Blog Post

TPP participation gives Japan a bargaining chip in trade negotiations

Several important economic partnership agreements have moved into the process of trade negotiations for Japan this year. Although the macroeconomic effects of tariff reduction are not large for Japan, the effects of trade and investment facilitation through the agreements can be substantial. As Japan has a bargaining chip to use in these trade negotiations, there is no need for the country to retreat from the negotiations.

By: Date: November 19, 2013 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

Several important economic partnership agreements have moved into the process of trade negotiations for Japan this year. Although the macroeconomic effects of tariff reduction are not large for Japan, the effects of trade and investment facilitation through the agreements can be substantial. As Japan has a bargaining chip to use in these trade negotiations, there is no need for the country to retreat from the negotiations.

Effect of agreements on the Japanese macroeconomy

Japan this year has started negotiations on four economic agreements — free-trade agreements (FTAs) and economic partnership agreements (EPAs) (Table 1). If Japan can succeed in concluding these agreements within a few years, it will achieve the government’s target of realising a ‘trade FTA ratio above 70 percent by 2018’ and be connected via EPAs with countries that have a 72 percent share of world GDP.Japan’s National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA), along with Chinese and Korean think tanks, has estimated that Japanese GDP would increase by about 0.3 percent because of the China-Japan-Korea trilateral FTA (CJK-FTA). In another study on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement (RCEP) for East Asia, NIRA shows that the agreement would increase Japanese GDP by 0.22 percent. The Japanese government estimates that tariff reduction through the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) would increase the country’s GDP by approximately 0.66 percent. In addition, a study by Petri and Plummer (2012) shows that when the Free-Trade Area for Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP), which includes both TPP and RCEP, is completed, it would boost Japan’s GDP by 4.27 percent.

In fact, tariff reductions through FTAs/EPAs would not have much effect on Japan because the country already has lower tariff rates with the countries in the negotiations. According to NIRA’s estimates on the effect of RCEP (0.22 percent increase in Japan’s GDP), for example, tariff reduction would increase the country’s GDP by only 0.03 percent. On the other hand, trade facilitation could have a greater effect on Japan. This effect includes the reduction of costs because of smoother procedures for exports/imports and adoption of uniform or harmonised trade and business rules, facilitating the efficiency of business activities by optimising supply chains throughout Asia (by introducing the Cumulative Rules of Origin[1] among the member countries and harmonising the relevant rules and regulations), and increasing foreign direct investment in Japan through deregulation or by preferential treatment of member countries’ investments.

While EPAs contribute to the member countries’ economy by boosting trade and investment, as described above, a country that does not participate in the agreements will face negative impacts on its economy because it will not only lose an opportunity to increase its GDP but also suffer from a decrease in exports to the countries in the agreements (after concluding the agreement, parties would tend to import more from other parties than from non-parties because of the reduced costs). According to Petri and Plummer (2012), China and the EU (both outside the TPP) would experience a fall in GDP by 0.27 percent and 0.02 percent, respectively, in 2025 if the TPP is concluded. Furthermore, EU GDP would fall by 0.14 percent if the FTAAP is completed. If Japan withdraws from the TPP negotiations and the FTAAP becomes effective thereafter, the Japanese economy would suffer from it, just like the economies of China and the EU.

Chain reactions spreading to other FTA talks

As soon as Japan announced its intention to participate in the TPP negotiations, there was an encouraging movement towards the negotiations of the CJK-FTA and framework of the East-Asia–wide economic partnership. As seen from Table 2, joint study was conducted until 2010 for both cases but there had been no progress towards negotiation. The situation changed after the announcement of Japan’s intention to participate in the TPP negotiations in October 2010. The countries agreed to accelerate negotiations, and China, Japan and Korea started the CJK-FTA negotiation in March this year, and the RCEP negotiations in May this year. This means that the announcement of Japan’s intention to participate in the TPP negotiations generated a ‘chain reaction’ that led to other trade negotiations.

This chain reaction has not only spread to other negotiations in the Asia and the Pacific regions. Itoh (2012) notes a comment of a Japanese government official responsible for trade that Japan’s announcement of its intention to participate in the TPP negotiations resulted in a change in the attitude of the EU. The EU and ASEAN have suspended their negotiations on region-to-region FTAs, and we see no sign of the EU and China starting negotiations on an FTA. On the other hand, Japan has been trying to deepen its economic relationship with Asia and the Pacific region by participating in negotiations on the TPP and by making use (consciously or unconsciously) of the chain reaction. In such a situation, the EU would believe that strengthening its trade relationship with Japan would provide an ideal opportunity to maintain its influence in Asian markets by developing its relationship with Japan before the TPP and RCEP are concluded. In fact, DG Trade published the new strategy for trade in November 2010 (one month after Japan’s announcement) and assessed that “Japan is eagerly seeking economic integration with its main trading partners, including with the EU”. The strategy identified six countries including the US and Japan as strategic economic partners, and at the May 2011 EU-Japan Summit, leaders agreed to start the process of free trade negotiations. Although the European Parliament is reluctant to start free trade negotiations with Japan and asked the Commission in June 2012 not to start the process, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade asked in October 2012 to start negotiations, and the Council gave the Commission the green light to start the negotiations in November 2012. In addition, the chain reaction may also spread to the negotiations between the EU and the US, known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which started in July this year. Petri et al (2013) explain that the expansion of the TPP is a remarkable example of competitive liberalisation that might have also stimulated the launch of the RCEP and the TTIP negotiations. The latest and greater expansion of the TPP is Japan’s participation in the negotiations.

Japan has a bargaining chip that can be used for every trade negotiation

In this way, Asian countries and the EU would think it better to have economic partnership agreements with Japan as long as Japan will continue participation in the TPP negotiations. In other words, the announcement of Japan’s intention to participate in the TPP negotiations has triggered progress on important trade negotiations and has given Japan a bargaining chip that can be used to its advantage in talks on trade negotiations (such as on harmonisation of the rules of trade, investment and business conventions, etc.), not only with Asian countries but also with the EU. The EU also holds a trump card by reserving ‘the right to pull the plug on the negotiations after one year if Japan does not live up to its commitments on removing non-tariff barriers’. Both Japan and the EU should ease the non-tariff barriers between them, but the EU would find it difficult to pull the plug in reality as long as Japan continues participation in the TPP negotiations. If the EU would do so, it would lose the opportunity to boost its GDP by 0.8 percent and create up to 400,000 jobs. In addition, the EU’s GDP would fall by 0.14 percent (Petri and Plummer, 2012) if it fails to maintain influence in Asian markets after the completion of the FTAAP.

Japan would lose its bargaining chip if it decides to withdraw from the TPP negotiations. Once the negotiating countries know that Japan no longer has a bargaining chip, the CJK-FTA negotiations would lose their centripetal force. Fifteen countries would no longer need Japan’s initiative, or would feel reluctant to ask Japan to take the initiative in concluding the RCEP. However, the EU would be in a better position to ask Japan for concessions in EPA negotiations, because the situation in which there is the RCEP but not the TPP would ‘increase’ the EU’s GDP by 0.02 percent (according to Petri and Plummer), and because it could be worth believing that Japan and the US will no longer enter into another economic partnership agreement instead of the TPP. Besides, the threat to ‘pull the plug’ would no longer be an empty threat. If the TTIP is concluded in such a situation, the standard rules of trade, investment, and business conventions would be initiated by Europe and the US without referring to the Japanese terms. This could make it more difficult for Japanese companies to operate in Europe and the US.

There is still strong opposition to the TPP in Japan. However, the TPP negotiations have room for the treatment of sensitive individual goods and services. Disproving a rumour that was widespread before Japan entered the talks, the TPP negotiations may not be a platform of choice on whether two parties like ‘to participate or to exit’. Continued participation in the TPP negotiations is a bargaining chip which can also be used for the TPP negotiation itself, because of the chain reaction with other negotiations. This bargaining chip would make it easier for Japan to realise the Japanese prime minister’s intention to “press forward assertively in areas where we should, while also protect what must be protected” in negotiations. In short, it is indispensable and advantageous for Japan to remain at the table for the TPP negotiations, and to compensate those who are affected by the agreement and to implement the necessary structural reforms of relevant sectors.

[1] Cumulative Rules of Origin (CRO) is a treatment typically seen in multilateral free-trade agreements. FTAs/EPAs in general prescribe the bottom line of the ratio of product of origin when using the preferential customs rate, and the CRO allows accumulating the proportion of the product of origin gained in more than two countries as long as the countries are bound by the same agreement.

Table 1: List of the major economic partnership agreement negotiations for Japan

(*) Japan entered the negotiation talks.

(note) Figures are as of 2012.

(source) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan (website), United Nations Comtrade Database, IMF World Economic Outlook Database October 2013.

Table 2: Chain reactions of the CJK-FTA and RCEP

The original version was released in Japanese by National Institute for Research Advancement on 24 October, 2013.

Akio Egawa is senior researcher at NIRA, Japan / former visiting fellow at Bruegel.

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Jan
22
14:00

A conversation with Jin Liqun, president of AIIB

We are pleased to host Jin Liqun, the president of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at Bruegel.

Speakers: Sven Biscop, Guntram B. Wolff and Jin Liqun Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Abenomics, five years in

Five years have passed since Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzō Abe was elected in 2012 and started “Abenomics”, a macroeconomic package based upon the “three arrows” of monetary easing, fiscal stimulus and structural reforms. After five years, has Abenomics worked? We review recent opinions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 8, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

China Fails to Woo U.S. With Financial Sector Opening

China's recent announcement of reforming its financial market has received little enthusiasm from the U.S. despite its potential benefits. The lack of a clear agenda regarding its economic rival has pushed the Trump administration to minor any significant progress of China's reform, and to maintain focus on strategic issues.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 5, 2018
Read article

Opinion

Chinese banks’ improved asset quality cannot hide other phantoms

The recent improvement in asset quality cannot mask other growing concerns in China’s banking sector. Beyond liquidity concerns, other structural issues such as low profitability and insufficient generation of organic capital, are emerging.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Gary Ng Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 20, 2017
Read article More by this author

Opinion

South Korea needs to watch the BOJ rather than the Fed

Due its actual economic structure, South Korea should be more worried about BOJ's extremely lax stance than about monetary policy normalization by the Fed.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 14, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Brexit, phase two (and beyond): The future of the EU-UK relationship

Whether it looks more like ‘CETA-plus’ or ‘EEA-minus’, the trade deal that emerges from phase two of the Brexit negotiations should not be the limit of ambition for future partnership between the EU and the UK

By: Maria Demertzis and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 13, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Promoting intra-regional trade in the south of the Mediterranean

Regional integration is still a sure way for economies in development to achieve economic growth on the global market. The south of the Mediterranean has still a low level of intra-regional trade integration, dominated by some overlapping trade agreements and political instability. The EU has the opportunity to play a decisive role, promoting and coordinating the process.

By: Filippo Biondi and Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 6, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How the EU has become an immigration area

Natural change of EU28 population (the balance of live births and deaths) has fallen from high positive values in the 1960s to essentially zero recently, while the previous close-to-zero net immigration has turned positive and, since the early 1990s, become a more important source of population growth than natural increase

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 6, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The European Union with the Community of Latin America and the Caribbean: where do we stand?

Latin American and Caribbean countries have deep historical, political, cultural, and economic ties with Europe, and cooperation between the two regions has been intensifying recently. Here we report some of the main trends in trade, foreign direct investment, and agreements between the European Union and The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the European Union’s official counterpart in the bi-regional strategic partnership that commenced in 1999.

By: Francesco Chiacchio Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: December 5, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Central Asia—twenty-five years after the breakup of the USSR

Central Asia consists of five culturally and ethnically diverse countries that have followed different paths to political and economic transformation in the past 25 years. The main policy challenge for the five Central Asian economies is to move away from commodity-based growth strategies to market-oriented diversification and adoption of a broad spectrum of economic, institutional and political reforms

By: Marek Dabrowski and Uuriintuya Batsaikhan Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 14, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

A conversation on USA economic policy with Kevin Hassett

This is an invitation-only event for Bruegel's member and for a selected number of experts.

Speakers: Kevin Hassett Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 9, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

European worries about isolationist trends

Populist shocks in the UK and US threaten the multilateral order on which the EU depends. What lies behind these earthquakes, and what does it mean for Europe? Withdrawing from the world is no solution to geo-political upheavals, but Europe needs to reassess the future of globalisation.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 7, 2017
Load more posts