services trade

RCEP: A First Look at the Texts

RCEP: A First Look at the Texts

The 15 countries in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) held an elegant virtual signing ceremony on November 15, 2020. The Asian Trade Centre will be delving more deeply into the specific details and producing a series of materials to help companies get ready to use the agreement. For now, here are our first quick technical assessments of the agreement. Note that this early look should not be taken as the definitive guide, as an agreement with 20 chapters and thousands of pages of associated schedules will take some time to unravel. To get a sense of the task ahead, the Korean tariff schedules alone run to 2743 pages. Compounding the difficulties of making a quick assessment: governments can be quite creative in burying important details inside of different provisions. Flexibilities and exceptions are going to be tough to note, understand and unravel. RCEP will, of course, have important implications for trade in the region, for economic integration and for the future of trade policy. This post, however, will focus on the details of the agreement itself. The basic structure includes 20 chapters, making RCEP a comprehensive trade agreement that includes commitments in areas like goods, services, investment, intellectual property rights, competition, trade remedies, standards, e-commerce and dispute settlement. Many of these chapters were not included in the underlying ASEAN+1 agreements that formed the original core of RCEP. Getting these negotiated took significant time, which is partly why RCEP has taken 8 years to reach conclusion. Overall, RCEP represents a significant achievement. The 15 countries involved (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam) are very diverse in nearly every imaginable dimension. Getting an agreement that could successfully navigate the domestic constraints and starting points in all 15 countries is an important accomplishment. RCEP also represents the first time that many members have engaged in this sort of trade arrangements: especially between China, Japan and South Korea. As expected, this created additional friction as officials grappled with managing outcomes.

What Makes a “Good” Trade Agreement?

What Makes a “Good” Trade Agreement?

That said, agreements signed for non-trade reasons tend to exclude key sectors or items of interest, even in market access in goods chapters. They might provide 100 percent coverage of snow equipment—snow boots, skis, jackets, snowplows and snowmobiles—but carve out, or exclude, tropical fruits. If the agreement involves two equatorial members, a boast of “full coverage” for snow suits is unlikely to be met by enthusiastic manufacturers or traders, particularly if fruits that are actually exchanged are getting nothing new. Officials will often talk of the extent of coverage by bragging about the inclusion of tariff lines, ie, “this agreement includes 65% of tariffs from the first day of the agreement, rising to 90% coverage when fully implemented.” Given the high concentration of trade in a handful of tariff lines, firms might be extremely disappointed to discover that even 90% coverage may not provide any new tariff benefits for key products of interest. Better trade deals include more things.

Shifting Supply Chains in Disruption

Shifting Supply Chains in Disruption

The extreme level of disruption appears to have caused firms to finally think seriously about their existing supply chain footprints. Companies in multiple sectors have now vowed to develop more resilient chains. In many cases, firms have supply chains that have evolved organically, with little coherent planning. Staff, to pick one example, often run disparate parts of global firms from locations that may not make sense if viewed from the perspective of today. Companies might have an office in one location that was originally set up because a key staff member liked the area, only to watch it evolve into a much larger operation than ever anticipated at the outset. Companies typically do not design supply chains from scratch, but bolt on different parts over time, as the firm grows or acquires new companies or moves into new sectors. The net result is often supply chain footprints that actually make little rational sense. Warehouses might be located in places that no longer have the transport links originally intended. Traffic, as an example, could be so heavy that goods are stuck in transit much longer than planned. With so many staff locked down in houses or slowly venturing back to offices, it makes sense to seize the opportunity to re-examine supply chains and determine whether and how the existing footprint can be adjusted to cope with new stresses.

Supporting the Small in a Pandemic

Supporting the Small in a Pandemic

The impact of COVID-19 continues to threaten the global economy, with the effects keenly felt in communities, businesses and homes. The challenges are disproportionately borne by smaller firms, as our survey of AMTC firms in Asia this week clearly indicates. Close to 50% of businesses have only a month or less than a month of cash reserves. Nearly 30% expect to have to lay-off more than 50% of workers. These figures are unlikely to be different from the experiences of smaller firms around the world. With both supply and demand crashing at the same time, companies are in a struggle for survival. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has just released an updated global trade forecast and the numbers are equally grim. Trade is expected to fall by 13-32% this year. This is the steepest contraction since 2008, with the strong possibility that COVID-19 results in worse outcomes than the Great Recession. But perhaps the most serious damage of collapsing trade flows to smaller firms can be found in the disruption to services.  Many small companies are engaged in services.  Some, of course, are obviously affected, such as restaurants, travel and tour companies. Others may be less clearly connected to global trade flows. For every box that is now stuck somewhere or not being filled in the first place, services can be 30-50% of the total value of the goods inside. These services can range from logistics and delivery; cleaning and maintenance of equipment; legal and HR services; graphic design and marketing; and the like. Many of the services of even giant multinationals are supplied by smaller firms. Services are affected not only by slumping demand for goods and their embedded services, but also by direct challenges like the inability of people to meet or travel.