IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333446.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impact of UK – Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA): Options for UK and Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Khan, Muhammad Omer
  • Khan, Muhammad Aamir

Abstract

The policy of trade liberalization has been implemented by number of countries in form of various agreements. It is accepted that implementation of free trade policy consequently raises the economic growth in the engaging countries. UK has already implemented 38 trade agreements with 97 countries. The paper reveals that UK-Japan CEPA operates (with similar tariff rates as of EU-Japan EPA) to replace EU-Japan EPA after Brexit. It intends to tailor mesmerizing growth in Britain’s economy which would be impossible during EU-Japan EPA. This research concentrates on effects of UK – Japan CEPA; and scenario of bilateral 5% trade facilitation with FTA using CGE model. The potential trade facilitation scenario aids to reduce the trade cost established by NTBs. In GTAP model, the constrains and barriers are determined by ad-valorem equivalents (AVEs) and added into GTAP by AMS tools, which works to enhance the trade facilitation. The shock pretending 5% trade facilitation works in reducing the trade cost and constrains by the specific amount calculated as of AVEs. The outcome of UK-Japan CEPA and UK-Japan FTA with trade facilitation would have significant and luminous impact on both economies however, there exist disparity across some of the variables. The real GDP for both countries have a higher expectancy by implementation of UK- Japan CEPA + trade facilitation (UK grows by $1411M while Japan elevates by $924.5M). Similarly, the term of trade is also higher to ToT from UK – Japan CEPA. However, the real returns from factors reduced for both countries (in total) by UK – Japan CEPA + trade facilitation. Briefly, the fact behind the decrease is the excessive presence of factors like land and natural resources. The results reveals that if both countries step forwards to extend CEPA towards trade facilitation agreement then it would result in win–win scenario for both. Keeping the same tariff concession as proposed would result in a very luminous bright outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Khan, Muhammad Omer & Khan, Muhammad Aamir, 2022. "Impact of UK – Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA): Options for UK and Japan," Conference papers 333446, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333446/files/11226.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walmsley, Terrie & Peter Minor, 2013. "MyGTAP Model: A Model for Employing Data from the MyGTAP Data Application-Multiple Households, Split Factors, Remittances, Foreign Aid and Transfers," GTAP Working Papers 4320, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    2. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 2018. "Growth, Trade, and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(1), pages 37-83, January.
    3. Baltagi, Badi H. & Egger, Peter & Pfaffermayr, Michael, 2008. "Estimating regional trade agreement effects on FDI in an interdependent world," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 194-208, July.
    4. Green, Francis & Dickerson, Andy & Saba Arbache, Jorge, 2001. "A Picture of Wage Inequality and the Allocation of Labor Through a Period of Trade Liberalization: The Case of Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1923-1939, November.
    5. Balassa, Bela, 1978. "Exports and economic growth : Further evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 181-189, June.
    6. Harrison, Ann, 1996. "Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 419-447, March.
    7. Mustafa ACAR & Savas ALPAY, 2009. "South – East Asian Integration in the Context of OIC: Implications of Free Trade among Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 24, pages 1-18.
    8. Luc Savard, 2003. "Poverty and Income Distribution in a CGE-Household Micro-Simulation Model: Top-Down/Bottom Up Approach," Cahiers de recherche 0343, CIRPEE.
    9. Lin, Faqin & Fu, Dahai, 2016. "Trade, Institution Quality and Income Inequality," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 129-142.
    10. Jorge Rojas-Vallejos & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2017. "Tariff Reduction and Income Inequality: Some Empirical Evidence," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 603-631, September.
    11. Grossman, Gene M. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1991. "Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 517-526, April.
    12. Beverelli, Cosimo & Neumueller, Simon & Teh, Robert, 2015. "Export Diversification Effects of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 293-310.
    13. Meschi, Elena & Vivarelli, Marco, 2009. "Trade and Income Inequality in Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 287-302, February.
    14. Muhammad Aamir Khan, 2019. "Potential Pakistan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement – Options for Pakistan," World Economy Brief 19-11, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.
    15. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995. "Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 1-118.
    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. Sumbal Fatima & Bateer Chen & Muhammad Ramzan & Qamar Abbas, 2020. "The Nexus Between Trade Openness and GDP Growth: Analyzing the Role of Human Capital Accumulation," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, November.
    2. Huy Quang Doan, 2019. "Trade, Institutional Quality and Income: Empirical Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Khan, Muhammad Aamir & Walmsley, Terrie & Mukhopadhyay, Kakali, 2021. "Trade liberalization and income inequality: The case for Pakistan," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Mtiraoui, abderraouf, 2015. "Openness, Human Capital and Economic Growth in MENA: Theoretical foundations and application to Dynamic panel data," MPRA Paper 61530, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Sergio Ginebri & Giacomo Pietroli & Laura Sabani, 2001. "Financial Deepening, Trade Openness and Growth:a Multivariate Cointegrated Analysis of the Complementary Effects," Working Papers 62, Sapienza University of Rome, CIDEI.
    6. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Romer, David & Cyrus, Teresa, 1995. "Trade and Growth in East Asian Countries: Cause and Effect?," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers 233408, University of California-Berkeley, Department of Economics.
    7. Aribah Aslam, 2020. "The hotly debate of human capital and economic growth: why institutions may matter?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1351-1362, August.
    8. Hajamini, Mehdi & Falahi, Mohammad Ali, 2018. "Economic growth and government size in developed European countries: A panel threshold approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Ben-David, Dan & Loewy, Michael B, 1998. "Free Trade, Growth, and Convergence," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 143-170, June.
    10. Eriṣ, Mehmet N. & Ulaṣan, Bülent, 2013. "Trade openness and economic growth: Bayesian model averaging estimate of cross-country growth regressions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 867-883.
    11. Sugata Marjit & Anwesha Basu & C. Veeramani, 2019. "Growth Gains from Trade," CESifo Working Paper Series 7905, CESifo.
    12. Anupam Das & Biru Paksha Paul, 2011. "Openness and growth in emerging Asian economies: Evidence from GMM estimations of a dynamic panel," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(3), pages 2219-2228.
    13. Tarlok Singh, 2010. "Does International Trade Cause Economic Growth? A Survey," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1517-1564, November.
    14. Fayq Al Akayleh, 2017. "Accession to World Trade Organization and its Implications for Trade Diversification and Economic Activity: Evidence from Saudi Arabia," International Journal of Economics and Financial Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(12), pages 332-345, 12-2017.
    15. Maureen Were, 2015. "Differential effects of trade on economic growth and investment: A cross-country empirical investigation," Journal of African Trade, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 71-85, March.
    16. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2002. "Assessing the Impact of One Aspect of Globalization on Economic Growth in Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-91, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Ricardo Luiz Machado & Thiago Vizine da Cruz, 2022. "An Empirical Approach Analyzing the Socioeconomic Sustainability of the International Sugarcane Trade," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Blanco, Luisa & Grier, Robin, 2012. "Natural resource dependence and the accumulation of physical and human capital in Latin America," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 281-295.
    19. Christopher Hartwell, 2022. "Institutions and trade‐related inequality," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 3246-3264, July.
    20. Renuka Mahadevan, 2002. "Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Australian manufacturing industries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 30(2), pages 170-185, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:pugtwp:333446. 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.