Blog Post

UK-China agreement on trade in services is no substitute for a UK-EU deal

The UK government has high hopes that new trade deals with non-EU states will offer an economic boost after Brexit. But how likely is this to materialise? The authors show that a FTA with China is unlikely to offer much to the UK's prominent services sector. Strong links with the EU will remain vital.

By: and Date: December 6, 2016 Global Economics & Governance Tags & Topics

The United Kingdom’s greatest comparative advantage in international trade is in services. Many policymakers expect that the UK will be able to broaden its trade in services with non-EU countries, particularly China, following Brexit. But the results could prove to be far below expectations.

Although services are an important part of the UK’s international trade, comprising about 40 percent of UK exports and 24 percent of UK imports, services are only a tiny part of the UK’s bilateral trade with China. Net services exports to China account for only 2.5 percent of the UK’s total services trade surplus, and 0.12 percent of UK GDP. Against such backdrop, a bilateral free trade agreement would disappoint those who expect it to alter fundamentals of the UK-China bilateral services trade.

UK exporters would find it hard to penetrate the Chinese market for services

China’s services market, though large and promising to any potential entrants, is very difficult for foreigners to penetrate. Except for Australia and New Zealand, and two Asian countries – Japan and Korea – all other countries do less than 5 percent of their services trade in China. For Australia and New Zealand, nearly 90 percent of their service trade surplus with China comes from tourism. Tourism also makes up a large part of Japan’s and Korea’s services trade surpluses with China (32.5 percent and 41.9 percent respectively), but they also sell transportation services to China, which is directly linked to trade in goods (27.8 percent and 35.3 percent respectively). In Europe, Denmark and Germany have the closest services trade relationships with China, but the size of this trade is in general very limited: only about 3 percent of Danish and German services exports are sold to China.

At sector level, the international services trade with China is dominated by travel/tourism and transport services related to the manufacturing trade. The reasons for this are straightforward: China’s government has always steered the economy through the implementation of industrial policy to promote the industries with comparative advantage and protect ‘infant industries’.

Fearing that industries without a comparative advantage could be overwhelmed by giant multinational corporations, the Chinese government imposes a series of restrictions on imported services. According to the European Chamber of Commerce in China, Chinese market access restrictions are one of the toughest issues that EU businesses face in this country, especially in the major services sectors: finance, education, culture, healthcare[1].

Consequently, the main possibility for the UK to increase its services trade with China is travel and tourism. However, this depends less on a free trade agreement and rather more on the relaxation of visa restrictions. The dramatic increase in Chinese tourists visiting Japan and Korea can be attributed to both countries’ ease of visa application procedure for Chinese visitors in recent years[2]. But the UK, like other EU countries, has imposed very restrictive and expensive visa application requirements and procedures for Chinese visitors, partly for reciprocal reasons.

The Swiss example

An example for the UK comes from Switzerland. Switzerland reached a free trade agreement with China in 2013, with the agreement coming into force one year later. Since both Switzerland and the UK have very high value added shares in the services sector (73 percent and 78.4 percent respectively in 2014), Switzerland might be viewed as a model for the UK in negotiating with China.

However, a granular analysis indicates that Switzerland signed the agreement with China more from the trade in goods perspective than the services perspective. Trade in goods still dominates Swiss-Chinese bilateral relations, goods exports accounting for more than 75 percent of Switzerland’s total export value to China. China (including Hong Kong) has become Switzerland’s second largest trading partner, with Switzerland accumulating a tremendous trade surplus with China since 2013. The UK is not similar to Switzerland in these respects. The UK has run a trade deficit with China for long time, and striking a free trade agreement could even worsen the current goods trade deficit.

In terms of services, although the Swiss-Chinese free trade agreement included a chapter dealing with services trade, a comparison between China’s commitments under the FTA and those under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) suggests no significant difference between the two treaties. There is virtually no improvement for the construction, distribution, IT, business consulting or advertising sectors, which are of particular interest to Swiss investors.

As for financial services, the FTA and GATS have very similar schedules. For example, non-life insurers are permitted to operate in China but with no more than 50 percent ownership, and banks can only provide financial services for foreign currency business[3]. Switzerland has seemingly not successfully broken into the potential services market in China. Even though the UK is much larger in economic size than Switzerland, it is not likely that the UK would fare much differently, especially after the UK leaves the EU and its bargaining power becomes weaker.

Conclusions and suggestions

All in all, it is not realistic for the UK to expect any major increase in its trade in services with China following Brexit, at least not necessarily as a result of signing an FTA. China is still very protectionist, especially when it comes to services, and an FTA will not change the picture. Until now, no country has managed to become an integral part of China’s services market, and the UK is very unlikely to change that, especially when it has lost its bargaining power as a member of the EU.

Furthermore, the services that countries trade most with China are travel/tourism and transportation. The former is held back by visa restrictions, which the UK could loosen even without leaving the EU. The latter is related to trade in goods. The UK’s trade in goods with China will not easily be improved after Brexit[4], so sales of transportation services should not see a significant increase. An FTA with China therefore is likely to be of little help to the UK, even were services to be included. On this basis, the UK might want to refocus on its negotiating strategy with the EU instead of starting a new venture with China before a deal with the EU is struck.

[1] European Chamber of Commerce in China, ‘European Business in China Position: 2016/2017’, available at http://www.europeanchamber.com.cn/en/publications-position-paper.

[2] Adam Minter, “Why Chinese Tourists Love Japan”, Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-25/why-chinese-tourists-love-japan.

[3] Wenfei Law, A practical guide to the new free-trade agreement between Switzerland and China, available at http://www.wenfei.com/fileadmin/pdfs/China_Publications/Wenfei_FTA_Publication_December_2013.pdf.

[4] Alicia and Xu, “What consequences would a post-Brexit China-UK trade deal have for the EU?”,  http://bruegel.org/2016/10/what-consequences-would-a-post-brexit-china-uk-trade-deal-have-for-the-eu/.


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 on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Marek Dabrowski

What are China’s global economic intentions?

At this January's Davos meeting, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced to a surprised audience that China would be the world’s new champion of globalisation. Bruegel scholar Marek Dabrowski agrees that a functioning global trade system is in China's interest.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 25, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

André Sapir

Trump’s U-turn on trade with China is good news, but the EU should not be complacent

President Trump has so far been softer on China than his campaign promises predicted. This is welcome. However, the EU has a lot at stake, and should be ready to steer a tactical course between its two main trade partners.

By: André Sapir Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 19, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Lagarde picture

Building a more resilient and inclusive global economy

Curtain raiser speech ahead of the 2017 IMF Spring Meetings delivered at Bruegel by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

By: Christine Lagarde Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 12, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

PC 10 2017 cover

Europe’s role in North Africa: development, investment and migration

The authors of this Policy Contribution propose five ways in which EU policymakers can contribute to development in North Africa and build partnerships on trade, investment and migration.

By: Uri Dadush, Maria Demertzis and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 8, 2017
Read article More on this topic

External Publication

g20 insights cover

Key policy options for the G20 in 2017 to support an open and inclusive trade and investment system

In the face of exceptional challenges, the G20 should step up its efforts in 2017 to preserve the current global trade and investment system, including effective multilateral dispute settlement procedures, while not losing sight of medium-term reforms. The G20 should focus on (1) supporting the World Trade Organization, (2) being upfront about the mixed effects of trade and investment, (3) improving G20 measures to tackle protectionism and (4) promoting investment facilitation.

By: Sait Akman, Axel Berger, Uri Dadush, Simon Evenett, Lise Johnson, Maximiliano Mendez-Parra, Raul Ochoa and Claudia Schmucker Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 3, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Is China’s innovation strategy a threat?

What’s at stake: A number of recent contributions accuse China of acquiring technology from abroad without respecting international rules. This blog reviews the current debate that focuses on China’s supposed push to modernise its industry and the challenges for advanced economies. By leapfrogging to high-tech manufacturing products, the strategy threatens the competitive advantage of the US and the EU. The international rules-based order is put to a test facing large-scale government support to high-value added sectors and anti-competitive behaviour.

By: Robert Kalcik Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 3, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas
DSC_0798
dsc_1000

The UK’s Brexit bill: what are the possible liabilities?

The EU-UK financial settlement will be a complex part of the Brexit negotiations. Here the authors estimate that at end-2018 the EU will have outstanding commitments and liabilities totalling €724bn. Most of these relate to spending after the UK’s likely departure date, but are tied to commitments made during the UK’s EU membership.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Konstantinos Efstathiou and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 30, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas
DSC_0798
dsc_1000

Brexit bill negotiators must answer these 12 questions

Is Brexit a divorce, or is the UK leaving a club? This is the first question to answer as negotatiors discuss the key aspects of the EU-UK financial settlement. The authors present various scenarios, and find that the UK could be expected to pay between €25.4 billion and €65.1 billion. But the final cost can only be calculated after extensive political negotiations.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Konstantinos Efstathiou and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 30, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

WP_2017_03 cover

Divorce settlement or leaving the club? A breakdown of the Brexit bill

To bring transparency to the debate on the Brexit bill and to foster a quick agreement, the authors of this Working Paper make a comprehensive attempt to quantify the various assets and liabilities that might factor in the financial settlement.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Konstantinos Efstathiou and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 30, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Giuseppe Porcaro

29 charts that explain Brexit

From financial services to the creative industry, from trade to migration, this selection of charts maps out the troubled waters of Brexit, and provides a compass through blogs and publications Bruegel scholars have written on the topic.

By: Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 28, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Europe should lead the way with multilateralism

Despite the unique partnership with the USA, Europe needs to reflect on its place in an unstable world. Especially if the US Administration moves towards protectionism, the EU will need to build and deepen relationships with other partners.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 16, 2017
Read article More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

House of Lords

Brexit: EU budget

On 25 January 2017 Zsolt Darvas appeared as a witness at the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, Financial Affairs Sub-Committee.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, House of Lords, Testimonies Date: March 7, 2017
Load more posts