IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Preferential and Non-Preferential Approaches to Trade Liberalization in East Asia: What Differences Do Utilization Rates and Reciprocity Make?

Previous studies on the impacts of free trade agreements (FTAs) in East Asia have assumed full utilization of preferences. The evidence suggests that this assumption is seriously in error, with the estimated uptake particularly low in East Asia. In this paper, we assume a more realistic utilization rate in estimating impacts. We find that actual utilization rates significantly diminish the benefits from preferential liberalization, but in a non-linear way. Reciprocity is an important motivation for pursuing FTAs over unilateral actions, although the Doha Round could deliver the same outcome if only it could be concluded. We isolate the impact of reciprocity, but find that the additional benefits also depend on utilization rates. Furthermore, the potential for trade deflection combined with possible retaliatory actions could negatively affect members and non-members. In the absence of Doha, the multilateralization of preferences, even without reciprocity, is the practical route that is most likely to deliver the greatest benefits to members. Global liberalization, while difficult to attain, would maximize world welfare while posing no risk in its realization.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Asian Development Bank in its series Working Papers on Regional Economic Integration with number 109.

in new window

Length: 109 pages
Date of creation: 01 Mar 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ris:adbrei:0109
Contact details of provider: Postal: P.O. Box 789, Manila
Fax: (63-2) 636-2648
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:adbrei:0109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ivan B. de Leon)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.