadium was not considered a "real" CBA because it was negotiated by elected officials and not by community groups.  The agreement contained significant community benefits, such as $28,000,000 in grants and free tickets to local organizations.  However, the KBA has not been implemented smoothly. In 2009, the former Community Fund manager sued the Yankees charity, claiming that the fund had been mismanaged.  In response to these problems, the CBA model was created in the late 1990s as a means for communities most affected by economic development projects to participate in the planning process and ensure that existing communities have development benefits.  For developers, negotiations with community representatives can be an attractive way to get community support and advance their projects. Participation in CBA negotiations can eliminate surprises in the development approval process and allow developers to work with a unified coalition rather than having to involve community organizations one after the other.  Community groups should consider how each provision is controlled and applied in a CBA. While financial obligations and other one-time benefits are relatively easy to monitor, other obligations of developers and tenants, such as.
B subsistence wages and local recruitment requirements can exist for decades and require long-term monitoring. To address this issue, CBAs have introduced regular reporting and advertising obligations, complaints mechanisms and oversight committee provisions. When a CBA is included in a development agreement, public authorities can also play a role in monitoring the implementation of the CBA.  We have experimented with many variations of this approach, but the results are still very similar: trade agreements increase quality, but do not have a significant impact on prices and diversity. Our baseline results indicate that EU trade agreements have increased the quality of products imported by trading partners by around 7% in five years. While economists have tried to quantify the total benefits of openness (for example. B Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare 2014), there is little evidence of genuine trade agreements, and little is known about the relative importance of the channels through which trade agreements affect well-being. Given the recent public and political opposition to new agreements (such as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the proposed EU-US agreement), it is important to understand the impact of past trade agreements on consumers. "A CBA is essentially an investment for the future," said Brynn Bourke, Acting Executive Director of BC`s BUILDING TIP.
"The agreements prioritize training and learning for local workers and under-represented groups in craft trades... This means that our province will be well placed to deal with all trade defects. The impact of trade agreements on consumers is an area that has recently been somewhat neglected by research.