Trans-Pacific Partnership Members Research Articles

Transplanting the United States' Style of Safe Harbour Provisions on Internet Service Providers Via Multilateral Agreements: Can One Size Fit All?

Ideally, internet service providers (ISP) should not be burdened with policing contents that pass through their services as they have no editorial control over them. The United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA) changes the ball game by making it mandatory on ISPs to take down infringing copyright materials if they received a notice and takedown request from a copyright holder. In exchange, the ISPs enjoy safe harbour from any liabilities that might arise from their user's action. Serious efforts are needed to transpose a similar system via negotiations and multilateral treaties and agreements involving a number of countries such as through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. Despite the withdrawal of the United States’ (US) from the TPP, and in view of the global initiatives of harmonization of intellectual property (IP) laws, this article aims to explore the different system of ISPs’ obligations and liabilities in the twelve TPP member countries. It also examines some of the strengths and weaknesses of each system. It concludes with an argument that whilst some form of safe harbour should be created to assist IP right owners in policing their right, the US private notice and takedown system is not without its flaws and hence, other existing systems which are adopted in some of the TPP member countries are equally feasible and serve a common purpose in tackling the issue of copyright infringement vis-à-vis ISP liability. Eventually, there is no compelling reason to impose one single system on all the TPP member countries to police the internet via ISP liability.

Economic Impact of the United States withdrawal from Trans-Pacific Partnership on Canada: A Computable General Equilibrium Based Analysis

Canada has recently concluded negotiations on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 major Pacific Rim countries. The TPP would have a potential economic impact on its member countries (including Canada). In spite of the United States (U.S.) withdrawal from the TPP region, one may expect the agreement to still have an impact on the Canadian economy through changing trade dynamics with currently closed and large trading partners, such as Japan. In this study, we built a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model and database to assess the economic impact of the U.S. withdrawal from TPP agreement on the Canadian economy. Our model included 13 regions, 15 sectors, and three factors of production. Three scenarios were simulated to capture the economic impact of the U.S. withdrawal from TPP on Canada: (i) Baseline scenario, where we developed a growth projection model to simulate the economic and trade growth in 2030 without the TPP. (ii) In the second scenario, TPP12 scenario, we assumed that the TPP would be fully implemented by 2030. (iii) In the third scenario, TPP11, we assumed that U.S. had withdrawn from the TPP and the other 11 country members (including Canada) do business in spite of it. The study showed that both TPP12 and TPP11 will generate long-term economic gains for Canada. If the TPP is fully implemented in the absence of the U.S. (Scenario TPP11), the impact on Canada will be similar to TPP12 scenario, although it will generate major trade diversion from the U.S. toward other TPP member countries. Total Canadian imports and exports are projected to decrease by 0.26 (1.6 billion USD) and 0.35 (2.7 billion USD) percent, respectively. This net change is a combination of trade creation with TPP11 region and Rest of World (RoW) and diversion of trade flows from the U.S.

How the United States Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Benefits China

Only days after his inauguration as U.S. President, Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a “mega” regional free trade agreement that would have established the world’s largest free trade zone. Although President Trump announced that the withdrawal was justified because the TPP was an unfair agreement, the Trump Administration seems to have ignored or been unaware of the negative consequences of the decision: (1) as a consequence of the U.S. withdrawal, China has achieved a major strategic advantage in Asia through its own rival free trade agreement and now will be able to write the rules for trade in Asia and possibly beyond; and (2) the TPP would have resulted in significant economic gains to the United States as supported by a large body of economic studies analyzed in this article. Although the U.S. withdrawal has harmed its own interests, the decision is reversible because the United States can rejoin the TPP. While the path to reentry seems smooth at the moment, there is urgency for U.S. action. Reentering the TPP could become much more difficult if China first joins as the United States will need the approval of all TPP members, including China, to rejoin.

Economy-wide impact of TPP: new challenges to China

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement as originally announced in October 2015 was undoubtedly the largest regional trade accord in history and, if approved, could have set new terms for the nearly US $28 trillion in trade and business investment between the parties to the deal. But the deal hit a roadblock when the USA decided to withdraw from the agreement in January 2017. While some of the countries are interested in taking the TPP forward without the USA, there are others which are still looking at convincing the USA to reconsider its position on the deal. Thus, while all the debate and deliberation around the prospect of TPP continues, an important point to note is that the TPP deal does not include China, world’s largest merchandise trader, which had combined exports and imports worth US $3963.5 billion in 2015. Against this backdrop, the present paper seeks to analyze the impact of the TPP agreement on various trade and other economic variables of China both if the USA continues to be a part of TPP and if the USA withdraws from TPP using the Global Trade Analysis Project. The unique contribution of the present study lies in analyzing the trade integration scenarios among the TPP member countries involving all of tariff and non-tariff liberalization and improved market access between the countries, without the USA. The results indicate that China’s trade with TPP region, both exports and imports, will suffer post-TPP implementation. Exports which are likely to be hit are leather and leather products, motor vehicles, meat products, processed food, iron and steel. Imports of oilseeds, paper and paper products, nonmetallic minerals and machinery are also expected to suffer. More than the loss in trade, China will experience substantial welfare loss due to all of allocative inefficiency, worsening terms of trade and endowment effect. Of these, worsening terms of trade explain the largest part of welfare loss to the country. With the withdrawal of the USA from the deal, China’s trade with the region and its welfare is likely to suffer less.

Understanding Canada's International Trade under the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Lessons from Gravity Redux

This article applies the traditional gravity model of trade to explore the effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the context of Canada and, subsequently, draws on the theoretical gravity framework incorporating trade costs derived by Anderson and van Wincoop (2003). It provides a decomposition of the growth of Canada's trade flow with each of its top trading partners. The growth of Canada's bilateral trade with the prospective TPP member countries can be largely attributed to output growth, whereas a vast majority of trade growth with the non-member countries is associated with a reduction in trade costs. Moreover, the elimination of trade barriers after putting into effect free trade agreements considerably diminishes trade costs and raises bilateral trade.

Globalisation and its effect on pollution in Malaysia: the role of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

The main objective of this study is to investigate the influence of the globalisation (Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in particular) on air pollution in Malaysia. To achieve this goal, the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model, Johansen cointegration test and fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) methods are utilised. CO2 emission is used as an indicator of pollution while GDP per capita and urbanisation serve as its other determinants. In addition, this study uses Malaysia's total trade with 10 TPP members as an indicator of globalisation and analyse its effect on CO2 emission in Malaysia. The outcome of this research shows that the variables are cointegrated. Additionally, GDP per capita, urbanisation and trade between Malaysia and its 10 TPP partners have a positive impact on CO2 emissions in general. Based on the outcome of this research, important policy implications are provided for the investigated country.

TPP, trade-off and eco-system establishment in Taiwan

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free trade agreement with high standards, affecting multiple industries, and imposing tremendous economic impacts. The TPP accounts for 36% of world GDP and its significance and impacts are profound, specifically affecting tariff reduction in the manufacturing sector, market entry in the service sector, and rules of origin requirements, as well as currency valuation, intellectual property rights, and even immigration. This means that Taiwan cannot view the TPP lightly. Taiwan’s economy is export-focused, so not being able to partake in regional economic integration will exert an unfavorable impact on Taiwan’s trade expansion and investment attractiveness. Taiwan’s government should therefore actively seek to engage in the second round of TPP discussions. Although President Trump has announced that the US will be withdrawing from the TPP, Japan is seeking further consolidation so that the remaining TPP member countries can continue to make progress. Taiwan cannot exert much control over international opposition to Taiwan’s membership of the TPP on the part of other countries, so this paper focuses mostly on the challenge of overcoming domestic opposition. A review of the literature reveals that the benefits of joining the TPP outweigh the harm; however, despite continuous efforts to promote the TPP and the reaching of consensus within governmental organizations, there has still been a considerable backlash against the idea of TPP membership from many groups in society. This is because TPP membership would directly disadvantage thousands of domestic-orientated businesses, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and the younger generation. This means that TPP promotion needs to be more considerate of the interests of all related parties and be undertaken in an ‘eco-system’-like manner, focusing on helping traditional industries, SMEs, the agricultural sector, and young people. In addition, the government should work on strengthening the skills of existing workers, and work to develop a system that keeps capital and skilled labor within the country. Foreign investment should ideally help to stimulate domestic economic growth, create more employment opportunities, and drive wages up. If these benefits can be emphasized, then the promotion of the TPP or other FTAs is likely to encounter less resistance and receive more support from Taiwan’s citizens.

No trans-pacific partnership? Good or bad for Mexico?

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is as follows: first, it aims to explain the overall economic implications of the trans-pacific partnership (TPP). Second, it aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the TPP’s quantitative impact on an upper-middle economy such as Mexico, as well as on the USA.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is performed using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model.FindingsThe results suggest that in the short run, both Mexico and the USA would slightly benefit from the TPP. Tariff reductions would lead to less bilateral trade between Mexico and the USA and the stronger integration of both countries with the rest of the TPP members. The opposite is true after a decrease in non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Overall, in terms of the impact on Mexico, trade integration with the rest of the TPP members prevails. This suggests that a TPP without the USA could still be beneficial.Originality/valuePrevious studies on the TPP have mainly focused on its impact for the USA, which is also analysed in the present study. The effects of the TPP are estimated for a broad set of micro and macroeconomic variables, paying particular attention to the reductions of NTBs.

Approaches to Set Rules for Trade in the Products of Agricultural Biotechnology. Is Harmonization under Trans-Pacific Partnership Possible?

Abstract Given the absence of progress toward a multilateral agreement on trade liberalization in the WTO’s Doha Round, countries are attempting to gain the perceived gains from trade through the negotiation of preferential trade agreements. One of the most ambitious attempts to negotiate a preferential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which encompasses 12 countries across the Pacific including both the US and Japan. The TPP members account for approximately 40 % of global GDP. One of the most difficult issues in current international trade policy is the regulation of trade in the products of modern agricultural biotechnology. This question was on the negotiating agenda of the TPP. The objective of this paper is to lay out the major issues in the trade of products of modern agricultural biotechnology and examines the regulatory regimes for biotechnology in the 12 TPP countries. It finds that there is a significant divergence in the approaches to regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) across the TPP countries. As a result, the development of a harmonized regulatory regime to govern trade in GMOs was impossible directly in the TPP. A forum where the development of a harmonized system could potentially be undertaken was, however, agreed in the TPP.

Measuring the Changes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caused by the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is one of the proposed mega-free trade agreements. While several previous studies have measured the economic impact of the trade liberalization resulting from the TPP, the TPP may have not only a very large economic impact, but also a significant environmental impact, such as changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate over TPP and GHG emissions by asking the following question: Will the TPP increase or decrease GHG emissions? We estimate the potential impact on GHG emissions changes caused by the TPP using the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, and the GTAP CO2 and non-CO2 emissions databases. Our results suggest that the TPP is likely to increase the total amount of GHG emissions in the 12 TPP member countries, as well as global emissions. The main reason for increasing TPP member and global GHG emissions is non-CO2 emissions growth in Australia and the US.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A New Role of the United States of America and Japan in the Asia-Pacific

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is currently in a very challenging situation. After years of negotiation, the TPP was finally signed. However, once Trump Administration has begun, the United States of America is no longer supporting the TPP and this uncertain situation may generate new possibilities for the TPP members. In this regard, this article evaluates the new role of the USA and Japan towards the Asia-Pacific.

INDONESIA-CHILE TRADE COOPERATION: INDONESIA'S INITIAL STEPS TO ENTER THE TPP

T rans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement between the twelve countries in Asia - Pacific region with the aim to encourage the liberalization of trade in member countries, especially in terms of tariffs, trade protection and economy equality. Indonesia indicated its intention to enter the TPP in order to expand the market share of Indonesian exports. Indonesia currently has trade agreements with almost all countries with TPP members, except with Chile, as one of them. The analysis was done by analize Indonesia-Chile's trade in 2011 to 2015; analize Chile's trade with Canada, Singapore and Vietnam and also based on the results of simulations by Petri (2016). The simulation results show that agreement can be beneficial TPP countries involved in it, seen with increasing GDP of member countries. In addition, TPP also increase the flow of inward investment more than outward investment, especially investment coming from countries with high economy. But the free trade agreement (FTA) Indonesia with major trading partners should also be considered before Indonesia joint TPP.

China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Misfit or Missed Opportunity?

IntroductionThe Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is being sold as a 21st-century free-trade agreement (FTA) involving 12 member countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam. (In 2014, the TPP's 12 economies made up about 36 per cent of the world's GDP and about 25 per cent of world trade in goods and services.) The agreement goes beyond providing member countries market access to goods, services and investment (as covered by most other trade agreements such as the China-ASEAN FTA). It also includes other trade-related issues, such as government procurement, competition involving state-owned enterprises (SOEs), labour and the environment. Negotiations began in March 2010 and were concluded in February 2016, with ratification by respective national governments to happen within two years.Absent was the 'elephant in the room': China. China is the world's largest trader and the 12 TPP member countries made up about one-third of China's trade in 2013. Although China was invited to join the TPP in 2012 by the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there is reason to believe that the high standards ordained by the TPP were designed to keep China out (Hsu 2015). This was implied by President Obama in his State of the Union address in January 2016: 'With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do.'China has its own plans to increase its influence in the region, playing a leading role in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which comprises the 10 member states of ASEAN, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and China. The 'One Belt, One Road' initiative would link China with Central and West Asia as well as the Middle East and Europe. The establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank (or BRICS Development Bank) are also China's initiatives to increase its economic and political influence, particularly among developing countries.The purpose of this paper is to evaluate China's exclusion or rejection from TPP membership. To what extent does China lose out by being left out of the agreement? Are the requirements and coverage of the TPP too sensitive for China? We attempt to answer these questions by evaluating the trade patterns of China and the TPP members and delving into the TPP agreement signed by member countries, highlighting chapters that contain issues that could have been stumbling blocks for China in the negotiation stages. However, the shape the TPP will take after the Obama administration is yet to be seen, as the victorious candidate for the US presidency has had harsh words on the current agreement.We conclude that at the current stage of the Chinese economy, the TPP may be a little too far reaching and that China's other international initiatives, such as the 'One Belt, One Road' initiative, as well as its sheer size, will reduce the losses of being left out of the TPP.China and the TPP: A missed opportunity?How important is the TPP to member countries? Recent estimates by Petri and Plummer (2016) have concluded that most members will gain from the agreement. The US will find its annual real income increase by 0.5 per cent of GDP, while annual exports will increase by 9.1 per cent in 2030. The exports of Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia are to increase by 23.2 per cent, 30.1 per cent and 20.1 per cent respectively in 2030. But non-members will gain little. China is expected to gain only 0.2 per cent when the agreement is concluded in 2030.Table 1 shows China's trade of merchandise goods with members of the TPP in 2013. This indicates that the 12 countries of the TPP make up about one-third of China's trade. However, the US stands out in that it makes up about half of the exports to TPP members, and about one-quarter of imports. Japan and Australia are also quite important but countries from Latin America and smaller countries in Asia are quite insignificant. …

Should TPP Be Formed? On the Potential Economic, Governance, and Conflict-Reducing Impacts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)Comprehensive are the most distinctive aspect of the TPP. (Petri and Plummer (2016), p. 5)I. INTRODUCTIONThe proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free trade agreement (FTA) among 12 Pacific Rim countries whose joint gross domestic products (GDPs) account for approximately 36 percent of world GDP and whose mutual trade accounts for approximately 24 percent of world trade. For the United States, the 11 potential TPP partners already account for 45 percent of U.S. exports.1 Moreover, the United States already has in place FTAs with 6 of these 11 countries.2 Other TPP countries also have FTAs in place with several countries. Hence, TPP is designed to expand trade-policy liberalization among a larger number of countries, to deepen the degree of trade-policy liberalization by lowering non-tariff trade barriers and other fixed trade costs (including liberalizing trade in services and lowering foreign direct investment (FDI) barriers), and to improve harmonization of trade and FDI policies. The likely most substantive contribution of the TPP is to reduce an overwhelming array offixed costs that firms face in exporting goods and services to foreign markets. The comprehensive rules noted above in Petri and Plummer (2016) should reduce such export fixed costs. In other words, in stark contrast to most previous FTAs, the TPP is unique and unprecedented in two dimensions. First, the TPP will improve the of international trade and FDI to allow all countries' firms to trade on a fairer and more transparent footing. Second, by lowering variable and fixed trade costs, the TPP will enable a greater number of firms to export to foreign markets.Prior to any new FTA formation, academic, business, and government economists typically conduct ex ante computable general equilibrium (CGE) analyses of the (expected) economic benefits and costs to nations' trade, employment, and real gross domestic products (GDPs) and national incomes. Such models provide quantitative predictions of the effects of an agreement, typically using multi-sector, multi-country frameworks with factors of production (such as labor) adjusting between industries (and some models even allow net employment increases or decreases). While several such CGE models have been implemented for TPP and their predictions summarized and contrasted,3 two prominent CGE analyses are those by Petri and Plummer (2016) and the U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC (2016). Petri and Plummer (2016) is an updated version of Petri, Plummer, and Zhai (2011) and suggests that annual exports of the United States would increase by about 9 percent from TPP (by year 2030, relative to the baseline), while annual U.S. real GDP would increase 0.5 percent (in their analysis, employment is unchanged, assuming full employment). In contrast, ITC (2016), a study mandated by the U.S. Trade Priorities Act following President Obama's notification, used a CGE model and found-under some different, and more traditional, assumptions-that annual U.S. exports to the world would grow only 1 percent (though by 5.6 percent with TPP members) and annual U.S. imports would grow similarly (relative to the baseline). ITC (2016) also predicted that U.S. real GDP would increase only 0.2 percent, which is 40 percent of the 0.5 percent impact in the Petri and Plummer (2016) study.4 While many observers claim that such impacts are small (cf., Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2016), in this era of annual real GDP growth rates among developed countries of 2 percent, additional annual growth of 0.2-0.5 percent is substantive and should not be discounted.5This paper-intended to complement these studies-examines the potential impacts of TPP beyond traditional CGE estimates, taking a broader economic, governance, and historical perspective. We do this by bringing to the fore five issues that traditional CGE models ignore; consequently, we will argue that traditional predicted CGE estimates of the trade and real income effects of TPP, such as those in ITC (2016), should be interpreted as a likely floor in terms of potential benefits. …

Who wrote the rules for the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Twelve governments recently signed the much-anticipated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), sparking heated debate about its merits. As a primary motivation for this first “mega-regional” agreement, US President Barack Obama argues that the TPP is a way for the USA, and not China or someone else, to write the global trade rules of the future. This begs some important questions, namely which country or countries really did write most of the TPP and thus whose agenda for 21st century trade might it advance? To answer these questions, we compare the recently-released text of the TPP to the language in the 74 previous trade agreements that TPP members signed since 1995. Our text-as-data analyses reveal that the contents of the TPP are taken disproportionately from earlier US trade agreements. The ten preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that most closely match the TPP are all US PTAs. Moreover, the contents of controversial chapters, such as the one on investment, are drawn even more heavily from past US treaty language. Our study and findings apply power-based accounts of international institutions to a landmark new agreement, and portray a more active, template-based process of international diffusion.

China’s About-face to the TPP: economic and security accounts compared

ABSTRACTWhen the US restarted the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2009, speculation arose as to whether China would compete against it or cooperate by becoming a TPP member. Between 2010 and 2013, China shifted in stance from competition to cooperation in meeting the TPP challenge. By looking at both the economic and security dimensions, this article argues that China’s economic concern determines whether to react and its security concern determines the direction in which China reacts. Between 2010 and 2012 when security pressure was overwhelming and economic concern was not formidable, counterbalance was inevitable. In 2013, when anxiety over security pressure calmed down and economic concern grew more threatening, bandwagon became possible. This finding challenges the classical theory of the domino effect by pinpointing the importance of security consideration in where the free trade agreements (FTA) proliferation heads to. It also supplements the emulation–competition dichotomy by highlighting that whether the FTA initiator is considered a threat or a model is not fixed but contingent upon the initiator’s changing relation with the responding nation.

Estimating the Effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

In February 2016, twelve Pacific Rim countries signed the agreement on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest and most comprehensive trade deals in history. While there are several estimates of the likely effects of the TPP, there is no systematic study on the effects on all Latin American countries. We present the results from applying a multi-sector model with perfect competition presented by Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare (2014). The exercise, based on input-output data for 189 countries and 26 sectors, shows that (i) Asian TPP members are estimated to benefit most from the agreement, (ii) negative spillovers to non-TPP LAC countries appear to be of a different order of magnitude than the gains of members, and (iii) some non-TPP LAC countries may experience relatively large benefits from joining the TPP. As a cautionary note, however, we point out that even a cursory cross-study comparison shows that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the TPP for both members and non-members.

Estimating the Effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

In February 2016, twelve Pacific Rim countries signed the agreement on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest and most comprehensive trade deals in history. While there are several estimates of the likely effects of the TPP, there is no systematic study on the effects on all Latin American countries. We present the results from applying a multi-sector model with perfect competition presented by Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare (2014). The exercise, based on input-output data for 189 countries and 26 sectors, shows that (i) Asian TPP members are estimated to benefit most from the agreement, (ii) negative spillovers to non-TPP LAC countries appear to be of a different order of magnitude than the gains of members, and (iii) some non-TPP LAC countries may experience relatively large benefits from joining the TPP. As a cautionary note, however, we point out that even a cursory cross-study comparison shows that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the TPP for both members and non-members.

A Trade and Welfare Analysis of Tariff Changes Within the TPP

Abstract This paper examines the effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) tariff reductions on trade flows and welfare of the TPP members and nonmembers following the Caliendo and Parro (2015) method. We use comprehensive sectoral data on 39 countries and the rest of the world, including those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Our results show that many TPP nonmembers along with the TPP members gain from the TPP tariff reductions, suggesting the existence of a positive externality, with the welfare gains mainly arising from the changes in the terms of trade. Our analysis also shows that the TPP members increase their imports from other TPP members and decrease from non-TPP members, but the trade creation effects exceed the trade diversion effects. Our calibration results under various assumptions of the model emphasize the role of multiple sectors and sectoral linkages in the welfare analysis of the TPP tariff reductions.

Impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on China’s Textiles and Apparel Exports: A Quantitative Analysis

This study intends to quantify the potential effect of the implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on China’s textiles and apparel exports. Results show that, first, China’s apparel exports to the United States, Japan, and the NAFTA region will significantly decline after the TPP. Second, trade diversion effect caused by Japan will negatively offset the potential expansion of China’s textile exports to Vietnam and other Asian TPP members after the TPP. Third, Japan’s accession to the TPP will impose substantial negative impact on China’s textile and apparel exports in the TPP era.