A Preliminary Assessment of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Abstract

Mega-regional trade deals require economies to forge appropriate policy responses to navigate implementation challenges and unlock potential opportunities. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which entered into force on 1 January 2022, is no exception. 1 Partnering 10 Southeast Asian nations with Australia, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand, RCEP is the most recent plurilateral initiative to foster regional cooperation and integration in Asia and the Pacific. 2 As a strong commitment to open, transparent, and inclusive trade and investment regimes, the agreement is expected to strengthen the region's manufacturing supply chains, raise productivity, and increase wages and employment, with world income gains estimated at $263 billion (Park, Petri, and Plummer 2021).At the same time, compared to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and other agreements in Asia and the Pacific, RCEP does not provide strong disciplines in new areas and has been qualified as a "shallow" agreement.

How the RCEP Open the Asia-Pacific Region? A Chilean Perspective

“…However, some analysts consider that the RCEP continues to be an "old generation" agreement and a relatively weak instrument, since, despite consolidating trade agreements, it neither represents progress towards a liberal economic space, nor has the necessary potential to initiate a process of regional integration. 64 And, what is considered a great omission, especially with current world priorities, is the non-inclusion of chapters on the environment, labor, and sustainable development.…”

The Determinants of Product-Specific Rules of Origin: An Econometric Analysis in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

“…To determine whether diverging interests shaped the stringency of PSROs under the RCEP and identify potential political economy determinants, we adopt a new approach developed by Crivelli, Inama, and Pearson (2022), and used in their subsequent study in 2023 to compare the PSRO across trade agreements in Asia and the Pacific. More specifically, the RCEP is compared with the CPTPP, ATIGA, and four ASEAN+1 agreements.…”

“…ATIGA = ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, CC = Change of Chapter, CPTPP = Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, HS = harmonized system, PSRO = product-specific rules of origin, RCEP = Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RVC = regional value content. Source: Crivelli, Inama, and Pearson 2022 Crivelli Inama, and Pearson (2022). used the above manufacturing requirement methodology to establish a comprehensive comparative dataset containing all PSROs of ATIGA, RCEP, and CPTPP and codifying their stringency at the HS six-digit level (2012 version).…”

Addressing the COVID-19 Shock: The Potential Job Creation in China by the RCEP

“…More than 90 percent of intra-regional trade in goods will eventually achieve zero tariffs, including immediate zero tariffs and zero tariffs over the next ten years. This allowsthe RCEP to deliver its promise to liberalise the vast majority of trade in goods in the short term, significantly reducing intra-regional trade costs and commodity prices [ 28 ]. For example, Brunei has increased its zero-tariff product commitments to China on tobacco, bedding, home appliances and furniture, Thailand on paper products, copper and electric motors, and Cambodia on chicken, vegetables and fruits, food and rubber.…”