Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia: Past and Future

Abstract

Motivation Proliferating regional trade agreements (RTAs) in East Asia since the region’s financial crisis in 1997 have been hotly debated. To date, however, no research has comprehensively examined the desirability of East Asian RTAs based on such factors as membership and evolutionary paths. Purpose We assess, retrospectively and prospectively, East Asian countries’ efforts to liberalize the regional market through co‐operation. We investigate (i) why RTAs have proliferated in East Asia; (ii) the main characteristics of East Asian RTAs; (iii) whether East Asian countries are desirable trading partners for one another; and (iv) the prospects of East Asian RTAs. Approach and methods We conduct a qualitative analysis on the desirability of East Asian partnership and examine quantitative studies of the likely impacts of East Asian RTAs on members, non‐members, and the global economy. Findings We verify that East Asian neighbours are appropriate trading partners for the formation of RTAs. Policy implications We recommend that East Asian RTAs should follow an expansionary path such as the five ASEAN+1 RTAs to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) to the Free Trade Area of the Asia‐Pacific (FTAAP). Moreover, the region must co‐operate with major external trading partners by forming cross‐regional RTAs with the European Union (EU) and United States (US). Two priority changes must also be implemented: the harmonization or simplification of the rules of origin and cumulation of value contents among East Asian RTA members.

The role of trade liberalization in promoting regional integration and sustainability: The case of regional comprehensive economic partnership

“…From a global perspective, although the Asia-Pacific regional integration has aggravated the United States and other Western great powers’ concern about China’s expansion and has increased the intensity of the arms race between the U.S. and China in the Asia-Pacific region (e.g., References [ 108 ]). Therefore, the starting point is deterrence rather than direct war.…”

Trade Creation and Trade Diversion Effects: The Case of the Asean Plus Six Free Trade Area

“…A regional perspective is essential, considering the positive effects associated with broader coverage of the agreement (Ando and Urata, 2007;Sen et al, 2013;Taguchi, 2015). The trade dependence of the RCEP with extra-bloc countries also suggests the need to look at the RCEP trade effects with non-member countries (Devadason et al, 2015;Park, 2020;Sen et al, 2013). Besides, the high level of regional integration and the highly fragmented production and trade structure of the RCEP suggest looking at the region as a single bloc (Kimura and Obashi, 2016;Padilla et al, 2019;Purwono et al, 2020).…”

The impact of preferential trade agreements on bilateral trade: A structural gravity model analysis

“…PTAs are an exception to WTO's non-discrimination principle, because only their signatories enjoy more favorable market access conditions. Thus, different PTAs are heterogeneous in terms of the market access level and the cooperation beyond tariff reductions, in services trade, investments, standards, public procurement, competition and intellectual property rights [2][3][4]. Previous studies have constructed variables to measure the heterogeneity of PTAs according to the content of PTA documents [5][6][7].…”

“…With the weakening role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trading system, the globalization pattern is moving toward regional economic integration. The number of PTAs has increased over the last two decades [ 3 , 4 ]. For example, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member formed the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) in 2004 to promote economic integration.…”