拉丁美洲经济委员会-拉丁美洲和亚太区域之间可能达成的贸易协定的经济和社会影响（英）-2021-52页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of "Economic and Social Effects of a Possible Trade Agreement between Latin America and the Asia-Pacific Region"

Core Content

This document explores the potential economic and social impacts of a hypothetical free trade agreement (FTA) between Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the Asia-Pacific region. It also evaluates the effects of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which was concluded in 2020 among Asian-Pacific countries, on trade dynamics between the two regions. The analysis is conducted using a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model that incorporates 41 economies and 39 sectors, with a focus on the LAC and Asia-Pacific member countries of the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC).

Main Views

RCEP Impact: The RCEP agreement is expected to significantly boost intra-Asian trade, reducing tariffs and increasing trade openness. However, it may lead to a contraction in LAC trade volumes, particularly in natural resource and low to medium technology manufacturing exports.
Bi-regional Agreement Potential: A hypothetical bi-regional FTA between LAC and Asia-Pacific is projected to have a positive impact on GDP, trade, and welfare for both regions. The estimated GDP increases range from 0.35% to 0.6% for LAC and 0.46% to 1% for Asia-Pacific.
Employment Effects: The agreement is expected to lead to an increase in employment for unskilled workers in LAC by 1.7% and in RCEP countries by 3.0%. Total employment is projected to rise by 0.9% and 1.8%, respectively.
MSMEs Advantage: Small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in LAC are expected to benefit more from the agreement than large firms, especially in agro-industrial sectors, due to the potential for increased exports.
Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs): Reducing NTMs is crucial for enhancing productivity, output, trade, and employment, highlighting the importance of trade facilitation as a complementary policy tool.

Key Information

Regional Integration Context

Intra-Regional Trade: LAC has a lower level of intra-regional trade compared to the Asia-Pacific region, where RCEP has significantly increased trade flows. Intra-regional trade in LAC was 15% in 2018, while in RCEP it was 40%. The EU has the highest level of intra-regional trade at 58%.
Trade Partnerships: LAC countries are more integrated with the US and Central America, while South American countries have stronger trade ties with China and other Asian countries.
Fragmented Integration: LAC's regional integration is fragmented with multiple integration groups coexisting, such as MERCOSUR, the Andean Community, and the Pacific Alliance, each with different levels of trade agreements.

Asia-Pacific Integration Context

RCEP Overview: RCEP includes 15 countries, covering 32% of the world's population, 27% of global GDP, and over one-third of global exports. It is a comprehensive agreement covering trade in goods, services, investment, intellectual property, e-commerce, and MSMEs.
Tariff Reductions: RCEP aims to reduce or eliminate tariffs by approximately 92% over 20 years, with an average of less than 1% by 2019. This is a major step towards deeper regional integration and production networks.
Trade Preferences: Before RCEP, only 22% of intra-regional trade in the Asia-Pacific used trade preferences. The agreement is expected to increase this share, particularly if the administrative costs of certification are lower than the tariffs.
Ratification Status: RCEP requires ratification from at least nine countries (six from ASEAN and three non-ASEAN). As of the document's date, several countries, including Singapore, Thailand, China, and Japan, have already ratified the agreement.

Bi-regional Trade Agreement Simulation

Modeling Approach: The bi-regional FTA is modeled as a reduction in the effective levels of protection between the two regions, based on data from December 2018.
Sectoral and Country-Level Effects: The simulation reveals differential impacts across sectors and countries. For instance, MSMEs in LAC are expected to see greater benefits than large firms, and certain countries like Peru, Chile, and Brazil are projected to have higher export volumes to Asia-Pacific.
Trade Flows: The model suggests that a bi-regional FTA would increase trade flows and economic welfare, with LAC and Asia-Pacific countries expected to experience a rise in GDP and employment.

Conclusion

The study highlights the potential benefits of a bi-regional FTA between LAC and Asia-Pacific, particularly for MSMEs and for enhancing trade and economic integration. It also underscores the importance of reducing non-tariff measures and improving trade facilitation to maximize the positive impacts of such agreements. However, the analysis also notes the challenges and limitations, including the current fragmented state of LAC regional integration and the need for further political and institutional coordination to realize the full potential of the agreement.

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Status of interrelations between LAC countries, as of October 2021, showing the different trade agreements and their status.
Table 2: Population, GDP, and trade data for RCEP, CPTPP, TMEC, EU, MERCOSUR, and AP in 2019 and 2020.
Table 3: Status of intra-regional trade relations among RCEP member countries, as of October 2021.
Table 4: Applied tariffs in LAC bilateral trade, 2018, by economic sectors.
Table 5: Composition of 10 simulations used in the analysis.
Table 6: Data availability and domestic sales ranges for the typification of exporting companies in LAC.
Table 7: Effects of a bi-regional agreement on welfare and employment in LAC.
Table 8: Effects of a bi-regional agreement on GDP and welfare in LAC.
Table 9: Effects of a bi-regional agreement on GDP and welfare in Asia-Pacific.
Table 10: Average change in foreign trade under various simulations.
Table 11: Export volumes by sector, type of agent, and destination in LAC.
Table A1: Concordance between 65 GTAP sectors and ECLAC-FEALAC model.
Table A2: Average change in exports by country under various simulations.
Table A3: Average change in imports by country under various simulations.
Figure 1: Distribution of exports by main trading partners in 2018.
Figure 2: Evolution of intra-regional exports in LAC from 1960 to 2020.
Figure 3: Participation of large and MSMEs in exports to LAC and Asia-Pacific, different years.
Figure 4: Average MFN and applied tariffs in LAC intra-regional trade from 1990 to 2018.
Figure 5: Evolution of MFN tariffs in Asia-Pacific, China, and ASEAN from 1990 to 2019.
Figure 6: Topics covered by the RCEP agreement and their share of total pages.
Figure 7: Evolution of products traded under preferences and tariffs after RCEP came into force.
Figure 8: Intra-regional export ratio for selected regions and subregions in 2018.
Figure 9: Evolution of trade with main partners and regions in LAC from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 10: Export composition by type of economic agent in LAC from 2015 to 2019.
Figure 11: Bilateral applied tariffs between LAC and Asia-Pacific in 2018.
Figure 12: Effects of a bi-regional agreement on GDP at the sector level in LAC and Asia-Pacific.
Figure 13: Effects of a bi-regional agreement on employment in LAC and Asia-Pacific.
Figure 14: Differential effects on exports by type of economic agent in LAC following a bi-regional FTA.
Figure 15: Differential effects on intra-regional exports by type of economic agent in LAC following a bi-regional FTA.