Going It Alone in the Asia-Pacific: Regional Trade Agreements without the United States

P. Petri, M. Plummer, S. Urata, F. Zhai
{"title":"Going It Alone in the Asia-Pacific: Regional Trade Agreements without the United States","authors":"P. Petri, M. Plummer, S. Urata, F. Zhai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3047895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017 led the remaining 11 countries in that trade and investment agreement to explore alternative ways to sustain economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. This Working Paper shows that, without the United States, these 11 countries can achieve significant gains from high-quality, TPP-like agreements among themselves and from what might have to be a less rigorous but wider agreement in a separate, 16-member Asian trade negotiation, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Either of these multilateral options would yield benefits greater than those that would flow from bilateral agreements between individual countries and the United States alone, and gains from such accords could grow over time. For example, expanding the TPP without the United States to five other Asia- Pacific economies, all of which have expressed interest in the TPP in the past, would yield global income gains that rival those expected from the original TPP that included the United States, and the gains are even larger for some members. The United States, meanwhile, would suffer losses from such arrangements in two ways: first, because it would forego the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the relatively large TPP agreement, and second, because the new Asia-Pacific agreements would reduce US exports to the region as countries shift their trade to competitors of the United States. In the longer run, a new Asia-Pacific agreement or agreements would keep trade liberalization on the global agenda and likely attract further interest from large partners, including Europe. Eventually, the United States might observe that it is losing out and change its mind about joining these larger trade blocs.","PeriodicalId":186347,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation Systems (Topic)","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation Systems (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3047895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017 led the remaining 11 countries in that trade and investment agreement to explore alternative ways to sustain economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. This Working Paper shows that, without the United States, these 11 countries can achieve significant gains from high-quality, TPP-like agreements among themselves and from what might have to be a less rigorous but wider agreement in a separate, 16-member Asian trade negotiation, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Either of these multilateral options would yield benefits greater than those that would flow from bilateral agreements between individual countries and the United States alone, and gains from such accords could grow over time. For example, expanding the TPP without the United States to five other Asia- Pacific economies, all of which have expressed interest in the TPP in the past, would yield global income gains that rival those expected from the original TPP that included the United States, and the gains are even larger for some members. The United States, meanwhile, would suffer losses from such arrangements in two ways: first, because it would forego the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the relatively large TPP agreement, and second, because the new Asia-Pacific agreements would reduce US exports to the region as countries shift their trade to competitors of the United States. In the longer run, a new Asia-Pacific agreement or agreements would keep trade liberalization on the global agenda and likely attract further interest from large partners, including Europe. Eventually, the United States might observe that it is losing out and change its mind about joining these larger trade blocs.
亚太地区的单打独斗:没有美国的区域贸易协定
美国于2017年初退出《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP),促使该贸易和投资协定的其余11个成员国探索维持亚太地区经济一体化的替代途径。这份工作文件表明,如果没有美国,这11个国家可以从它们之间的高质量、类似tpp的协议中获得重大收益,也可以从另一个由16个成员国组成的亚洲贸易谈判——区域全面经济伙伴关系协定(RCEP)——中获得可能不那么严格但范围更广的协议。这些多边选择中的任何一种都比单独与美国签订双边协议所产生的好处要大,而且这种协议的好处会随着时间的推移而增加。例如,将不包括美国的TPP扩大到其他五个亚太经济体,这些经济体过去都对TPP表示过兴趣,这将产生与包括美国在内的最初TPP所期望的全球收入收益相匹敌的收益,对一些成员来说收益甚至更大。与此同时,美国将在两个方面遭受此类安排的损失:第一,因为它将放弃相对较大的TPP协议所带来的好处;第二,因为新的亚太协议将减少美国对该地区的出口,因为各国将贸易转移到美国的竞争对手那里。从长远来看,一个或多个新的亚太协议将使贸易自由化继续留在全球议程上,并可能吸引包括欧洲在内的大型合作伙伴的进一步兴趣。最终,美国可能会意识到自己正在吃亏,并改变加入这些更大的贸易集团的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信