IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indqtr/v77y2021i4p542-559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Was India Right in Not Joining RCEP? A Cost–Benefit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Monika Jain

    (Monika Jain is currently working as a Faculty in Economics at Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida. She is a PhD from the University of Rajasthan (2008) and UGC-NET qualified (1996). She has published several peer-reviewed papers in reputed international journals indexed in ABDC & Scopus. She has also reviewed papers for several international journals. Her research interest lies in international economics, and global business environment.)

Abstract

India dropped out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—which included the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Japan and Australia—after negotiating for almost seven years in November 2018 on the grounds of national interest and also that free trade agreements (FTAs) did not amount to free trade and led to more trade diversion than trade creation. The cost and benefit of a regional agreement depend on the amount of trade creation with respect to trade diversion (Panagriya, 2000). This study tries to examine India’s concerns and, at the same time, highlights the cost of not joining RCEP. India’s trade deficit with 11 out of the 15 RCEP nations has been a major cause of concern. Unfavourable trade balance, concerns about the impact on dairy sector, economic slowdown, past experience with FTA’s, China factor, data localisation, rules of origin and the experience of ASEAN countries with Sino-FTA have been some of the reasons behind India’s decision to opt out of this mega multilateral agreement. Also, bilateral trade agreements with some RCEP countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and South Korea were operational. A multilateral trade agreement with ASEAN countries was very much in place. So, trade between India and 12 of the RCEP member countries would not have changed much after India’s inclusion in the RCEP. The impact of lower tariffs would have been evident for the remaining three countries: China, Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, there was fear of a massive surge in imports of manufactures from China and dairy imports from Australia and New Zealand. This study also examines the long-term impact of this decision and if India has missed out on becoming a part of the global value chain and gaining greater market access in the Asia-Pacific region. India’s policy of import substitution and protectionism did not capitulate desired results in the past. Hence, a critical evaluation of India’s decision and some validation on her concerns and fears have been done.

Suggested Citation

  • Monika Jain, 2021. "Was India Right in Not Joining RCEP? A Cost–Benefit Analysis," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 77(4), pages 542-559, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:indqtr:v:77:y:2021:i:4:p:542-559
    DOI: 10.1177/09749284211047728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09749284211047728
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09749284211047728?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacob Viner, 1950. "Full Employment at Whatever Cost," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 64(3), pages 385-407.
    2. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    3. Won Chang & L. Alan Winters, 2015. "How Regional Blocs Affect Excluded Countries: The Price Effects of MERCOSUR," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 11, pages 199-214, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    5. Pravin Krishna, 2013. "Preferential Trade Agreements and the World Trade System: A Multilateralist View," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 131-160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. David M. Gould & Roy J. Ruffin & Graeme L. Woodbridge, 1993. "The theory and practice of free trade," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Dec, pages 1-16.
    7. Magee Christopher S, 2003. "Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements: An Empirical Analysis," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Ram Upendra Das, 2009. "Regional Economic Integration in South Asia : Prospects and Challenges," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22987, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    9. Krugman, Paul R, 1993. "The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 362-366, May.
    10. Helpman, E., 1995. "The Size of Regions," Papers 14-95, Tel Aviv.
    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. Gabriel Felbermayr & Mario Larch & Mario Larch, 2014. "Transatlantic Free Trade: Questions and Answers from the Vantage Point of Trade Theory," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 14(04), pages 03-17, January.
    2. Jingwen Lu & Lihua Dai, 2023. "Examining the Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation: The Impact of Agricultural Product Trade Openness on Agricultural Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    4. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, June.
    5. Ruqayya Ibraheem & Ismat Nasim, 2021. "Globalization, Energy Use and Environmental Degradation in Thailand," iRASD Journal of Energy and Environment, International Research Association for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(1), pages 01-11, June.
    6. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Muhammad Shahbaz & Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad & Mantu Kumar Mahalik & Perry Sadorsky, 2018. "How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(13), pages 1479-1494, March.
    8. Yiping Sun & Xiangyi Li & Tengyuan Zhang & Jiawei Fu, 2022. "Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Exacerbate Environmental Pollution?—Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Onder, Harun, 2012. "Trade and Climate Change: An Analytical Review of Key Issues," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 86, pages 1-8, August.
    10. Acheampong, Alex O., 2019. "Modelling for insight: Does financial development improve environmental quality?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 156-179.
    11. Ling-Yun He & Liang Wang, 2019. "Import Liberalization of Intermediates and Environment: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Ajayi, Patricia & Ogunrinola, Adedeji, 2020. "Growth, Trade Openness and Environmental Degradation in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 100713, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Ahmed, Khalid & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2017. "Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-232.
    14. Canfei He & Fenghua Pan & Yan Yan, 2012. "Is Economic Transition Harmful to China’s Urban Environment? Evidence from Industrial Air Pollution in Chinese Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(8), pages 1767-1790, June.
    15. Jayanthakumaran, Kankesu & Verma, Reetu & Liu, Ying, 2012. "CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: A comparative analysis of China and India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 450-460.
    16. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    17. David I. Stern, 2017. "The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 7-28, April.
    18. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Oueslati, Walid, 2016. "Are deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements helping to reduce air pollution?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 292, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Jie HE, 2005. "Economic Determinants for China’s Industrial SO2 Emission: Reduced vs. Structural form and the role of international trade," Working Papers 200505, CERDI.
    20. Voigt, Sebastian & De Cian, Enrica & Schymura, Michael & Verdolini, Elena, 2014. "Energy intensity developments in 40 major economies: Structural change or technology improvement?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-62.

    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:sae:indqtr:v:77:y:2021:i:4:p:542-559. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.