• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.177-215
• /
• 2018

Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his "America First" trade agenda ignite a second round of interest in mega-free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Countries are evaluating alternative trade policy actions in a post-TPP era. Using national real GDP gains estimated by a modified GTAP model to construct "preference ordering" for 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and their six regional dialogue partners, this paper comes up with several policy-oriented findings. First, when multilateral agreements are not possible, countries are better off with a regional trading agreement than without one. Second, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is likely to have higher beneficial impacts than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Third, for dual-track countries, implementing both agreements is better than each separately. Fourth, impacts of open regionalism are likely to be higher than those of a closed and reciprocal one. Going forward, this paper argues that countries should adopt a "multi-track, multi-stage" approach to trade policy.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.343-384
• /
• 2017

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.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.425-461
• /
• 2014

This paper analyzes the impact of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement on the basis of the published text and agreed schedule of commitments. We find that the Agreement reinforces existing patterns of comparative advantage between Canada (agriculture and resource-based sectors) and Korea (autos and other industries). The sensitive sectors that held up the deal for years - autos into Canada and beef into Korea - witness major trade gains, but are not unduly disrupted. In both economies, the major output gains otherwise come in non-traded services sectors, driven by income effects. We find that trade diversion effects are quite significant; this lends support for the domino theory of major free trade agreements - since the Korea-EU agreement broke the ice, the pressure has intensified on third parties to re-level playing fields by striking their own deals. The study breaks new ground in modelling services trade by developing policy impacts based on the extent to which the text of the Agreement modifies Korea's and Canada's scores on the OECD's Services Trade Restrictiveness Index and by providing estimates of Mode 3 Services trade impacts. The analysis of the Agreement as negotiated, the present study, in our view, is a step forward in understanding the impact of modern free trade agreements.