{"title":"The Mystery of Reciprocal Demand for Regional Trade Partnership: Indian Experience in RCEP Regional Value Chains","authors":"D. Chakraborty, J. Chaisse","doi":"10.1515/ldr-2020-0078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The decision of a country to join regional trade agreements (RTAs) is guided by its expected welfare gains, though potentials of both trade creation and trade diversion cannot be ruled out through such arrangements. The slow progress of the World Trade Organization negotiations has created a demand for mega-regional trade agreements in the last decade, but the recent US and Indian pullout from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), respectively, raised a question on their attraction. One of the major underlying objectives of RTAs is to deepen intra-bloc participation in regional value chains (RVCs) and International Production Networks (IPNs), through adoption of reformed rules of origin (ROO) provisions and mutual recognition agreements (MRA) for standard harmonization. This article, through an analysis of the RVC–IPN participation of the RCEP countries, attempts to understand to what extent the Indian pullout from RCEP can be linked to its unfulfilled expectations. The observations indicate that, relatively modest participation in the RVCs, declining domestic value added content of exports and the associated adverse trade balance scenario have critically shaped the Indian standpoint. The evolving Indian orientation towards trade remedy mechanism can be viewed in this backdrop. The analysis concludes that in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) period, the Indian decision to consolidate domestic manufacturing sector needs to acknowledge the reality rather than being guided by the rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":43146,"journal":{"name":"Law and Development Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2020-0078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Abstract The decision of a country to join regional trade agreements (RTAs) is guided by its expected welfare gains, though potentials of both trade creation and trade diversion cannot be ruled out through such arrangements. The slow progress of the World Trade Organization negotiations has created a demand for mega-regional trade agreements in the last decade, but the recent US and Indian pullout from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), respectively, raised a question on their attraction. One of the major underlying objectives of RTAs is to deepen intra-bloc participation in regional value chains (RVCs) and International Production Networks (IPNs), through adoption of reformed rules of origin (ROO) provisions and mutual recognition agreements (MRA) for standard harmonization. This article, through an analysis of the RVC–IPN participation of the RCEP countries, attempts to understand to what extent the Indian pullout from RCEP can be linked to its unfulfilled expectations. The observations indicate that, relatively modest participation in the RVCs, declining domestic value added content of exports and the associated adverse trade balance scenario have critically shaped the Indian standpoint. The evolving Indian orientation towards trade remedy mechanism can be viewed in this backdrop. The analysis concludes that in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) period, the Indian decision to consolidate domestic manufacturing sector needs to acknowledge the reality rather than being guided by the rhetoric.
期刊介绍:
Law and Development Review (LDR) is a top peer-reviewed journal in the field of law and development which explores the impact of law, legal frameworks, and institutions (LFIs) on development. LDR is distinguished from other law and economics journals in that its primary focus is the development aspects of international and domestic legal orders. The journal promotes global exchanges of views on law and development issues. LDR facilitates future global negotiations concerning the economic development of developing countries and sets out future directions for law and development studies. Many of the top scholars and practitioners in the field, including Professors David Trubek, Bhupinder Chimni, Michael Trebilcock, and Mitsuo Matsushita, have edited LDR issues and published articles in LDR. The journal seeks top-quality articles on law and development issues broadly, from the developing world as well as from the developed world. The changing economic conditions in recent decades render the law and development approach applicable to economic issues in developed countries as well as developing ones, and LDR accepts manuscripts on law and economic development issues concerning both categories of countries. LDR’s editorial board includes top scholars and professionals with diverse regional and academic backgrounds.