Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol, Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Mastrobuoni, Giovanni / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / de Vries, Frans / Zulehner, Christine

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.306
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.492

CiteScore 2017: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.414
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.531

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 16, Issue 1


Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

A Trade and Welfare Analysis of Tariff Changes Within the TPP

Juyoung Cheong
  • School of Economics, University of Queensland, Level 6 – Colin Clark Building (39), St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Shino Takayama
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Economics, University of Queensland, Level 6 – Colin Clark Building (39), St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2014-0119


This paper examines the effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) tariff reductions on trade flows and welfare of the TPP members and nonmembers following the Caliendo and Parro (2015) method. We use comprehensive sectoral data on 39 countries and the rest of the world, including those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Our results show that many TPP nonmembers along with the TPP members gain from the TPP tariff reductions, suggesting the existence of a positive externality, with the welfare gains mainly arising from the changes in the terms of trade. Our analysis also shows that the TPP members increase their imports from other TPP members and decrease from non-TPP members, but the trade creation effects exceed the trade diversion effects. Our calibration results under various assumptions of the model emphasize the role of multiple sectors and sectoral linkages in the welfare analysis of the TPP tariff reductions.

Keywords: preferential trade agreements; Trans-Pacific Partnership; welfare

JEL: F10; F13; F14; F15


  • Armington, P. 1969. “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Products Distinguished by Place of Production.” IMF Staff Papers 16:159–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baier, S. L., J. H. Bergstrand, and R. Mariutto. 2014. “Economic Determinants of Free Trade Agreements Revisited: Distinguishing Sources of Interdependence.” Review of International Economics 22 (1):31–58.Google Scholar

  • Brown, D. K., A. E. Deardorff, and R. M. Stern. 1992. “North American Integration.” Economic Journal 102:1507–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cabinet-Secretariat. 2013. Touitsu Sisan Siryou, March.

  • Caliendo, L., and F. Parro. 2015. “Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA.” Review of Economic Studies 82 (1):1–44.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cheong, J., D. W. Kwak, and K. K. Tang. 2015. “Can Trade Agreements Curtail Trade Creation and Prevent Trade Diversion?” Review of International Economics 23 (2):221–38.Google Scholar

  • Clausing, K. 2001. “Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Canada United States Free Trade Agreement.” Canadian Journal of Economics 34:677–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, W. H., and M. E. Manyin. 2013. “Japan Joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership: What Are the Implications?” Congressional Research Service, 7–5700 (R42676).

  • Eaton, J., and S. Kortum. 2002. “Technology, Geography and Trade.” Econometrica 70:1741–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • European Commission. 2014. “Facts and Figures on EU-China Trade.” Accessed March 30, 2015. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144591.pdf.

  • International Monetary Fund. 2014. “World Economic Outlook – Legacies, Clouds, Uncertainties.” Accessed March 27, 2015. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/.

  • Kehoe, T. J. 2002. “An Evaluation of the Performance of Applied General Equilibrium Models of the Effects of NAFTA on CGE Analysis of NAFTA.” Accessed May 22, 2015. http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/1100.pdf.

  • Kehoe, P., and T. J. Kehoe. 1994. “Capturing NAFTA’s Impact with Applied General Equilibrium Models.” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 18:17–34.Google Scholar

  • Krugman, P. 2015. “TPP at the NABE.” Accessed March 25, 2015. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/?_r=0.

  • Perroni, C., and J. Whalley. 2000. “The New Regionalism: Trade Liberalization or Insurance?” Canadian Journal of Economics 33 (1):1–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Petri, A. P., M. G. Plummer, and F. Zhai. 2011. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A Quantitative Assessment.” East-West Center working papers, 119.

  • Viner, J. 1950. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar

  • Wylie, P. 1995. “Partial Equilibrium Estimates of Manufacturing Trade Creation and Diversion Due To NAFTA.” North American Journal of Economics and Finance 6:65–84.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-10-29

Published in Print: 2016-01-01

Funding: Takayama also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Australian Research Council (DP1093105).

Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 477–511, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, ISSN (Print) 2194-6108, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2014-0119.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in