Blog Post

What does China’s ‘belt and road initiative’ mean for EU trade?

Much has been written about the Belt and Road initiative since Xi Jinping made it Beijing’s flagship initiative in September 2013. There are many interpretations of the initiative’s ultimate objectives, but one objective is clear. The belt and road scheme will bring huge improvements in regional and international connectivity through infrastructure upgrades and trade facilitation across a massive geographic area.

By: and Date: September 20, 2016 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

Indeed, the regional potentially affected covers as many as 63 countries (even if vaguely defined), sixty percent of the world’s population and thirty percent of global GDP.

This massive project is centered in two main routes, along which connectivity is to be fostered: land and sea. On land the focus is on transportation infrastructure and energy. For the sea, investment in ports and new trade routes are the main pillars. Both routes will have a major impact on Europe. In fact, the land route ends up in Europe, while the sea route is currently the most heavily used for trade between Europe and China. Undoubtedly, the belt and road initiative will affect Europe and the European Union (EU).

More specifically, the huge investments in infrastructure have the potential to ease bottlenecks in cross-border transportation. Among the many benefits of improved connectivity, trade stands out. The idea that improved transport infrastructure should generally foster trade is of course very intuitive. However, it is less sure that such benefits can be spread across countries and, more specifically, which countries stand to win/lose the most depending on their proximity to/distance from the improved infrastructure, among other considerations.  In a working paper recently published by Bruegel, we addressed exactly this question by assessing empirically how the belt and road initiative, through a substantial reduction in transportation costs, may foster trade. Beyond the relevance of trade for Europe, our results show that a reduction in transportation cost can indeed increase international trade. A 10 percent reduction in railway, air and maritime costs would increases trade by 2 percent, 5.5 percent and 1.1 percent respectively (see on this scenario and others below).

While the current belt and road initiative is centered on building infrastructure, there are other ways in which it may evolve. One obvious objective, as far as trade is concerned, is dismantling trade barriers. In fact, Chinese authorities have started considering free trade agreements (FTA) with the belt and road countries[1]. Because most of the EU countries are not directly included in the initiative, and it is only possible for China to jointly strike an FTA with all EU countries, the chance for the EU to benefit from an FTA is slim. The previously mentioned Bruegel working paper also develops this scenario by focusing on the impact on EU trade of China-centered free trade bloc among belt and road countries. As one could imagine, a scenario where the belt and road initiative focuses on trade barriers is much less appealing than the previous one in which only transport infrastructure is built. In fact, the EU would no longer benefit from a free lunch (we are assuming that China and the belt and road countries will finance the infrastructure and not the EU – indeed, this is the case so far) and would be excluded from a very large free trade area just outside its borders.

Finally, the paper develops a third scenario in which both transport infrastructure is improved and a FTA is agreed among belt and road countries. This scenario is relatively neutral for the EU as a whole, although there are clear winners and losers within EU.

Our analysis has special policy implications for the EU. China has been advocating for the EU’s involvement in the project since 2013. We believe it is in the EU’s interest to actively take part in the initiative and push for more emphasis on cooperation in transportation and infrastructure. This makes sense, as it stands at the other end of the road from China and there are clear gains to be made. In a nutshell, if we focus on trade, the belt and road is very good news for Europe under the current set up, namely one in which the EU benefits from the infrastructure without a financial cost attached to it, because it is so far being financed by China and other belt and road countries.

It is, thus, quite striking that the discussion on the impact of the belt and road on Europe is still very embryonic. It goes without saying that more research is needed on the topic, as trade is only one of the many channels through which the belt and road initiative may affect Europe. Financial channels, such as FDI and portfolio flows are also very relevant and should also be analysed.

Some more details on our three scenarios

Scenario I: Simulating the impact on EU trade of a reduction in transportation costs with the belt and road

 From a regional perspective, the EU is the largest winner from the belt and road initiative, with trade rising by more than 6%. Trade in the Asian region is also positively affected by the reduction in transportation costs, with trade increasing 3%, but this is only half as much as for the EU. In fact, Asian countries are found to be neither the top winners nor losers. This is probably explained by the fact that the estimated reduction in maritime transportation costs is quite moderate. Conversely, the cost of railway transportation is halved, which is behind the large gains for rail transit to Europe — in particular for landlocked countries. The rest of the world suffers from the deviation of trade towards the belt and road area but only with a very slight reduction in trade (0.04%). As a whole, our results point to the belt and road being a win-win in terms of trade creation, as the gains in the EU and Asia clearly outweigh the loss in the rest of the world.

Scenario II: Simulating the impact on EU trade of an FTA within the belt and road area

If China established a FTA zone in the belt and road area, the EU, which would be the biggest winner from the reduction in transportation costs, now suffers slightly. This result is intuitive, because we assume that EU members are left out of this trade deal and that no bilateral trade agreement with China is signed either. The rationale for such negative impact is that EU trade with China and other belt and road countries would be substituted by enhanced integration among them. This is true even for countries within the EU which are formally included in the belt and road initiative, such as Hungary and Poland, because they will not be able to enter any belt and road FTA without the rest of the EU joining. The Asian region thus becomes the biggest winner, followed by non-EU European countries since they can also benefit from the elimination of trade tariffs. If we consider countries one by one, the top winners are all from Middle Eastern and Central and East Asian countries, who would see their trade increasing by more than 15%. This compares favorably with the trade gains of 3% stemming from a reduction in transportation costs previously estimated for this group of economies.

Scenario III: Simulating trade gains for both transportation improvement and FTA

Lastly, we consider a combined policy package including both transportation improvement and establishment of an FTA within the belt and road region. Most Asian countries now become the biggest winners since they benefit from both the reduction in transportation costs and the elimination of trade tariffs. Some EU countries also benefit quite significantly but less than Asian ones. This is specially the case for some landlocked countries, such as Slovenia and Hungary. Also Germany benefits slightly more than France or Spain. This is actually very intuitive because these EU countries benefit from the transportation cost reduction but not from the FTA as they are not part of it. Also, as is in the previous two scenarios, there are always some slight losses for countries far from the belt and road project. The biggest loser is Japan, while the impact on the USA and Canada is close to zero.

[1] Ministry of Commerce of China, http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/article/fzdongtai/201601/30116_1.html.


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 article More by this author

Opinion

The world deserves a more effective G20

As the presidency shifts from Argentina to Japan at Buenos Aires (and then to Saudi Arabia) it is worth asking why the G20 has endured this long and what it needs to remain relevant in a dramatically changed world.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 29, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: Shared prosperity for the EU and north Africa

Bruegel's director Guntram Wolff looks at north Africa's economic growth in the light of the region's trade agreements with the EU, welcoming Karim El Aynaoui and Uri Dadush to the Backstage series on 'The Sound of Economics'.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 27, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Assessing the European Union’s North Africa trade agreements

In this Policy Contribution, the authors provide an economic assessment of the trade agreements between the EU and North Africa. They argue that the common view of the agreements is overly negative, and point to policy conclusions that could increase regional integration.

By: Uri Dadush and Yana Myachenkova Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Is this time different? Reflections on recent emerging-market turbulence

Since the beginning of 2018, currencies of two large emerging-market economies – Argentina and Turkey – suffered from substantial depreciation. Other currencies also recorded losses. Which factors are determining macroeconomic and financial stability in emerging-market economies? And what can be done to prevent a crisis and avoid its economic, social and political costs?

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 14, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

US mid-term elections and the global economy

Democrats won control of the House and Republicans held onto the Senate in the most consequential US mid-term elections in decades. Bowen Call reviews economists’ and scholars’ analyses of the impact this might have on the world economy.

By: Bowen Call Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The global economy’s three games

In this column, Jean Pisani-Ferry portrays the current international economic and geopolitical order as increasingly reminiscent of chess. Three key players: the US, China and a loose coalition of the other G7 members play three games simultaneously, and no one knows which game will take precedence.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 29, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The United States-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA)

While final ratification of the USMCA (also known as Nafta 2.0) is pending, we review economists’ assessment of the agreement.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 22, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

How could Europe benefit from the US-China trade war?

Under pressure from the US, Beijing is set to be more open to making new allies.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 18, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: The new balance of Asia-EU-US trade relations

Amid the Asia-Europe Economic Forum on the fringes of the 12th ASEM Summit, Bruegel senior fellow hosts a conversation on developing global trade relations, with guests Moonsung Kang, professor as Korea University, and Michael G. Plummer, director at SAIS Europe – Johns Hopkins University, for an episode of the Bruegel Backstage series on ‘The Sound of Economics’.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 17, 2018
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Policy responses for an EU-MENA shared future

In the third edition of the "Platform for Advanced & Emerging Economies Policy Dialogue" we will discuss trade flows and trade policy between Europe and MENA, integration of developing economies into global value chains, and regional energy relations.

Speakers: Karim El Aynaoui, Marek Dabrowski, Uri Dadush, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, Ettore Greco, Giuseppe Grimaldi, Badr Ikken, Joanna Konings, Said Moufti, Pier Carlo Padoan, Lia Quartapelle, Visar Sala, Nicolò Russo Perez, Nicolò Sartori, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Location: LUISS Business School Viale Pola, 12, 00198 Roma RM, Italy Date: October 11, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Global markets’ tepid reaction to China’s new opening

China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001 was greeted with great fanfare. But near silence has greeted the recent removal by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission of caps on foreign ownership of Chinese financial institutions. For Beijing, the apparent lack of interest might be an issue of too little, too late.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

The EU response to US trade tariffs

The authors contributed to the new issue of 'Intereconomics - Review of European Economic Policy' with a paper on the EU's strategy for managing the trade war. The authors argue that to minimise the economic costs of the trade war and protect multilateralism, the EU's best and only response is to retaliate.

By: Maria Demertzis and Gustav Fredriksson Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2018
Load more posts