IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_1970.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gains and Losses of India-China Trade Cooperation – a Gravity Model Impact Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Swapan K. Bhattacharya
  • Biswanath Bhattacharyay

Abstract

As revealed by the trade intensity indices, India and the People’s Republic of China have significant bilateral trade potential, which remains unexplored until now. These countries are presently negotiating for free trade arrangements among them based on their complementarities. This paper makes an attempt to estimate the likely benefits in terms of gains or losses in imports of both India and China due to different preferential trading arrangements and free trade arrangements using the gravity model. Empirical results show that in the short run India’s potential gain is relatively less compared to China because of its high tariffs but in the long run, India’s gains are higher than China once its tariff levels are brought at par with them. Free trade arrangement is a win-win situation for both countries and is consistent with their growing dominance in the international trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Swapan K. Bhattacharya & Biswanath Bhattacharyay, 2007. "Gains and Losses of India-China Trade Cooperation – a Gravity Model Impact Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 1970, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_1970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp1970.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baldwin, Richard, 1993. "A Domino Theory of Regionalism," CEPR Discussion Papers 857, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bhattacharyay, Biswa Nath & Mukhopadhyay, Kakali, 2015. "A comprehensive economic partnership between India and Japan: Impact, prospects and challenges," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 94-107.
    2. Shinyekwa, Isaac & Othieno, Lawrence, 2013. "Comparing the Performance of Uganda’s Intra-East African Community Trade and Other Trading Blocs: A Gravity Model Analysis," Research Series 150227, Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC).
    3. Manmohan Agarwal & Madanmohan Ghosh, 2011. "An India–China FTA," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 12(2), pages 185-220, September.
    4. Surender Kumar & Prerna Prabhakar, 2020. "Industrial energy prices and export competitiveness: evidence from India," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Ansari, S.A. & Khan, W., 2015. "India’s Agricultural Trade Potential in Post-WTO Period," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 28(Conferenc).
    6. Biswa Nath Bhattacharyay & Madhurima Bhattacharyay, 2016. "Trends and Patterns of Growth, Development, Achievements of China and India: A Comparative Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 5788, CESifo.
    7. Biswa Nath Bhattacharyay & Kakali Mukhopadhyay, 2013. "Economy Wide Impact of the Trade Integration between Japan and India: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4557, CESifo.
    8. wani, Nassir ul & dhami, Jasdeep kaur, 2016. "Trade Potential of India against BRCS Economies: An empirical analysis based on Gravity Model," MPRA Paper 91785, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Feb 2017.
    9. Sunandan Ghosh & Manmohan Agarwal & Adrita Banerjee, 2019. "India–China Trade: Asymmetrical Developments and Future Prospects," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 20(1), pages 70-93, March.
    10. Shinyekwa, Isaac & Lawrence, Othieno, 2013. "Comparing the Performance of Uganda’s Intra-East African Community Trade and Other Trading Blocs: A Gravity Model Analysis," Research Series 159667, Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC).
    11. Sayeeda Bano, 2014. "An Empirical Examination of Trade Relations between New Zealand and China in the Context of a Free Trade Agreement," Working Papers in Economics 14/04, University of Waikato.

    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. Rupa Duttagupta & Arvind Panagariya, 2007. "Free Trade Areas And Rules Of Origin: Economics And Politics," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 169-190, July.
    2. Rosalyn Perkins & Mary Caroline Castaño & Condrad Montemayor, 2018. "Analysis of predictability and accountability transparency practices and FTA on trade growth in selected countries of the Asia-Pacific region: a descriptive-causal approach," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. D. Vines, 1994. "Australian Trade Liberalisation, APEC, and the GATT," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 94-11, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    4. Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2004. "EU Expansion and EU Growth," International Economic Association Series, in: Alan V. Deardorff (ed.), The Past, Present and Future of the European Union, chapter 5, pages 74-102, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Patricia Garcia-Duran & Montserrat Millet, 2015. "Efficient multilateralism or bilateralism? The TTIP from an EU Trade Policy perspective," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2015/321, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Pedro J. Martinez Edo, 2011. "Reciprocal liberalization: Bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral?," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: United Nations ESCAP (ed.), Trade beyond Doha: Prospects for Asia-Pacific Least Developed Countries, Studies in Trade and Investment 76, chapter 4, pages 60-94, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    7. John Romalis, 2007. "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 416-435, August.
    8. Baldwin, Richard Edward & Rieder , Roland, 2007. "A Test of Endogenous Trade Bloc Formation Theory on EU Data," East Asian Economic Review, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, vol. 11(2), pages 77-110, December.
    9. Bureau, Christophe & Guimbard, Houssein & Jean, Sebastien, 2016. "What Has Been Left to Multilateralism to Negotiate On?," Conference papers 332753, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Valdes, Alberto, 1995. "Joining an Existing Regional Trade Agreement: Issues and Policies from the Perspective of a Small Open Economy in Latin America," 1995: Economic Integration in the Western Hemisphere Symposium, June 7-9, 1995, San Jose, Costa Rica 50807, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    11. Casella, Alessandra, 1996. "Large countries, small countries and the enlargement of trade blocs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 389-415, February.
    12. Perez-Restrepo, Camilo & Roldan-Perez, Adriana, 2016. "Is the Pacific Alliance a Potential Pathway to the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific?," Philippine Journal of Development PJD 2014-2015 Vol. 41-42 , Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    13. Winters, L. Alan, 1996. "Regionalism versus Multilateralism," CEPR Discussion Papers 1525, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. John Ravenhill, 2012. "The Numbers Game in Asia-Pacific Cooperation," Chapters, in: Christopher M. Dent & Jörn Dosch (ed.), The Asia-Pacific, Regionalism and the Global System, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Juyoung Cheong & Do Won Kwak & Kam Ki Tang, 2015. "Can Trade Agreements Curtail Trade Creation and Prevent Trade Diversion?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 221-238, May.
    16. Karen Jackson & Oleksandr Shepotylo, 2021. "An examination of EU trade disintegration scenarios," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 2-20, January.
    17. Alessandro Turrini & Dieter M. Urban, 2001. "For Whom is MAI? A theoretical Perspective on Multilateral Agreements on Investments," Development Working Papers 151, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    18. Arvind Panagariya, 1999. "The Regionalism Debate: An Overview," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 455-476, June.
    19. Harald Badinger & Fritz Breuss, 2006. "Country Size and the Gains from Trade Bloc Enlargement: an Empirical Assessment for the European Community," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 615-631, September.
    20. Jeffrey J. Schott, 2011. "The Future of the Multilateral Trading System in a Multi-polar World," Chapters, in: Ulrich Volz (ed.), Regional Integration, Economic Development and Global Governance, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:ces:ceswps:_1970. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.