Comparing the Economic Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Cheong, Inkyo; Tongzon, Jose L.

doi:10.1162/asep_a_00218

Cited by 45 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model approach is similar to that adopted in the GTAPDyn model described in Ianchovichina and McDougall (2001), and utilized in several studies of the TPP (Cheong and Tongzon, 2013, Itakura and Lee, 2012, Lee and Itakura, 2013, and Lee and Itakura, 2014, Strutt et al, 2015.4 USITC (2016) also uses a recursive dynamic version of GTAP. The PEP model used by Cororaton and Orden (2015) 4 , the MIRAGE model used in Disdier et al (2016), and the model employed by Li (2014), are other examples of applications of recursive dynamic models with a competitive Armington structure.…”

Section: Overview Of the Modeling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recursive dynamic studies, by design, all develop baselines going out as far as 2030 Lee, 2012 andPetri and and even 2047 (USITC, 2016). A number of studies incorporate into the baseline information on other FTAs that have already been agreed upon (e.g., Cheong and Tongzon, 2013, Disdier et al, 2016, Narayanan and Sharma, 2016, Petri et al, 2012. Several studies incorporate information on NTBs from various sources into the base data (Cororaton and Orden, 2015, Disdier et al, 2016, Itakura and Lee, 2012, Lee and Itakura, 2013, Lee and Itakura, 2014, Petri et al, 2012, Cabinet Secretariat, 2015and USITC, 2016.…”

Section: Overview Of the Modeling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, there is what is sometimes called the 'overestimation' problem (see Cheong and Tongzon, 2013). The economies of the AsiaPacific region have been at the forefront of the global proliferation of regional trading agreements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The economic impact of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership: What have we learned from CGE simulation?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The ARTNeT Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about trade issues. An objective of the series is to publish the findings quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. ARTNeT Working Papers are available online at www.artnetontrade.org. All material in the Working Papers may be freely quoted or reprinted, but acknowledgment is requested, together with a copy of the publication containing the quotation or reprint. The use of the working papers for any commercial purpose, including resale, is prohibited. Terms of use: Documents in Disclaimer:The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this Working Paper do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where the designation "country or area" appears, it covers countries, territories, cities or areas. Bibliographical and other references have, wherever possible, been verified. The United Nations bears no responsibility for the availability or functioning of URLs. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. The opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this publication are the responsibility of the author(s), and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. Any errors are the responsibility of the author(s). The mention of firm names and commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Modeling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of the Modeling Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The economic impact of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership: What have we learned from CGE simulation?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there would be a positive effect if China joined the TPP. Cheong and Tongzon (2013) analysed the mutual effect of the TPP and RCEP. All mentioned studies focused on the mutual effect of the TPP and one FTA, such as RCEP, TTIP, China-South Korea FTA, or China-South Korea-Japan FTA.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Interaction Effects of China–South Korea and China– Australia FTAs and the Expanding TPP

Yu-hong

Yang

2016

Naše Gospodarstvo/Our Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 5 October 2015, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) led by the U.S. was signed. Already, 12 countries1 have joined the agreement, but China has not. Thus, lots of research has focused on the negative effect of the TPP on China’s foreign trade. On the other hand, China is moving forward in its own efforts to establish bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) and free trade zones. In June 2015, China-South Korea and China-Australia signed bilateral FTAs which went into effect in December 2015. Several questions were raised: Since South Korea and Australia are the major trade partners in the Pacific area and the bilateral FTAs will be effective before the TPP, will these FTAs’ positive effects on China’s foreign trade offset some of the negative effects of the TPP? If China and the U.S. adopted a competitive trade policy, which countries would benefit? If China and the U.S. adopted a cooperative trade policy, how would the trade value and economic welfare change? This paper simulates and analyses the mutual effects of China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs and the enlarging TPP using the computable general equilibrium model. The major conclusions drawn suggest that China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs will significantly offset the TPP’s negative effect on China’s foreign trade. If China is not included, the U.S. economic benefit from the TPP will be limited. The economic welfare for a country like Australia, which joined both the bilateral FTA and the TPP, will be increased the most. In the long run, China joining the TPP would be the most beneficial decision for its national interest. However, if the TPP cannot be approved by the US congress, the U.S.’s economic indicators and export would be decreasing sharply. China’s economy and export will benefit from FTAs.

show abstract

“…Banga (2014) points out that CPTPP would be beyond the existing trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region with a vast coverage of new ideas, investments, services, financial services, competition, government procurement, labor, intellectual property, environment, etc. Cheong and Tongzon (2013) argues that CPTPP is a mega trade agreement. Therefore, the foremost objective should be its economic value and should be open for other economies fulfilling the preliminary requirements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic implications of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on Pakistan: a CGE approach

Khan

Zada

Mukhopadhyay

2018

Economic Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing the Economic Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Cited by 45 publications

References 8 publications

The economic impact of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership: What have we learned from CGE simulation?

The economic impact of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership: What have we learned from CGE simulation?

An Analysis of Interaction Effects of China–South Korea and China– Australia FTAs and the Expanding TPP

Economic implications of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on Pakistan: a CGE approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About