IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/eaerev/0334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Author

Listed:
  • Ciuriak , Dan

    (Ciuriak Consulting Inc.)

  • Xiao, Jingliang

    (Infinite-Sum Modeling Inc.)

  • Dadkhah, Ali

    (Ciuriak Consulting Inc.)

Abstract

We assess the outcomes for the negotiating parties in the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the remaining eleven parties go ahead with the agreement as negotiated without the United States, as compared to the outcomes under the original twelve-member agreement signed in October 2016. We find that the eleven-party agreement, now renamed as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), is a much smaller deal than the twelve-party one, but that some parties do better without the United States in the deal, in particular those in the Western Hemisphere-Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru. For the politically relevant medium term, the United States stands to be less well-off outside the TPP than inside. Since provisional deals can be in place for a long time, the results of this study suggest that the eleven parties are better off to implement the CPTPP, leaving aside the controversial governance elements, the implications of which for national interests are unclear and which, in any event, may be substantially affected by parallel bilateral negotiations between individual CPTPP parties and the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Ciuriak , Dan & Xiao, Jingliang & Dadkhah, Ali, 2017. "Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership," East Asian Economic Review, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, vol. 21(4), pages 343-384, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:eaerev:0334
    DOI: 10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.4.334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.4.334
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.4.334?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hoekman, Bernard & Shepherd, Ben, 2021. "Services Trade Policies and Economic Integration: New Evidence for Developing Countries," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 115-134, February.
    2. Volman, Lucas, 2018. "The TRIPS Article 31 Tug of War Developing Country Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents and Developed Country Retaliation," LawArXiv 6cxaj, Center for Open Science.
    3. Wandel Jürgen, 2019. "Do free trade agreements promote sneaky protectionism? A classical liberal perspective," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 55(3), pages 185-200, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP; CPTPP; United States; CGE Modelling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order and Integration
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    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:ris:eaerev:0334. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: JE Lee (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kieppkr.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.