后tpp时代东盟及其对话伙伴的贸易政策选择:基于CGE分析的“偏好排序”

IF 1 Q3 ECONOMICS
Xianbai Ji, P. Rana, Wai-mun Chia, Changtai Li
{"title":"后tpp时代东盟及其对话伙伴的贸易政策选择:基于CGE分析的“偏好排序”","authors":"Xianbai Ji, P. Rana, Wai-mun Chia, Changtai Li","doi":"10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2018.22.2.342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his “America First” trade agenda ignite a second round of interest in mega-free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Countries are evaluating alternative trade policy actions in a post-TPP era. Using national real GDP gains estimated by a modified GTAP model to construct “preference ordering” for 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and their six regional dialogue partners, this paper comes up with several policy-oriented findings. First, when multilateral agreements are not possible, countries are better off with a regional trading agreement than without one. Second, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is likely to have higher beneficial impacts than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Third, for dual-track countries, implementing both agreements is better than each separately. Fourth, impacts of open regionalism are likely to be higher than those of a closed and reciprocal one. Going forward, this paper argues that countries should adopt a “multi-track, multi-stage” approach to trade policy.","PeriodicalId":41122,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Economic Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-TPP Trade Policy Options for ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners: “Preference Ordering” Using CGE Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Xianbai Ji, P. Rana, Wai-mun Chia, Changtai Li\",\"doi\":\"10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2018.22.2.342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his “America First” trade agenda ignite a second round of interest in mega-free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Countries are evaluating alternative trade policy actions in a post-TPP era. Using national real GDP gains estimated by a modified GTAP model to construct “preference ordering” for 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and their six regional dialogue partners, this paper comes up with several policy-oriented findings. First, when multilateral agreements are not possible, countries are better off with a regional trading agreement than without one. Second, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is likely to have higher beneficial impacts than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Third, for dual-track countries, implementing both agreements is better than each separately. Fourth, impacts of open regionalism are likely to be higher than those of a closed and reciprocal one. Going forward, this paper argues that countries should adopt a “multi-track, multi-stage” approach to trade policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Economic Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Economic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2018.22.2.342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Economic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2018.22.2.342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

特朗普退出跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)和他的“美国优先”贸易议程引发了对亚太地区大型自由贸易协定的第二轮兴趣。各国正在评估后tpp时代的替代贸易政策行动。本文利用修正的GTAP模型估算的各国实际GDP增长,构建了10个东南亚国家联盟成员国及其6个区域对话伙伴的“偏好排序”,得出了若干政策导向的结论。首先,当不可能达成多边贸易协定时,各国有区域贸易协定比没有要好。第二,《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》可能比《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》具有更高的有利影响。第三,对双轨国家来说,两项协议都执行比单独执行好。第四,开放的区域主义的影响可能比封闭和互惠的影响更大。展望未来,本文认为各国应采取“多轨道、多阶段”的贸易政策方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Post-TPP Trade Policy Options for ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners: “Preference Ordering” Using CGE Analysis
Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his “America First” trade agenda ignite a second round of interest in mega-free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. Countries are evaluating alternative trade policy actions in a post-TPP era. Using national real GDP gains estimated by a modified GTAP model to construct “preference ordering” for 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and their six regional dialogue partners, this paper comes up with several policy-oriented findings. First, when multilateral agreements are not possible, countries are better off with a regional trading agreement than without one. Second, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is likely to have higher beneficial impacts than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Third, for dual-track countries, implementing both agreements is better than each separately. Fourth, impacts of open regionalism are likely to be higher than those of a closed and reciprocal one. Going forward, this paper argues that countries should adopt a “multi-track, multi-stage” approach to trade policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
12.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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