Trade
Upgrading the ASEAN–China Free Trade Agreement
Authors: Jayant Menon and Anna Cassandra Melendez, ADB
In 2015, ASEAN and China signed an upgraded protocol to improve the original Framework Agreement for the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area (ACFTA). The upgraded protocol entered into force in July 2016 and implementation will start from August 2019.
Since ACFTA was launched, China’s share of ASEAN total merchandise trade increased from 8 per cent in 2004 to 21 per cent in 2018, making it ASEAN’s biggest trading partner with trade amounting to US$591.1 billion. China also rose to become ASEAN’s third largest source of FDI in 2017, with flows amounting to US$11.3 billion.
But how will the upgrading of the agreement likely affect these flows? The key changes relate to: simplifying Rules of Origin (ROOs) and Certificate of Origin procedures; improving services commitments from China covering the engineering, construction, sporting, securities and tourism sectors; strengthening provisions for investment promotion and facilitation; and building e-commerce capabilities — especially for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
The upgraded protocol does not do much to address non-tariff barriers despite evidence that they continue to grow and suppress trade. Even for tariffs, studies point to low utilisation rates for ACFTA tariff concessions. If low utilisation rates are mainly due to difficulties in complying with ROOs then the proposed simplification could see a significant increase in trade flows. But if it is mainly because margins of preference (or the difference between Most-Favoured-Nation and ACFTA preferential tariffs) are low, then the likely impacts are more complex.
Margins of preference are likely to be low — or even zero — for trade in parts and components and other intermediate goods because of various tariff exemption schemes. For instance, for trade in electronic parts and components that dominate supply chains in Southeast and East Asia, the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement provides duty exemption even for countries that are not signatories.
For trade in other types of parts and components, various duty-drawback schemes like bonded warehouses or the location of multinational corporations in duty-exempt export processing zones also make these tariff preferences redundant. Even if this was not the case, it is very difficult to design ROOs for supply chain-driven trade — by its nature it involves limited value-addition or transformation.
This means simplification of ROOs and other related reforms in the upgraded ACFTA are likely to affect trade in final rather than intermediate goods that constitute only about a third of ASEAN’s exports to China, but more than two-thirds in the opposite direction. This would aggravate the trade imbalance.
But improvements to the agreement on trade in services have the potential to significantly strengthen trade relations, since barriers have been high. This is also a rapidly growing area of trade. The trade dispute between China and the United States has already affected supply chains, with investment being diverted away from China and towards some countries of Southeast Asia. Strengthening provisions that promote or facilitate investment between China and ASEAN could increase flows from the former to the latter in an attempt to avoid punitive tariffs, even if the dispute is resolved anytime soon.
The restructuring may continue in an attempt by Chinese firms to diversify risk, recognising that the tensions may live on beyond this dispute and find new forms of expression. This restructuring and shift in regional supply chains could be the true legacy of this dispute, and it has already started to happen.
All of this assumes that the agreements are implemented faithfully. This is no easy task considering that domestic laws may have to be amended to accommodate these new accords. Ever since the ACFTA was first mooted, there has been concern over the potential negative impact on production and employment in sensitive sectors in ASEAN member states. Indonesian producers, for instance, requested a delay in the implementation of the original ACFTA tariff reduction scheme for some 228 items, without success.
Although some of these fears may have since subsided, they have not been eliminated. For example, there have been delays in the enactment of national laws and regulations to implement the upgraded protocol. Domestic industry lobbies continue to push for protection, and some wield significant influence over governments. In this environment, the flexibility that characterises ASEAN cooperation…
Trade
Self-Reliance and Openness: Core Principles of China’s Third Plenary Session
The Third Plenum communique from the CCP indicates a prioritization of stability and compromise in response to China’s economic challenges. It highlights the concept of Chinese-style modernization and establishes political guidelines for balancing regulation and market forces.
The CCP’s Third Plenum communique signals a focus on stability and compromise in the face of China’s economic challenges. It emphasises Chinese-style modernisation and sets political directions for balancing regulation and market forces. While not as groundbreaking as previous plenums, it acknowledges the importance of market mechanisms and technological self-reliance, aiming to address issues like high youth unemployment and private sector uncertainty. The communique seeks to navigate the complexities of global competition and domestic innovation, potentially reshaping global supply chains and trade dynamics. Overall, it presents a pragmatic blueprint for China’s economic future.
Source : Self-reliance and openness central pillars of China’s Third Plenum | East Asia Forum
Trade
Trade Prevails Over Political Persuasions in China-Germany Relations
China and Germany maintain a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in economic cooperation despite ideological differences. Recent visits and agreements focus on expanding trade and addressing mutual concerns, navigating challenges while nurturing ties.
Evolving Bilateral Ties
China and Germany share a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in history since 1972. This connection has seen moments of cooperation intertwined with periods of tension. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s April 2024 visit underscores Germany’s commitment to fostering this partnership, reflecting a mutual interest in maintaining economic ties despite ideological differences.
Economic Pragmatism
As the second and third largest global economies, China and Germany’s economic interdependence is crucial. Germany emerged as China’s primary trading partner in 2023, with trade values reaching €254.4 billion (US$280 billion). In response to global scrutiny, Germany has taken a balanced approach, emphasizing economic stability over political discord. This was evident during Scholz’s prior visit in November 2022, where his diplomatic tone contrasted with broader EU sentiments.
Facing Challenges Together
Despite increasing public skepticism in Germany regarding China’s global influence and human rights issues, both nations continue to seek common ground. Their October 2023 Joint Statement highlights intentions to pursue cooperation in areas like carbon neutrality and open markets. To navigate these complex terrains, Germany can utilize its institutional frameworks to enhance dialogue, while also considering supply chain diversification to reduce dependency on China. The intertwining nature of their economies suggests that, despite challenges, both countries will continue to prioritize their substantial trade relations.
Source : Trade trumps political persuasions in China–Germany relations
Trade
Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
Fragmentation in global trade due to the lack of development in multilateral trade rules at the WTO has led to an increase in FTAs. The Appellate Body impasse has further exacerbated fragmentation, requiring a multilateral approach for reform.
Fragmentation in Global Trade
Fragmentation in global trade is not new. With the slow development of multilateral trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), governments have turned to free trade agreements (FTAs). As of 2023, almost 600 bilateral and regional trade agreements have been notified to the WTO, leading to growing fragmentation in trade rules, business activities, and international relations. But until recently, trade dispute settlements have predominantly remained within the WTO.
Challenges with WTO Dispute Settlement
The demise of the Appellate Body increased fragmentation in both the interpretation and enforcement of trade law. A small number of WTO Members created the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a temporary solution, but in its current form, it cannot properly address fragmentation. Since its creation in 2020, the MPIA has only attracted 26 parties, and its rulings have not been consistent with previous decisions made by the Appellate Body, rendering WTO case law increasingly fragmented.
The Path Forward for Global Trade
Maintaining the integrity and predictability of the global trading system while reducing fragmentation requires restoring the WTO’s authority. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2022, governments agreed to re-establish a functional dispute settlement system by 2024. Reaching a consensus will be difficult, and negotiations will take time. A critical mass-based, open plurilateral approach provides a viable alternative way to reform the appellate mechanism, as WTO Members are committed to reforming the dispute settlement system.
Source : Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
- Italy and China New DTA Set to Take Effect in 2025: Important Changes and Implications
- China’s New Home Prices Stabilize After 17-Month Decline Following Support Measures
- U.S. national debt is its Achilles’ heel, but China sees it as an opportunity
- Business Update: Southern Sun Reports Earnings Growth; China Stimulates Property Market – News24
- Vietnam’s Approach to China: A Balance of Cooperation and Struggle
- 2025 Schedule of Public Holidays in China
