RCEP versus TPP with the Trump Administration in the USA and Implications for East Asian Economic Cooperation

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this article is to evaluate the two mega FTAs, namely RCEP and TPP in the Asia Pacific region in general and the new trends and directions of these mega FTAs with Trump Administration in the USA in particular. Moreover, it estimates implications for East Asian Economic cooperation. The article deals with possible impacts on the US withdrawal from TPP and post TPP visions. Furthermore, it also analyses what implications can be provided for East Asian economic cooperation.

Research Design & Methods: In order to meet the research targets, various methods are used, such as the method of critical analysis of literature, the inference method, and the method of statistical analysis, which include quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Findings: While investigating regional economic integration between RCEP and TPP with the member states, it is visible that the majority of the member states in the two mega FTAs are more dependent on RCEP than on TPP. It means that RCEP can generate more economic benefits to the member states in the region than TPP in the long run.

Implications & Recommendations: It implicates that RCEP can play important roles in shaping new trade governance in the Asia Pacific region which could establish Asia Pacific Free Trade Agreement (APFTA).

Contribution & Value Added: The originality of this work lies in exploring the two mega FTAs in the Asia Pacific region, how they have competed with each other and implemented their national trade strategies.

Keywords

Mega FTA, protectionism, economic growth, FTA strategy, economic cooperation

Author Biography

Sang Chul Park

Sang-Chul Park has received PhD degrees in political science in Aug. 1993 in Germany and economics in Feb. 1997 in Sweden. His dissertations discussed Technopolises in Japan. He also passed a habilitation examination (full professorship) in political science in Nov. 2002 in Germany as well as a docent evaluation (Swedish habilitation) in economics in Sep. 2004 in Sweden. He is currently a Full Professor at Graduate School of Knowledge based Technology and Energy, Korea Polytechnic University and Adjunct Professor at Center for Science-based Entrepreneurship, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), South Korea. He was also a Private Dozent at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany and Visiting Professor at Gothenburg University, Sweden. He served as Associate Professor at Gothenburg University, Sweden from 2001 to 2003 and as Associate Professor at Okayama University, Japan from 2003 to 2006. He also stayed as Visiting Professor at Fudan University, China in Sep. 2014 and as Visiting Scholar at Asian Development Bank Institute, Japan in Oct. 2014. Since 2016 he serves as a full visiting professor at Marie Curie Sklodowska University (UMCS) in Poland. His research interests concern industrial policy and regional development and studies on innovation systems and on science parks and innovative clusters in particular. Currently his research areas are expanded toward energy policy, sustainable development strategy, high technology ventures and international business and trade.

In addition, he is a member of editorial advisory board for Korea Observer (SSCI Journal) as well as a member of editorial review board for Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM) (SSCI Journal). In 2013, he became the editor of Asia Pacific Journal of EU Studies. In 2014 he also became a member of editorial board in International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development (IJIRD). Since 2016 he has served as associate editor for International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development (IMED) (SCOPUS Journal) and a member of Managing Editorial Board in Australian & New Zealand Journal of European Studies.

Email: scpark@kpu.ac.kr

References

1. Armstrong, S., & King, A. (2017). East Asia’s Economic Agreement, 19th Feb. East Asia Forum. Retrieved on April 27, 2017 from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/02/19/east-asias-economic-agreement/
2. ASEAN Secretariat (2009). ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation. Retrieved on April 17, 2017 from http://www.asean.org/asean/external-relations/asean-3/item/asean-plus-three-cooperation
3. ASEAN Secretariat (2012). Guiding Principles and Objectives for Negotiating the Regional Com-prehensive Economic Partnership. Retrieved on April 17, 2017 from http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-summit/item/asean-framework-forregionalcomprehensive-economic-partnership
4. Asia Regional Integration Center (2015). Free Trade Agreements. Retrieved on April 15, 2017 from https://aric.adb.org/fta-all
5. Balassa, B. (1962). The Theory of Economic Integration. The Economic Journal, 72(286), 389-391.
6. Basu Dasu, S. (2017). The Future of Trade Diplomacy. Perspective, Feb(9), ISEAS Yusof Ishak Insti-tute.
7. Beeson, M., & Stubbs, R. (2012). Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism. London and New York: Routledge.
8. Dent, C.-M. (2003). Networking the Region? The Emergence and Impact of Asia Pacific Bilateral Free Trade Agreement Projects. The Pacific Review, 16(1), 1-28.
9. EAFTA (2009). Desirable and Feasible Option for an East Asia FTA, A Report by Joint Expert Group on EAFTA Phase II Study. Retrieved on April 15, 2017 from http://www.dtn.go.th/files/275/FTA/acc/240.pdf
10. Estevadeordal, A., & Taylor, A.M. (2013). Is the Washington Consensus Dead? Growth, Openness, and the Great Liberalization, 1970s-2000s. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5), 1669-1690.
11. Graceffo, A. (2017). China at Davos: US-China Relations are the focus of the World Economic Forum, Jan. 23, Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved on April 15, 2017 from https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/01/24/china-at-davos-us-china-relations-are-the-focus-of-the-world-economic-forum/
12. Hearn, A.H., & Myers, M. (2015, July). China and TPP: Asia Pacific Integration or Disintegration?. The Dialogue, China and Latin America Report.
13. Hosny, A.S. (2013). Theories of Economic Integration: A survey of the economic and political litera-ture. International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(5), 133-155.
14. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2017). World Economic Outlook: A Shifting Global Economic Landscape. Washington D.C.: IMF.
15. Johnston, E. (2017). 16 Nation RCEP Talks Resume in Wake up of TPP’s Demise, Japan Times, Feb. 27. Retrieved on April 18, 2017 from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/27/business/16-nation-rcep-talks-resume-wake-tpps-demise/#.WPWAGSa1v4Y
16. Katzenstein, P. (1997). Introduction: Asian Regionalism in Comparative Perspective. In P. Katzen-stein & T. Shiraishi (Eds.), Network Power: Japan and Asia (pp. 1-46). Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press.
17. Katzenstein, P. (2005). A world of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press.
18. Kawai, M., & Wignaraja, G. (2008). EAFTA or CEPEA: Which Way Forward?. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25, 113-139.
19. Kawai, M., & Wignaraja, G. (2011). Asian FTAs: Trends, Prospects, and Challenges. Journal of Asian Economics, 22(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2010.10.002
20. Kumar, M., & Charlton, B. (2017). RCEP will step into gap as Trump pulls out of TPP, Jan. 23, Ox-ford Analytica Daily Brief. Retrieved on 21 April, 2017 from https://dailybrief.oxan.com/Analysis/DB217448/RCEP-will-step-into-gap-as-Trump-pulls-out-of-TPP
21. Melitz, M.J., & Trefler, D. (2012). Gains from Trade When Firms Matter. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2), 91-118.
22. Melitz, M.J., & Redding, S. (2014). Heterogeneous Firms and Trade. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook in International Economics (vol. 4, pp. 1-54). Oxford: North Hol-land.
23. National Board of Trade (2016). Protectionism in the 21st Century. Stockholm: NBOT.
24. Nikkei Asian Review (2016). Japan Ratifies TPP despite Trump’s Threat, Dec. 10. Retrieved on 24 April, 2017 from http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-ratifies-TPP-despite-Trump-s-threat
25. Park, S.C. (2016). Korea’s Trade Strategies for Mega Free Trade Agreements in Regional and Glob-al Economic Integration. International Organizations Research Journal, 11(4), 19-40.
26. Pempel, T.J. (2010). Soft Balancing, Hedging, and Institutional Darwinism: The Economic Security Nexus and East Asian Regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10, 209-238.
27. Pempel, T.J. (2013). Regional Institutions and the Economy-Security Nexus. In T.J. Pempel (Ed.), The Economy Security Nexus in Northeast Asia (pp. 146-163). London: Routledge.
28. Petri P.A., & Plummer M. (2014). Asia-Pacific Regional Integration: Economic Effects and Implica-tions for the Global Trading System, Econobrowser, 5 June. Retrieved on April 27, 2017 from http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/
29. Reuters (2016). APEC leaders vow to fight protectionism, look to China on trade (20 November). Retrieved on April 27, 2017 from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apec-summit/apec-leaders-vow-to-fight-protectionism-look-to-china-on-trade-idUSKBN13F117
30. Robson, P. (1998). The Economics of International Integration. London and New York: Routledge.
31. Schell, O., & Shirk, S.L. (2017). US Policy Toward China: Recommendations for a New Administra-tion. New York: Asia Society Center on US China Relations.
32. Shott, J.J. (2017). US Trade Policy Options in the Pacific Basin: Bigger is Better, Policy Brief, Peter-son Institute for International Economics. Retrieved on April 21, 2017 from https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb17-7.pdf
33. Söderbaum, F. (2012). Theories of Regionalism. In M. Beeson & R. Stubbs (Eds.), Routledge Hand-book of Asian Regionalism (pp. 11-22). London and New York: Routledge.
34. Urata, S. (2013). Constructing and Multilateralizing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Part-nership: An Asian Perspective (ADBI Working Paper Series no. 449). Tokyo: ADBI.
35. Suh, J.K. (2014). Korean Bridge: Balancing Asian Economic Regionalism between the United States and China. In G. Rozman (Ed.), Joint US-Korea Academic Studies (vol. 25, pp. 188-199). Wash-ington D.C.: Korea Economic Institute of America.
36. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) (2017). The Trans-Pacific Partnership. Final Provisions. Retrieved on April 24, 2017 from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Final-Provisions.pdf
37. Wah, W.S. (2017, March). Exploring the New Order of Global Trade amid the US Trade Policy Shift. Economic Review. Retrieved on December 1, 2017 from http://www.bochk.com/dam/investment/bocecon/SY2017008 (en).pdf
38. Wilson, J. (2017). Australian Trade Diplomacy; Shaping the Future of the Asian Economic Architec-ture through Regional Trade Multilateralism. Perth: Perth US Asia Centre.
39. World Bank (2013). Malaysia Trade Indicators. Retrieved on April 27, 2017 from http://wits. worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/MYS/Year/2013
40. World Bank (2017). Data Bank. Retrieved on April 19, 2017 from http://databank.worldbank.org/ data/databases/%26nbsp;trade-data?pagenumber=4
41. World Integrated Trade Solution (2017). Retrieved on April 19, 2017 from http://wits.worldbank.org/#
42. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). Trade Statistics and Outlook: Trade Recovery Expected in 2017 and 2018, Amid Policy Uncertainty. Press/793. Retrieved on April 19, 2017 from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres17_e/pr791_e.htm
43. Xiao, Y. (2015, April 20). Competitive Mega-regional Trade Agreement: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) vs. Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). CUREJ Electronic Journal. Re-trieved on April 16, 2017 from http://repository.upenn.edu/curej
44. Yi, Q. (2014). The RCEP: A Chinese Perspective. In G. Tang & P.A. Petri (Eds.), New Directions in Asia-Pacific Economic Integration (pp. 131-137). Honolulu: East-West Center.
45. Zhao, S. (1998). Soft versus Structural Regionalism: Organizational Forms of Cooperation in Asia Pacific. The Journal of East Asian Affairs, 12(1), 96-134.