IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v83y2025ics0160791x25002301.html

The impact of U.S.-style digital trade rules on digital services trade between China and CPTPP member countries

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Huilian
  • Kang, Chengwen

Abstract

As digital trade expands globally, U.S.-style digital trade rules have garnered increasing attention from scholars and policymakers. Drawing on panel data from 2005 to 2023 covering China's digital services trade with CPTPP member countries, this study quantifies the depth of U.S.-style digital trade rules using the TAPED dataset and empirically evaluates their impact through an extended gravity model. The results indicate that these rules exert an overall positive effect on China–CPTPP digital services trade, with a more pronounced impact on exports. Mechanism analyses reveal that U.S.-style digital trade rules facilitate bilateral trade by reducing transaction costs, while also introducing constraints by narrowing ICT development gaps and intensifying institutional trade barriers. Heterogeneity analysis indicates that different types of provisions exert varied effects: e-commerce and data-specific provisions significantly promote digital trade, whereas other high-standard or complex provisions have relatively limited influence. This study provides both theoretical underpinnings and policy-relevant insights for China to enhance its digital services trade with CPTPP members within the evolving framework of U.S.-style digital trade rules, thereby strengthening the global competitiveness of Chinese digital firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ma, Huilian & Kang, Chengwen, 2025. "The impact of U.S.-style digital trade rules on digital services trade between China and CPTPP member countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25002301
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25002301
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103040?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gupta, Shagufta & Ghosh, Poulomi & Sridhar, V., 2022. "Impact of data trade restrictions on IT services export: A cross-country analysis," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9).
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Dennis Novy, 2013. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs With Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 101-121, January.
    4. Beverelli, Cosimo & Fiorini, Matteo & Hoekman, Bernard, 2017. "Services trade policy and manufacturing productivity: The role of institutions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 166-182.
    5. Erik van der Marel, 2021. "Digital‐based Services Globalization and Multilateral Trade Cooperation," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(3), pages 392-398, May.
    6. Wunsch-Vincent, Sacha, 2006. "The Internet, cross-border trade in services, and the GATS: lessons from US–Gambling," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 319-355, November.
    7. Tinghui Zhang & Chang Hwan Choi, 2025. "Will digital trade be friend or foe of the green economy? Unveiling the complexities of green growth," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 2464591-246, December.
    8. Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 1996. "The role of trade in technology diffusion," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 114, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    9. Vincenzo Spiezia & Jan Tscheke, 2020. "International agreements on cross-border data flows and international trade: A statistical analysis," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2020/09, OECD Publishing.
    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. Banri ITO & Eiichi TOMIURA, 2023. "Firm-level Determinants of Cross-border Data Flows: An econometric analysis based on a variable selection technique," Discussion papers 23052, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. Zongo, Amara, 2021. "The impact of services trade restrictiveness on food trade," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 71-94.
    3. Fiorini, Matteo & Hoekman, Bernard, 2018. "Services trade policy and sustainable development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Camille Reverdy, 2023. "Estimating the general equilibrium effects of services trade liberalization," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 493-521, May.
    5. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    6. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    8. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    9. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    10. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    11. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    12. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    14. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.
    16. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    17. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Rambaud, Alexandre & Richard, Jacques, 2015. "The “Triple Depreciation Line” instead of the “Triple Bottom Line”: Towards a genuine integrated reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 92-116.
    19. Karsten Neuhoff, 2002. "Optimal congestion treatment for bilateral electricity trading," Working Papers EP05, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Alberto Galasso & El Hadi Caoui, 2025. "Fractional Ownership and Copyright Licensing: Evidence from the Music Industry," NBER Working Papers 34336, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:teinso:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25002301. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.