IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331786.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Evaluation of Thailand’s Preferential Trading Arrangements with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, and India – The CGE Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lochindaratn, Pachara

Abstract

This paper performs the impact analysis of certain bilateral preferential trading agreements Thailand has reached with Japan, China, India, Australia, and New Zealand. Accordingly, the model utilises the GTAP 6.0 database while explicitly determining the degree of commodity market competition by sector; and labour market paradigm by skill level, in order to better reflect economic reality. Among Thai bilateral FTAs entered into force thus far, in terms of EV, JTEPA is the most while TNZCEPA turns out to be the least beneficial FTA for Thailand. Still, real gains from bilateral FTAs are trivial compared to the benefits from the groupings that include ASEAN as a whole; and unilateral trade liberalisation boosts the economy of Thailand almost as much as global free trade. On the whole, trade diversion is offset by trade creation, thus the world economy finds all of the Thailand’s FTAs welfare improving, albeit extremely marginal.

Suggested Citation

  • Lochindaratn, Pachara, 2008. "The Evaluation of Thailand’s Preferential Trading Arrangements with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, and India – The CGE Approach," Conference papers 331786, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331786/files/3718.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph E. Aldy & Scott Barrett & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 373-397, December.
    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. Fankhauser, Samuel & Hepburn, Cameron, 2010. "Designing carbon markets. Part I: Carbon markets in time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4363-4370, August.
    2. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    3. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Bosetti, Valentina, 2011. "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO[subscript 2] Concentrations," Working Paper Series rwp11-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Liu, Guangqiang & Zeng, Qing & Lei, Juan, 2022. "Dynamic risks from climate policy uncertainty: A case study for the natural gas market," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2006. "‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89, March.
    6. Thomas Norman & Heinrich H. Nax, 2011. "Leading the Way: Coalitional Stability in Technological Cooperation & Sequential Climate Policy," Economics Series Working Papers 585, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Frank Biermann, 2005. "Between the USA and the South: strategic choices for European climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 273-290, May.
    8. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Economic and environmental effectiveness of a technology-based climate protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 229-248, September.
    9. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    10. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    11. Seidman, Laurence & Lewis, Kenneth, 2009. "Compensations and contributions under an international carbon treaty," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 341-350, May.
    12. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    13. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    14. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Can an Effective Global Climate Treaty Be Based on Sound Science, Rational Economics, and Pragmatic Politics?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-28, Resources for the Future.
    15. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "Global Climate Policy Architecture and Political Feasibility: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO2 Concentrations," NBER Working Papers 15516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Botor, Benjamin & Böcker, Benjamin & Kallabis, Thomas & Weber, Christoph, 2021. "Information shocks and profitability risks for power plant investments – impacts of policy instruments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "An Elaborated Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries in All Decades," NBER Working Papers 14876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Thomas Grebel, 2019. "What a difference carbon leakage correction makes!," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 939-971, July.
    19. Persson, Tobias A. & Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian, 2006. "Allocation of CO2 emission permits--Economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1889-1899, September.
    20. Bryan K. Mignone, 2008. "Technological Scarcity, Compliance Flexibility And The Optimal Time Path Of Emissions Abatement," CAMA Working Papers 2008-36, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    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:331786. 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.