Pathway to Asia-Pacific Economic Community: ASEAN +3, +6, or TPP? 22-23 September, 2011 Dr. Sangkyom Kim Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

Pathway to Asia-Pacific Economic Community: ASEAN +3, +6, or TPP?

22-23 September, 2011

Dr. Sangkyom KimKorea Institute for International Economic Policy

Korea National Center for APEC Studies

2

Currently, 43 RTAs have been implemented, 3 RTAs have been signed, and more than two dozen RTAs are being negotiated or considered by APEC economies. Fact

1Fact

1

• Most of RTAs in the Asia-Pacific region have taken a form of bilateral negotiation similar to the world-wide trend of seeking a lower and easier negotiation cost even though the gains from the freer trade are limited

• After East Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Northeast Asian members have changed their policy stance from favoring a global approach to favoring a re-gional approach

• 37 RTAs have been implemented after the crisis.

• No distinction between intra and inter-regional partnerships

Features of FTAs/RTAs in Asia-Pacific

• Most of sub-regional RTAs within APEC have been making a complicated web of hub-and-spoke type of overlapping RTAs which may cause a spaghetti bowl phe-nomenon.

Fact 2

Fact 2

Fact 3

Fact 3

Fact 4

Fact 4

Fact 5

Fact 5

• Progress has been slow in taking an expansionary path of RTAs

3

REGIONAL

ARRANGEMENTS

Unilateral

Bilateral PlurilateralUnder

Considera-tionIntra-Regional Inter-Regional Intra-Regional Inter-Regional

Various trade liberalization

measures taken by Individual Economies

APECIndividual

Action Plans(IAPs)

Unilateral useof force

IMPLEMENTEDAustralia-PNG(1977)Australia-New Zealand(1983)Chile-Canada(1996)Mexico-Chile(1998)Singapore-Japan(2002)China-Hong Kong(2004)Chile-US(2004)Singapore-Korea(2006)Japan-Malaysia(2006)Japan-Thailand(2007)Japan-Indonesia(2008)Japan-Brunei(2008)Japan-Philippines(2008)China-Singapore(2009)US-Peru(2009)Chile-Peru(2009)Canada-Peru(2009)Japan-Vietnam(2009)

UNDER NEGOKorea-Japan

IMPLEMENTEDSingapore-New Zealand(2001)Singapore-Australia(2003)Chile-Korea(2004)US-Australia(2005)Chile-China(2005)Singapore-US(2005)Malaysia-Australia(2005)Mexico-Japan(2005)Thailand-New Zealand(2005)Thailand-Australia(2005)Japan-Chile(2007)China-New Zealand(2008)Australia-Chile(2009)Singapore-Peru(2009)Peru-China(2010)Korea-Peru (2011)

SIGNEDThailand-Peru (2005)Korea-US (2007)Hong Kong-New Zealand (2010)

UNDER NEGOSingapore-MexicoCanada-SingaporeThailand-USAustralia-MalaysiaChina-AustraliaKorea-MalaysiaKorea-CanadaKorea-MexicoMalaysia-ChileUS-IndonesiaUS-PhilippinesJapan-AustraliaJapan-PeruNew Zealand-KoreAustralia-Korea

IMPLEMENTEDAFTA (1993)ASEAN-China(2005)ASEAN-Korea(2007)ASEAN-Japan(2008)NAFTA(1994)

IMPLEMENTEDP4(2006) Australia-ASEAN-New Zealand (2010)

UNDER NEGO TPP

Bilateral and Intra-RegionalChina-Thailand

Bilateral and Inter-RegionalThailand-ChileIndonesia-Aus-tralia

Plurilateral and Intra-Re-gionalASEAN-Chine-se Taipei

Plurilateral and Inter-Re-gionalFTAAPASEAN+3ASEAN+6ASEAN-USA

4

Major objective is to liberalize trade and investment • More emphasis has been placed to lowering trade and investment barriers

among key trading partners than to seeking broad economic integration

Incorporate a variety of commitments to economic cooper-ation in a number of areas • However, some agreements have no feasible work plan

A comprehensive scope and more sophisticated type of FTAs/RTAs. • However, there are not many FTAs/RTAs in the APEC region containing

chapters on next generation issues including E-commerce, labor and envi-ronment

Complex and inconsistent provisions in Rules of Origin• Increased transaction cost may disrupt supply chain• May lead to hamper the process of production networking

General Characteristics and Drawbacks

5

Asia-Pacific region satisfies the following market conditions for Asia Pacific Economic Community (FTAAP) to become a desirable RTA

Condition 1Condition 1

Condition 3Condition 3

• The strong interdependence among APEC member economies in terms of intra- re-gional trade share of over 65% is the most promising factor in expecting a large trade creation effect

Condition 2Condition 2

• The consolidated market size (40% of the world population and 53% of the world GDP) is large enough to create a positive trade creation effect

• Pre-union industrial structure of the potential members is competitive and may ex-pect significant efficiency gains from the regional free trade.

• The simple averaged complementarity index of APEC is 53.7, a figure not exces-sively high or low.

Market Conditions for A-P Economic Community

6

SourceDestination Australia China

Hong Kong, China

Indonesia Japan Korea MalaysiaNew

Zealand Philippines Russia Singapore Thailand US Vietnam

Australia 61.91 33.37 49.36 67.91 65.54 64.04 32.22 57.62 29.15 62.03 70.55 76.35 42.65

China 38.20 36.77 47.05 67.84 74.59 66.55 29.74 61.58 27.91 66.21 67.15 71.42 33.40

Hong Kong China 29.31 67.78 34.06 58.31 65.31 67.89 26.30 72.96 16.64 75.85 62.21 58.32 30.73

Indonesia 43.47 63.94 36.76 63.79 67.79 68.40 31.22 56.70 37.17 69.33 70.15 70.56 44.14

Japan 61.20 55.12 34.67 69.96 51.27 60.07 34.74 55.38 47.08 58.51 59.29 62.17 54.07

Korea 46.33 64.36 35.46 53.18 63.78 69.02 31.55 59.19 38.61 69.51 65.63 68.15 43.79

Malaysia 34.93 71.19 35.85 44.02 66.31 73.02 30.95 75.56 28.44 81.03 68.30 64.79 36.36

New Zealand 41.07 57.22 31.46 50.87 60.91 63.61 60.34 53.80 30.48 58.41 66.59 74.45 43.99

Philippines 38.45 64.66 36.68 43.67 59.38 69.89 70.55 31.40 28.47 74.89 64.60 62.54 37.23

Russia 32.65 66.93 36.91 41.84 66.61 59.58 51.75 33.69 59.30 49.83 67.60 71.66 39.56

Singapore 41.00 68.53 34.54 49.89 63.73 70.83 81.36 27.87 66.99 34.50 64.46 61.45 43.06

Thailand 39.66 69.36 37.86 43.83 71.90 72.20 72.08 30.80 64.80 33.99 72.77 73.06 35.95

US 44.67 64.03 36.81 54.09 64.47 67.71 66.44 30.98 59.72 32.86 65.64 70.11 48.33

Vietnam 43.99 54.29 35.30 52.98 53.46 60.89 61.09 33.45 49.40 39.50 58.67 61.52 65.18

Table 1. Complementarity of APEC Economies in 2007

where d is the importing country of interest, s is the exporting country of interest, w is the set of all countries in the world, i is the set of industries, x is the commodity export flow, X is the total export flow, m the commodity import flow, and M the total import flow. In words, we take the sum of the absolute value of the difference between the sectoral import shares of one country and the sectoral export shares of the other. Dividing by 2 coverts this to a number between 0 and 1, with zero indicating all shares matched and 1 indicating none did. Subtracting from one reverses the sign, and multiplying by 100 puts the measure in percentage terms. It takes a value between 0 and 100, with zero indicating no overlap and 100 indicating a perfect match in the import/export pattern (UNESCAP, Trade Statistics in Policymaking: A Handbook of Commonly Used Trade Indices and Indicators).2) * indicates a simple average of all the complementarity indices in the table. 3) Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Chinese Taipei are excluded because the data source does not report the index of these countries.Source: APTIAD (Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade) Interactive Trade Indicators, http://www.unescap.org/tid/artnet/artnet_app/index_rca_fm.aspx

7

Significant economic gains for sustainable growth and co-prosperity• Produce trade creation while minimizing diversion

Potential to consolidate into larger-scale RTAs• Stepping stone towards global free trade- Is there any diagnose and prescription on both do-

mestically or regional wide obstacles to access a tar-get pathway?

Conditions for Desirable Pathway

Conditions for Desirable Pathway A desirable pathway needs to demonstrate potential to create substan-tial economic gains

1. Significant economic gains for sustainable growth and co-prosperity- ASEAASEAN+3, 6 and TPP each satisfies condition for

trade creation for participating members

2. Minimize trade diversion to non participating members - All three sub groups does not create serious trade diversioneffect if trade and service liberalization and facilitation

① Economic Gains

Conditions for Desirable Pathway

9

In order to consolidate into larger-scale RTAs leading global free trade, each sub group needs to embrace following conditions

1. The capacity to respond to the challenges and

changes facing the region

2. Inclusiveness of interests and harmonization with

other groups in the region

3. Pursuit of high quality and consistency with the

WTO.

② Potential to Consolidate

Challenges Facing the Asia Pacific Re-gion

10

1. Asia-Pacific economies needs to build on FTAs by im-proving the business environment

• The heterogeneity of economic interests and political stances in the re-gion and challenges facing the region make it very difficult to envisage a proper architecture for the region as a whole

• There is no “top-level management” to substitute for WTO discipline, to ensure that bilateral trade tensions—tensions that are inevitable in East Asia—do not spill over into region-wide problems due to lack of cooperation and communication (Baldwin 2007)

Inclusiveness of Interests and Agenda

11

2. The possible conflicts in interests between different co-operation mechanisms such as APT, EAS and TPP have alarmed non-member economies in the Asia Pacific re-gion.

• Existing regional sub groups in the Asia Pacific region (APT, EAS, TPP) are not adequately institutionalized to deliver non-member’s in-terests: Proper regional and sub regional Institutional Architecture is required

• The emergence of regional cooperation mechanisms in East Asia only such as APT and EAS have caused considerable concern and criticism has often been made in the context of nationalism and protectionist re-gionalism which emphasizes “Asian Only”: Potential inter and intra-regional conflict of Interests

High Quality and WTO Consistency

12

3. An optimum FTAAP calls for a high-quality and com-prehensive free trade agreement for the participating economies to enjoy the economic gains

• TPP targets high quality and comprehensive FTAs under the legal pro-vision of GATT Article XXIV. However, market size needs to be ex-panded to enjoy the benefit of integration.

• APS, EAS each proposed the establishment of FTA under the frame-

work of EFTA and CEPEA respectively. However, these two regional

sub groups have not entered into negotiating stages.

Policy Implications

13

1. Any single regional cooperation mechanism alone can-not function perfectly in isolation

• APT. EAS and TPP should not be viewed as conflicting mechanisms.

Rather, they can be mutually reinforcing.

• As APEC strongly supports the WTO process, regional sub groups in

AP can also function in this supportive role.

• Regional sub groups can be viewed as the stops to be reached on the

way to arrive at the farther destination, “Asia-Pacific community.”

Policy Implications

14

2. Strong political commitment is required for each of sub groups to become a catalyst for Asia Pacific Economic Community.

• Strong commitment from the regions’ major economies are required.

However, number of political challenges are lying ahead against pro-

moting Asia Pacific integration.

• Each group should demonstrate substantial progress with clear visions

to Leaders in Honolulu. At the same time, Leaders need to agree to al-

low flexibility while strengthening capacity building activities.

Policy Implications

15

3. APEC itself must strengthen its role as a catalyst to promote regional cooperative approaches.

• A strengthened APEC with strong regional supporters such as APT,

EAS and TPP will eventually form the strong architecture that the

Asia-Pacific region needs.

• APEC must take full advantage of its dynamism (e.g. diversified

membership & broad scope of agenda) to forward consensus reached

agenda to sub groups for an effective implementation of Asia Pacific

Economic Community.

Policy Options

16

APEC’s dynamism including its non-binding principle is subject to be taken advantage of, not to be abandoned.

1. Endeavour to utilize pathfinder initiative: 21- X,

Sector/Area Specific Approach

2. Take full advantage of current initiatives on REI,

Growth Strategy and etc

3. Promote Further Structural Reform

4. Introduce Peer Review mechanism for intra-

FTAs/RTAs

17

APEC’s sustainable development lies in the success-ful establishment of unique role in harmonizing and deepening economic integration in the region.

• Deepen regional economic integration by a successful incorporation of Behind the Border Issues, Next Generation Issues, Structural Re-forms, Climate Changes

• Become a Pathfinder for internationally applicable agenda via introduc-ing Soft Law in operational mechanism of APEC

Concluding Remarks

Thank you very much.

18

19

The economic impact analysis has been conducted on following sce-narios developed as the desirable forms for CGE model analysis.

① Scenario Building

Scenario 1

Scenario 1

Scenario 3

Scenario 3

• (1) + Liberalization of Trade in Services through 10% reduction of trade-equivalent barriers in construction, distribution, transportation and telecommunication, and, business and financial services as adopted from Hoekman (1995)

Scenario 2

Scenario 2

• Basic Scenario for Trade Liberalization through Tariff Reduction• For the economic impact analysis on both the members’ and non-members’

economies in general as a reference value, an elimination of all tariffs on trade in goods by all 19 member economies* has been assumed

• (2) + Trade Facilitation through 5% trade cost reduction in four main areas (cus-toms

procedures, standard and conformity, business mobility, and, electronic commerce)• With this scenario, APEC’s contribution to the establishment of the infrastructure

for member economies’ sustainable development has been reflected

Annex: Key Empirical Findings

Scenario 4

Scenario 4

• Rules of Origin Simplification by any of bilateral, diagonal and full cumulation• To address the technical limitations, PECS method has been adopted through analy-

sis of Gravity regression results of Park and Park (2009)

20

In order to examine plausible economic impacts in an unbiased and transparent manner, the consortium has aggregated the CGE model as below:

Key Empirical Findings ② Aggregation

Economies Sectors

AustraliaCanadaChileChinaHong Kong, ChinaIndonesiaJapanKoreaMalaysiaMexico

New ZealandPeruRussiaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandChinese TaipeiUnited StatesViet NamEU 25Rest of World

Agriculture/FisheryFood productsTextileChemical productsSteel and metal productsVehicleOther Transport equipments

Electronic productsMachineryOther manufacturesConstructionTrade Transportation/CommunicationBusiness/Financial servicesOther services

21

Key Empirical Findings ③ Statistical Results

Empirical estimation shows that an FTAAP is economically beneficial for all participating economies.

Economy UnitStatic Model

Capital Accumu-lation Model

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3

MembersWelfare 55 75 285 636

Real GDP 0.13 0.36 1.13 3.08

EUWelfare -14 -16 -22 -10

Real GDP -0.04 -0.04 -0.08 -0.11

Rest of World

Welfare -19 -19 -17 -19

Real GDP -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.38

Types of Rules of Origin Trade Creation Effects Trade Diversion Effects

Bilateral Cumulation 0.9 -9.0

Diagonal Cumulation 16.0 -16.0

Full Cumulation 35.8 -3.1

(Unit: US$ Billion, %)

22

STATIC MODEL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL

Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil.US$)

Export Import Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil.US$)

Export Import

Australia-0.03 -0.21 -1,220 -0.66 -2.02 0.09 0.06 368 -0.93 -0.81

Canada-0.01 -0.02 -198 -0.30 -0.81 0.1 0.09 818 -0.63 -0.6

Chile-0.01 -0.12 -99 -0.60 -0.91 0.17 0.13 111 -0.45 -0.41

China1.81 1.80 27,319 11.58 14.09 5.72 5.05 76,597 15.08 18.77

Hong Kong0.00 0.07 101 -0.55 -0.84 1.12 1.44 2,091 0.35 0.29

Indonesia1.59 1.62 3,787 6.97 9.69 5.81 5.46 12,744 12.05 13.57

Japan0.59 0.86 34,165 7.11 11.44 1.52 1.53 60,939 10.03 12.18

Korea2.70 3.35 19,989 8.45 12.42 8.39 7.67 45,788 14.82 17.34

Malaysia5.10 7.22 8,150 4.49 9.08 16.28 14.66 16,603 14.84 16.74

Mexico0.01 -0.03 -180 0.14 -0.71 -0.11 -0.1 -621 -0.56 -0.68

New Zealand-0.03 -0.16 -137 -0.49 -1.28 0.2 0.18 160 -0.45 -0.38

Peru0.00 -0.04 -24 -0.25 -1.25 0.04 0.04 26 -0.5 -0.46

Philippines3.08 3.87 2,925 2.50 5.47 15.23 13.69 10,360 16.7 17.06

Russia-0.02 -0.07 -382 -0.70 -1.03 0.14 0.14 744 -0.45 -0.43

Singapore6.68 10.34 9,760 4.66 5.68 19.65 18.02 17,016 16.67 17.04

Thailand4.18 11.24 13,496 -4.43 27.28 28.91 24.14 29,058 40.11 42.72

Chinese Taipei-0.13 -0.65 -1,843 -1.33 -1.66 -0.53 -0.82 -2,320 -1.92 -1.93

USA0.00 -0.05 -5,392 0.23 -1.41 0.05 0.06 6,457 -0.49 -0.44

Viet Nam7.09 10.20 3,801 17.68 31.30 22.75 18.52 6,904 42.21 43.89

EU25-0.05 -0.09 -10,527 -0.37 -1.04 0.11 0.1 11,227 -0.59 -0.54

ROW-0.03 -0.18 -6,980 -0.63 -1.37 0.09 0.05 2,078 -0.68 -0.66

Table A1 Effects of ASEAN+3: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)

Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation

23

STATIC MODEL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL

Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil.US$)

Export Import Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil.US$)

Export Import

Australia1.14 1.94 11,068 8.22 11.29 3.47 3.84 21,954 13.02 12.94

Canada-0.02 -0.04 -325 -0.43 -1.05 0.02 0.03 227 -0.86 -0.87

Chile-0.01 -0.18 -152 -0.91 -1.26 -0.03 -0.10 -81 -0.94 -0.92

China1.83 1.85 28,009 12.02 14.61 5.80 5.14 78,010 15.60 19.38

Hong Kong0.00 -0.05 -68 -0.71 -1.09 0.92 1.23 1,780 0.06 -0.04

Indonesia1.61 2.48 2,144 5.42 8.53 6.87 8.61 20,097 19.17 19.76

Japan0.60 0.86 34,103 7.81 12.11 1.51 1.51 60,268 10.66 12.91

Korea2.76 3.42 20,397 8.77 12.84 8.54 7.81 46,616 15.27 17.87

Malaysia5.16 7.79 8,790 4.81 9.38 16.74 15.54 17,615 15.63 17.36

Mexico-0.02 -0.06 -336 -0.08 -0.93 -0.17 -0.16 -973 -0.81 -0.93

New Zealand1.61 2.48 2,144 5.42 8.53 6.24 6.42 5,547 11.07 11.81

Peru-0.01 -0.05 -29 -0.42 -1.58 -0.02 -0.01 -4 -0.81 -0.81

Philippines3.10 3.80 2,873 2.60 5.56 15.18 13.57 10,268 16.73 17.10

Russia-0.01 -0.08 -408 -0.95 -1.33 0.00 0.00 -24 -0.81 -0.85

Singapore6.72 10.54 9,946 4.59 5.58 19.79 18.38 17,351 16.75 17.08

Thailand4.27 11.31 13,576 -4.25 27.97 29.60 24.53 29,528 41.27 44.03

Chinese Taipei-0.13 -0.72 -2,032 -1.46 -1.84 -0.67 -1.00 -2,821 -2.19 -2.22

USA-0.01 -0.06 -6,906 0.18 -1.77 0.01 0.02 2,277 -0.70 -0.74

Viet Nam7.15 10.29 3,834 17.95 31.61 22.93 18.69 6,969 42.67 44.34

EU25-0.06 -0.11 -12,881 -0.56 -1.36 0.01 0.01 1,403 -0.90 -0.89

ROW-0.04 -0.27 -10,494 -1.04 -1.96 -0.10 -0.17 -6,613 -1.30 -1.32

Table A2 Effects of ASEAN + 6: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%

+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation

24

STATIC MODEL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL

Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil. US$) Export Import Real GDP Welfare Welfare

(mil. US$) Export Import

Australia 0.92 1.15 6,553 2.33 4.19 2.10 2.05 11,697 4.76 4.69

Canada 0.02 0.39 3,403 1.15 1.33 0.38 0.69 6,078 1.66 1.72

Chile 1.47 1.77 1,484 0.93 1.10 3.88 3.83 3,218 3.17 3.11

China 0.01 0.13 2,016 0.44 0.21 0.09 0.24 3,708 0.51 0.52

Hong Kong 0.00 0.16 231 0.04 -0.09 0.23 0.44 634 0.29 0.27

Indonesia 0.00 0.07 170 0.31 0.10 0.24 0.39 910 0.90 0.94

Japan 0.00 0.02 731 0.88 -0.09 0.01 0.06 2,338 0.40 0.42

Korea -0.01 0.08 495 0.27 0.06 0.08 0.21 1,222 0.28 0.28

Malaysia 0.00 0.54 607 0.26 0.00 0.78 1.38 1,550 1.34 1.35

Mexico 0.13 0.46 2,798 1.21 1.67 0.78 1.02 6,190 2.21 2.23

New Zealand 1.54 1.78 1,557 2.14 4.17 4.47 4.17 3,654 5.55 5.97

Peru 0.83 0.87 531 6.64 10.09 1.57 1.41 863 8.54 10.14

Philippines -0.01 0.06 43 -0.03 -0.16 0.32 0.43 326 0.40 0.39

Russia 0.00 0.05 281 0.06 -0.10 -0.02 0.05 269 0.10 0.09

Singapore 6.67 8.00 8,211 4.12 4.80 16.10 12.98 13,332 12.74 13.10

Thailand -0.01 0.11 133 0.09 0.03 0.41 0.49 585 0.73 0.75

Chinese Taipei 0.00 0.15 425 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.33 931 0.40 0.39

USA 0.67 0.58 61,766 4.52 4.19 1.04 0.83 87,676 6.07 4.09

Viet Nam 6.08 9.05 3,373 6.64 14.92 13.96 13.05 4,861 18.86 19.61

EU25 -0.02 -0.01 -965 0.14 -0.21 0.00 0.04 4,890 0.08 0.07

ROW 0.00 0.05 1,974 0.19 -0.09 0.05 0.13 4,969 0.23 0.21

Table A3 Effects of TPP: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%

+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation

25

STATIC MODEL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION MODEL

Real GDP Welfare Welfare(mil. US$) Export Import Real GDP Welfare Welfare

(mil. US$) Export Import

Australia 0.16 0.30 1,748 4.06 3.46 0.93 1.09 6,320 5.19 5.02

Canada 1.71 1.71 15,231 2.47 3.98 3.31 2.85 25,316 4.42 4.81

Chile 0.14 0.11 93 -0.28 -0.30 0.86 0.87 731 0.47 0.79

China 2.24 2.28 34,582 15.70 9.52 7.58 6.70 101,714 20.5 25.93

Hong Kong 3.09 6.54 9,500 6.32 7.68 11.06 12.77 18,553 12.77 13.09

Indonesia 1.72 1.53 3,569 8.12 11.19 5.95 5.28 12,329 12.69 14.56

Japan 0.74 1.04 41248 9.63 9.33 14.15 1.79 71,206 12.45 15.23

Korea 2.99 3.68 21,978 9.63 14.17 9.36 8.52 50,860 16.71 19.71

Malaysia 7.32 8.97 10,171 5.36 9.86 19.05 16.40 18,685 15.54 17.26

Mexico 2.19 2.13 1,3043 2.14 6.03 5.68 4.86 29,706 7.92 8.14

New Zealand 0.21 1.31 1,148 4.99 5.72 2.59 3.44 3,024 7.75 8.01

Peru 0.10 -0.07 -41 1.02 0.43 0.20 0.07 40 1.03 1.43

Philippines 3.16 4.19 3,168 3.58 6.86 16.39 14.84 11,234 18.94 19.42

Russia 1.27 1.36 7,376 3.58 6.37 3.85 3.83 20,796 5.81 9.05

Singapore 0.41 1.61 1,668 -0.71 -0.86 3.22 4.41 4,560 1.98 1.97

Thailand 4.71 12.09 14,537 -4.36 30.63 33.59 27.19 32,793 46.22 49.46

Chinese Taipei 3.48 4.99 14,102 8.18 10.38 11.34 11.17 31,611 15.84 17.39

USA 0.03 0.10 11,028 4.34 1.85 0.24 0.35 37,418 4.58 3.12

Viet Nam 4.52 4.64 1,934 19.37 25.22 16.56 11.78 4,914 35.64 36.38

EU25 -0.07 -0.18 -20,880 -0.98 -2.16 -0.12 -0.14 -15,941 -1.62 -1.64

ROW -0.06 -0.48 -18,725 -1.86 -3.25 -0.44 -0.63 -24,591 -2.57 -2.64

Table A4 Effects of Expansion of TPP: Scenario III (% deviations from the Base)Tariff Elimination + Reduction in Tariff Equivalents of Services by 10%

+ 5% Reduction in Trade Cost by Trade Facilitation