East Asian Economic Review

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (대외경제정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

  • Ciuriak, Dan (Ciuriak Consulting Inc. C.D. Howe Institute Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH) ;
  • Xiao, Jingliang (Infinite-Sum Modeling Inc.) ;
  • Dadkhah, Ali (Ciuriak Consulting Inc.)
  • Received : 2017.08.01
  • Accepted : 2017.12.26
  • Published : 2017.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Balistreri, E. J. and T. F. Rutherford. 2013. Computing General Equilibrium Theories of Monopolistic Competition and Heterogeneous Firms. In Dixon, P. B. and D. W. Jorgenson. (eds.) Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 1513-1570.
  2. Berden, K. G., Francois, J., Thelle, M., Wymenga, P. and S. Tamminen. 2009. Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment: An Economic Analysis. Report to the European Commission. Rotterdam: ECORYS.
  3. Cernat, L. and Z. Kutlina-Dimitrova. 2015. International Public Procurement: From Scant Facts to Hard Data. European Commission DG Trade Chief Economist Note, no. 1.
  4. Ciuriak, D. 2017. A New Name for Modern Trade Deals: Asset Value Protection Agreements. Published online: Centre for International Governance Innovation.
  5. Ciuriak, D. and D. Lysenko. 2016. Quantifying Services-Trade Liberalization: The Impact of Binding Commitments. Better in than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Technical Paper. Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute.
  6. Ciuriak, D. and J. Xiao. 2014. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Evaluating the 'Landing Zone' for Negotiations. Ciuriak Consulting Working Paper.
  7. Ciuriak, D. and J. Curtis. 2015. Trade and Innovation: Key Challenges and Canada's Policy Options. In Tapp, S., Van Assche, A. and R. Wolfe. (eds.) Redesigning Canadian Trade Policies for New Global Realities. Montreal: IRPP. Volume VI.
  8. Ciuriak, D. and S. Chen. 2008. Preliminary Assessment of the Economic Impacts of a Canada -Korea Free Trade Agreement. In Ciuriak, D. (ed.) Trade Policy Research 2007. Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. pp. 187-234.
  9. Ciuriak, D., Dadkhah, A. and J. Xiao. 2016a. Better In than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. C.D. Howe E-Brief.
  10. Ciuriak, D., Dadkhah, A. and J. Xiao. 2016b. Taking the Measure of the TPP as Negotiated. Ciuriak Consulting Working Paper.
  11. Dade, C. and D. Ciuriak, with Dadkhah, A. and J. Xiao. 2017. The Art of the Trade Deal: Quantifying the Benefits of a TPP Without the United States. Calgary: Canada West Foundation.
  12. Dixon, P. B. and M. T. Rimmer. 1998. Forecasting and Policy Analysis with a Dynamic CGE Model of Australia. Working Papers, no. op-90. Melbourne: Centre of Policy Studies/ IMPACT Centre.
  13. Dixon, P. B., Jerie, M. and M. T. Rimmer. 2013. Deriving the Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models of Trade. Paper Presented at the 23rd Pacific Conference of the Regional Science Association International (RSAI). Bandung, Indonesia. July.
  14. Evers, M. Mooij, R. D. and D. Van Vuuren. 2008. "The Wage Elasticity of Labour Supply: A Synthesis of Empirical Estimates," De Economist, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-007-9080-z
  15. Fontagne, L., Mitaritonna, C. and J. E. Signoret. 2016. Estimated Tariff Equivalents of Services NTMs. CEPII Working Papers, no. 2016-20.
  16. Foure, J., Benassy-Quere, A. and L. Fontagne. 2012. The Great Shift: Macroeconomic Projections for the World Economy at the 2050 Horizon. CEPII Working Papers, no. 2012-03.
  17. Francois, J. and L. Baughman. 2005. Impact of imports from China on U.S. Employment. Washington, DC: The National Retail Federation.
  18. Francois, J., Manchin, M., Norberg, H., Pindyuk, O. and P. Tomberger. 2013. Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment. Report to the European Commission. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
  19. Fukui, T. and C. Lakatos. 2012. A Global Database of Foreign Affiliate Sales. Office of Economics Working Paper, no. 2012-08A. U.S. International Trade Commission.
  20. Geloso Grosso, M., Gonzales, F., Miroudot, S., Nordås, H. K., Rouzet, D. and A. Ueno. 2015. Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI): Scoring and Weighting Methodology. OECD Trade Policy Papers, no. 177.
  21. Gilbert, J. P. 2004. GTAP Model Analysis: Simulating the Effect of a Korea-U.S. FTA Using Computable General Equilibrium Techniques. In Choi, I. and J. J. Schott. (eds.) Free Trade Between Korea and the United States?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Appendix B, pp. 89-118.
  22. Ham, J. C. and K. Reilly. 2013. "Implicit Contracts, Life Cycle Labor Supply, and Intertemporal Substitution," International Economic Review, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1133-1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/iere.12031
  23. Hertel, T. (ed.). 1997. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Hertel, T., Hummels, D., Ivanic, M. and R. Keeney. 2003. How Confident Can We Be in CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements?. GTAP Working Paper, no. 26.
  25. International Monetary Fund (IMF). October 2016. World Economic Outlook Database. (accessed June 1, 2017)
  26. International Monetary Fund (IMF). April 2017. World Economic Outlook Database. (accessed June 1, 2017)
  27. International Trade Centre (ITC). 2015. Trade Map. (accessed June 1, 2017)
  28. Itakura, K. and K. Oyamada. 2013. Incorporating firm heterogeneity into the GTAP Model. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis. Shanghai, China. June.
  29. Lakatos, C., Walmsley, T. L. and T. Chappuis. 2011. A Global Multi-sector Multi-region Foreign Direct Investment Database for GTAP. GTAP Research Memorandum, no. 18.
  30. Miroudot, S. and K. Pertel. 2015. Water in the GATS: Methodology and Results. OECD Trade Policy Papers, no. 185.
  31. Narayanan, B. G., Ciuriak, D. and H. V. Singh. 2015. Quantifying the Mega-regional Trade Agreements: A Review of the Models. Discussion Paper. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  32. Oyamada, K. 2013. Parameterization of Applied General Equilibrium Models with Flexible Trade Specifications Based on the Armington, Krugman, and Melitz Models. IDE Discussion Paper, no. 380. Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies.
  33. Roson, R. 2006. Introducing Imperfect Competition in CGE Models: Technical Aspects and Implications. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota Di Lavoro, no. 3.2006.
  34. Roson, R. and K. Oyamada. 2014. Introducing Melitz-Style Firm Heterogeneity in CGE Models: Technical Aspects and Implications. Working Paper, no. 04/WP/2014. Venice: Department of Economics, Ca' Foscari, University of Venice.
  35. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2016. World Investment Report 2016, Investor Nationality: Policy Challenges. Geneva: United Nations.
  36. World Trade Organization (WTO). n.d. Time Series. Statistics Database. (accessed June 1, 2017)
  37. Zhai, F. 2008. "Armington Meets Melitz: Introducing Firm Heterogeneity in a Global CGE Model of Trade," Journal of Economic Integration, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 575-604. https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2008.23.3.575