Change Font: A A A A Contact Us What's New FAQs Subscribe ADB.org home
HomePublicationsCatalogPRC-Latin America Economic Cooperation: Going beyond Resource and Manufacturing ComplementarityEndnotes

Endnotes

1See United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2008). The PRC's share of developing world stock of FDI grew from 3.9% to 7.7% over the same period.

2See OECD (2007) for a discussion on the possible negative effects related to the natural resource specialization in Latin America.

3The share of intraregional trade was 31.8% in 2007 when the US was included.

4Anderson (1979) and Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) suggested that the gravity equation can be derived from a model of product differentiation and monopolistic competition. Deardorff (1998) derived a gravity model from a Heckscher-Ohlin framework, and Eaton and Kortum (2002) derived a gravity model from a Ricardian type trade model with homogeneous goods.

5See Appendix I [ PDF 12.4KB | 1 page ] for a list of the countries that are included in the dummies.

6In our preliminary analysis, we also estimated the model with two bilateral dummies for the PRC's exports to LAC, i.e., CHN_CAC and CHN_SA. Because the quantitative regression results of both specifications were quite similar, we decided to report only the results of a single dummy for the PRC's exports to LAC here.

7This is from the World Bank's Doing Business Index Database reported in Table 3. As suggested by Helpman, Melitz, and Rubinstein (2008), these costs affect the firm-level fixed costs of trade.

8Appendix III [ PDF 9.6KB | 1 page ] summarizes the model specification. See Zhai (2008) for a detailed description of the structure of the model.

9Another important trade bloc, the EU, is not considered in this scenario.

10The model assumes that there are no fixed costs for the trade of agricultural and mining products.

11Zhai (2006) analyzed factors behind the welfare losses of the PRC due to the formation of an East Asia-wide FTA. One reason is the terms of trade effect. Given its role as an importer of intermediate goods from Asian neighbors and an exporter of final goods to the US and EU, the PRC's bilateral trade liberalization with its regional trade partners raises the relative price of intermediate parts and components to the final goods, resulting in a deterioration in the PRC's terms of trade. Moreover, because the intra-industry trade in intermediate goods accounts for a large proportion of Asian intra-regional trade, the liberalization toward an East Asia-wide FTA would further raise the prices of intermediate goods, inducing a larger deterioration in the PRC's terms of trade and welfare. Another factor contributing to the PRC's welfare reduction under an East Asia-wide FTA is the changes of sectoral composition of production resulting from trade liberalization. Japan and the Republic of Korea are important markets for the PRC's agricultural exports, even though they are highly protected. Their trade liberalization with the PRC would result in expansion of the PRC's agricultural sector, diverting resources from the industrial sectors. As a consequence, the industrial sectors would contract. Since industrial sectors are assumed to be operated under increasing returns to scale technology, their contraction would have negative welfare implications because of the loss of agglomeration and variety effects.

Download this Paper [ PDF 128.5KB| 32 pages ].




[previous chapter]


Post a Comment

We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting.

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

    The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.

    Back to Top 
    © 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute.