India dropped out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which included the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Japan and Australia, after negotiating for almost seven years in November 2018 on the grounds of national interest and also that free trade agreements (FTAs) did not amount to free trade and led to more trade diversion than trade creation. The cost and benefit of a regional agreement depend on the amount of trade creation with respect to trade diversion (Panagriya, 2000). This study tries to examine India’s concerns and at the same time, highlights the cost of not joining RCEP. India’s trade deficit with 11 out of the 15 RCEP nations has been a major cause of concern. Unfavourable trade balance, concerns about the impact on dairy sector, economic slowdown, past experience with FTA’s, China factor, data localisation, rules of origin, the experience of ASEAN countries with Sino-FTA have been some of the reasons behind India’s decision to opt-out of this mega multilateral agreement. Also, bilateral trade agreements with some RCEP countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and South Korea were operational. A multilateral trade agreement with ASEAN countries was very much in place. So, trade between India and 12 of the RCEP member countries would not have changed much after India’s inclusion in RCEP. The impact of lower tariffs would have been evident for the remaining three countries: China, Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, there was fear of a massive surge in imports of manufactures from China, dairy imports from Australia and New Zealand. This study also examines the long term impact of this decision and if India has missed out on becoming a part of the global value chain and gaining greater market access in the Asia Pacific region. India’s policy of import substitution and protectionism did not capitulate desired results in the past. Hence, a critical evaluation of India’s decision and some validation on her concerns and fears have been done.
Much debate has surrounded India’s lack of interest in plurilateral regional trade agreements (RTAs) and its decision to opt out of the regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP). Against this backdrop, the article attempt to analyse the competitiveness and potential of Indian export items in the RCEP region. The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index has been employed to study India’s trade competitiveness among RCEP nations between 2010 and 2019 using the WITS (World Integrated Trade Solutions) 2021 database. The study found that India has a comparative advantage in more than 9 product categories out of 16 studied in the article. The article also revealed India’s competitiveness in intermediate goods with the majority of RCEP countries. The analysis found a trade complementarity between India and the RCEP countries and the possibility of increased economic cooperation. The problem lies in the utilization rate and weak export competitiveness of Indian industries. Before signing a new FTA, it is imperative to improve the export competitiveness of Indian enterprises. Given India’s current trade balance, tariff structure and export competitiveness of Indian commodities, we believe India had little option but to withdraw from the RCEP.
MONLKAJAIN INTRODUCTION The imposition of capital punishment is fast becoming a controversial issue in the United States, due to the news of the high number of innocents being released from prison and from death row. This news is even forcing proponents of capital punishment who have always advocated the idea of an ultimate sanction for the most heinous crimes to question their strong support for such an irreversible sanction. Specifically, recent advances in DNA testing leading to the release of innocent de-J.D. candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2002. The author would like to thank Professors Christopher Bracey and Lawrence Marshall for their invaluable research and editorial assistance. See generally MICHAEL L. RADELET ET AL, IN SPrrIE OF INNOCENcE ERRO,\EOUS CONVICIONS IN CAPITAL CASES (1992); BARRY SCHEcK Er AL, AcruAL INNoctNcr. FivE DAYS TO EXECUTION AND OTHER DISPATCHES FROM THE WRONGLY CONICTED (2000) (both discussing cases where prisoners whose innocence was later established were released from prison and from death row). In the twenty-five year period since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1974, 553 people have been executed. Id. at 218. Within that period, eighty convicted prisoners have been released from death row, and ultimately had their convictions vacated altogether. Id. For every seven prisoners executed, one innocent person is freed. Id Between 1973 and 1993, an average of 2.5 people a year were released from death row. Ia From 1993 to 1999, an average of 4.6 convicted people were set free annually. Id. Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois, a longtime advocate of capital punishment, issued a moratorium against the death penalty, temporarily halting executions in his state in order to ensure that inmates were not being put to death for crimes they did not commit.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.