IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/wpaper/wp17-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Going It Alone in the Asia-Pacific: Regional Trade Agreements Without the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Petri

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Michael G. Plummer

    (Johns Hopkins University)

  • Shujiro Urata

    (Waseda University)

  • Fan Zhai

    (Former Managing Director, China Investment Corporation)

Abstract

The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017 led the remaining 11 countries in that trade and investment agreement to explore alternative ways to sustain economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region. This Working Paper shows that, without the United States, these 11 countries can achieve significant gains from high-quality, TPP-like agreements among themselves and from what might have to be a less rigorous but wider agreement in a separate, 16-member Asian trade negotiation, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Either of these multilateral options would yield benefits greater than those that would flow from bilateral agreements between individual countries and the United States alone, and gains from such accords could grow over time. For example, expanding the TPP without the United States to five other Asia- Pacific economies, all of which have expressed interest in the TPP in the past, would yield global income gains that rival those expected from the original TPP that included the United States, and the gains are even larger for some members. The United States, meanwhile, would suffer losses from such arrangements in two ways: first, because it would forego the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the relatively large TPP agreement, and second, because the new Asia-Pacific agreements would reduce US exports to the region as countries shift their trade to competitors of the United States. In the longer run, a new Asia-Pacific agreement or agreements would keep trade liberalization on the global agenda and likely attract further interest from large partners, including Europe. Eventually, the United States might observe that it is losing out and change its mind about joining these larger trade blocs.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Petri & Michael G. Plummer & Shujiro Urata & Fan Zhai, 2017. "Going It Alone in the Asia-Pacific: Regional Trade Agreements Without the United States," Working Paper Series WP17-10, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:wpaper:wp17-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/going-it-alone-asia-pacific-regional-trade-agreements-without-united
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dimos Chatzinikolaou & Charis Michael Vlados, 2024. "New Globalization and Energy Transition: Insights from Recent Global Developments," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Shepherd, Ben, 2019. "Mega-regional trade agreements and Asia: An application of structural gravity to goods, services, and value chains," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 32-42.
    3. Peter A. Petri & Michael G. Plummer, 2020. "Should China Join the New Trans‐Pacific Partnership?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 28(2), pages 18-36, March.
    4. Kikuchi, Tomoo & Yanagida, Kensuke & Vo, Huong, 2018. "The effects of Mega-Regional Trade Agreements on Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 4-19.
    5. A. Kuznetsov V. & А. Кузнецов В., 2018. "Интеграционные процессы в АТР с участием Китая и позиция России // Integration Processes in the asia-Pacific Region with the Participation of China and the Position of Russia," Финансы: теория и практика/Finance: Theory and Practice // Finance: Theory and Practice, ФГОБУВО Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации // Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation, vol. 22(6), pages 95-105.
    6. Qingtun Kong & Masaaki Yamada & Chengcheng Yang & Haisong Nie, 2025. "Competition or complementarity? Assessing the interaction effects of RCEP and CPTPP on agricultural and non-agricultural trade flows," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-31, February.
    7. Banga, Rashmi, 2019. "CPTPP: Implications for Malaysia’s Merchandise Trade Balance," MPRA Paper 93254, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Mikio Kuwayama, 2019. "TPP11 (CPTPP): Its Implications for Japan-Latin America Trade Relations in Times of Uncertainty," Discussion Paper Series DP2019-05, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    9. Kamal Halili Hassan & Muhammad Faliq Abd Razak & Rohaida Nordin & Rohani Abdul Rahim, 2018. "Malaysia with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Aftermath of the United States Withdrawal From the TPPA," International Journal of Asian Social Science, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 8(10), pages 868-880, October.
    10. Michael J. Ferrantino & Maryla Maliszewska & Svitlana Taran, 2019. "Actual and Potential Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific," World Bank Publications - Reports 33549, The World Bank Group.
    11. Boris A. Kheyfets, 2018. "Globalization does not End, it Becomes Another," Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law, Center for Crisis Society Studies, vol. 11(1).
    12. Takatoshi Ito & Kazumasa Iwata & Colin McKenzie & Shujiro Urata, 2018. "Did Abenomics Succeed?: Editors' Overview," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trade; TPP; RCEP; Asia-Pacific;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F17 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Forecasting and Simulation

    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:iie:wpaper:wp17-10. 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: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.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.