研究ノートー自由化の政治経済学

Lagged Trade Liberalization: the case of FTA Negotiations with ASEAN

*nearwy#gmal.com

It explores the differences between Japan and China, on the case of FTA (Free Trade Agreement) negotiations with ASEAN. It tells why a multilateral trade liberalization proposal failed, but left lagged, bilateral trade liberalizations, AC-FTA (ASEAN-China-FTA) and AJ-CEP (ASEAN-Japan-Common Effective Preferential Tariff).

Tokyo and Beijing have been standing differently in the rationale, decision-making process and strategy in the regional economic cooperation and trade liberalization.

      I.         The rationale of promoting FTA negotiations varies between China and Japan.

Compared to Japan, mainly driven by market demands, China is more complicated. China actively promotes the regional economic integration in Asia, not only primarily by economic concerns, but also aims to improve relationships with its neighbors for depriving the mistrust from “China threats”. More importantly, it is Beijing’s counterbalance to the growing American economic influence in Asia, and a strategic response to Obama administration’s “returning to Asia” agenda[1].

    II.         The decision making processes plays an important role in multilateral negotiations.

Tokyo started FTA negotiation with ASEAN in the early 2000s, took steady and moderate steps, sector by sector. Despite a latecomer, Beijing is an active, fast and efficient negotiator. After fully opening its banking sector to foreign investors in 2007, Beijing took a comprehensive, coherent response to different countries’ needs. Furthermore, at the very moment of Beijing’s round talks with ASEAN between 2008 and 2010, Tokyo was busily engaged in political regime transitions, of which the opposition party DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) took the power. Unfortunately, the DPJ did not manage the government as it was expected. This policy diffusion to some extent caused the lagged liberalization between Japan’s negotiations with ASEAN[2].

  III.         Industrial structures, mainly determine foreign trade strategies.

As an export oriented, agriculture protected, and manufactures predominated market, but a raw materials scarce country, Japan stands distinct from China, thus owned marginal spaces during negotiation processes. Moreover, on the Sensitive List (SL) and High Sensitive List (HSL), Beijing also has fewer concerns compared to Tokyo[3]. On the other side, “made in China” products, cheap labor costs and SOEs dominated markets, contain more comparative advantages when facing ASEAN markets.

In conclusion, the difference between China and Japan on the trade bargaining context, domestic actors, and industrial structures in all, shaped the regional economic cooperation, thus left lagged trade liberations in Asia.

[1]Guoyou Song & Wen Jin Yuan.2012. China’s Free Trade Agreement Strategies. The Washington Quarterly. Issue 35, No.4, pp107-119.

[2]Simmon, Beth & Zachary Elkins. 2004. The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy. American Political Science Review. Issue 98, No.1, pp.171-189.

[3]福地亜希[ ASEAN と中國のFTA(ACFTA)と経済関係の深化].Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, BTMU ASEAN TOPICS. No.2010/7. pp.1-6.http://www.bk.mufg.jp/report/ecosta2010/ASEANTOPICS-20101216.pdf

Advertisements

Tagged: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: