IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331509.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia: Alternative Scenarios of "Hub and Spoke"

Author

Listed:
  • Zhai, Fan

Abstract

The proliferation of preferential trade agreements in Asia may result in a number of hub and spoke configures with Japan, China and ASEAN competing as regional hub of bilateral FTAs. Using a newly developed global CGE model with imperfect competition, increasing return to scale and heterogeneous firm, we explore the potential economic effects of alternative hub and spoke configurations in Asia. The simulations results suggest that the regionalism approach to integration in the Asian context can hardly act as building block of global trade liberalization, if it is confined to shallow integration only. However, the regional trade agreements involving deep integration measures provide promising path towards global free trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhai, Fan, 2006. "Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia: Alternative Scenarios of "Hub and Spoke"," Conference papers 331509, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331509/files/2724.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francois Bourguignon & Luiz A. Pereira da Silva, 2003. "The Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution : Evaluation Techniques and Tools," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15090.
    2. L. ALAN WINTERS & NEIL McCULLOCH & ANDREW McKAY, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Evidence So Far," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 14, pages 271-314, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Devadoss, Stephen & Kropf, Jurgen, 1996. "Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay round on the world sugar market," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 83-96, November.
    4. Chaplin, Hannah & Matthews, Alan, 2006. "Coping with the Fallout for Preference-receiving Countries from EU Sugar Reform," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17.
    5. Stephen Devadoss & Jurgen Kropf, 1996. "Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay Round on the world sugar market," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 83-96, November.
    6. Sam Laird, 1999. "Regional Trade Agreements: Dangerous Liaisons?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(9), pages 1179-1200, December.
    7. Ellen Huan-Niemi & Jyrki Niemi, 2003. "The impact of preferential, regional and multilateral trade agreements: a case study of the EU sugar regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 001, ENARPRI (European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes).
    8. van Berkum, Siemen & Roza, Pim & van Tongeren, Frank W., 2005. "Impacts of the EU sugar policy reforms on developing countries," Report Series 29139, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    9. Benirschka, Martin & Koo, Won W. & Lou, Jianqiang, 1996. "World Sugar Policy Simulation Model: Description And Computer Program Documentation," Agricultural Economics Reports 23432, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    10. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    11. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Niemi, Jyrki S., 2003. "The Impact of Preferential, Regional and Multilateral Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU Sugar Regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 25134, European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes (ENARPRI).
    12. Philip C. Abbott, 2002. "Tariff-rate quotas: failed market access instruments?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(1), pages 109-130, March.
    13. Mitchell, Donald, 2004. "Sugar policies opportunity for change," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3222, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gotor, Elisabetta & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2011. "The impact of the EU sugar trade reform on poor households in developing countries: A general equilibrium analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 568-582, July.
    2. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Kerkela, Leena, 2005. "Reform in the EU Sugar Regime: Impact on the Global Sugar Markets," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24733, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Zhuang, Renan & Koo, Won W., 2006. "Impacts of Sugar Free Trade Agreements on the U.S. Sugar Industry," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Won W. Koo, 2002. "Alternative U.S. and EU Sugar Trade Liberalization Policies and their Implications," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 336-352.
    5. Brockmeier, Martina & Sommer, Ulrich & Thomsen, Karin, 2005. "Sugar Policies: An Invincible Bastion for Modelers?," 89th Seminar, February 2-5, 2005, Parma, Italy 232588, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Elbehri, Aziz & Umstaetter, Johannes & Kelch, David R., 2008. "The EU Sugar Policy Regime and Implications of Reform," Economic Research Report 56457, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Kerkelä, Leena & Huan-Niemi, Ellen, 2005. "Trade Preferences in the EU Sugar Sector: Winners and Losers," Discussion Papers 358, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Thomas W. Hertel & Jeffrey J. Reimer, 2006. "Predicting the Poverty Impacts of Trade Reform," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 2, May.
    9. van Berkum, Siemen & Roza, Pim & van Tongeren, Frank W., 2005. "Impacts of the EU sugar policy reforms on developing countries," Report Series 29139, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    10. Anania, Giovanni, 2001. "Modeling Agricultural Trade Liberalization. A Review," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20758, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. John C. Beghin & Barbara El Osta & Jay R. Cherlow & Samarendu Mohanty, 2003. "The Cost Of The U.S. Sugar Program Revisited," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(1), pages 106-116, January.
    12. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    13. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Gohin, Alexandre & Guindé, Loïc & Millet, Guy & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P. & Haley, Stephen & Wagner, Owen & Orden, David & Sandrey, Ron & Vink, Nick, 2008. "The future of global sugar markets: Policies, reforms, and impact," IFPRI discussion papers 829, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Khan, Aamir & Walmsley, Terrie & Mukhopadhyay, Kakali, 2019. "Trade Liberalization and Income Inequality: The Case for Pakistan," Conference papers 333125, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Thomas W. Hertel & Roman Keeney & Maros Ivanic & L. Alan Winters, 2007. "Distributional effects of WTO agricultural reforms in rich and poor countries [‘Elasticities of substitution and factor supply in Canadian, Mexican, and US agriculture’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(50), pages 290-337.
    17. Thomas F. Rutherford & David G. Tarr, 2014. "Poverty effects of Russia's WTO accession: Modeling “real” households with endogenous productivity effects," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: APPLIED TRADE POLICY MODELING IN 16 COUNTRIES Insights and Impacts from World Bank CGE Based Projects, chapter 12, pages 287-306, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Nicita, Alessandro, 2005. "Multilateral trade liberalization and Mexican households : the effect of the Doha development agenda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3707, The World Bank.
    19. Svatoš, M. & Maitah, Mansoor & Belova, Anna, 2013. "World Sugar Market – Basic Development Trends and Tendencies," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    20. González-Mellado, A., 2007. "Possibilities and perspectives of integrating household analysis in CGE models: The case of Mexico," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.