BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Smolaga Mateusz (University of Szczecin)
Title
Trends in South-South Trade Activities of East Asia Pacific and South Asia
Source
Torun International Studies, 2022, nr 2(16), s. 5-29, rys., tab., bibliogr. 50 poz.
Keyword
Handel, Rozwój
Trade, Development
Note
summ.
Country
Azja Wschodnia, Azja Południowa, Region Azji i Pacyfiku
Eastern Asia, South Asia, Asia-Pacific region
Abstract
The aim of this article is to analyse trends in trade throughout the global South, focusing on two regions of Asia: East Asia and Pacific, and South Asia. Unlike many recent texts which tend to focus on the activities of China and India, and their consequences for the developed economies (mainly US and Europe), this article aims to identify trends in trade between developing countries, with a special emphasis on non-Chinese and non-Indian actors. In attempting to measure the Asian developing regions' engagement in the economic cooperation across the global South over the period of 2000-2019, an emphasis is placed on relative data (South-South trade as a percentage of total imports/exports), as opposed to absolute data (trade volumes for exports/imports in USD). This allows us to identify and compare trends in engagement for each individual actor regardless of their economic power. Important changes in the character of goods traded (i.e. leading import/export categories) can also be seen over the whole 20-year period. While the participation of East Asia Pacific and South Asia in South-South trade undoubtedly grew after 2000, largely due to impressive performances of China and India. However, the economic might of these giants should not overshadow the performances of their smaller counterparts, who also play an integral role in setting the trends this article hopes to identify. In fact, in some particular years, the group of non-Chinese economies of East Asia Pacific, and the group of non-Indian countries of South Asia, outperformed both China, and India, when South-South trade was measured as a percentage of their total imports and exports. Intraregional trade became the dominant component of East Asia Pacific trade over the 20-year period. This was not the case for South Asia, which might be seen as an obstacle for future development. The positive experience of these two regions might be used as a blueprint to extend networks of trading relationships across the global South through which new value chains can be created. While this might be seen as somewhat controversial from a Northern perspective, it would inevitably lead to strengthening political relationships between developing regions, helping to balance the global economy, and provide opportunities for Southern-led capital flows to Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America and the Caribbean.(original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Aggarwal, S., & Chakraborty, D. (2019). Which Factors Influence India's Intra-Industry Trade? Empirical Findings for Select Sectors. Global Business Review, 23(3).
  2. ASEAN-Japan Centre. (2019). Global Value Chains in ASEAN: A Regional Perspective. Retrieved March 29, 2021 from
  3. Athukorala, P. (2011). South-South Trade: An Asian Perspective. DB Economics Working Paper Series, 265.
  4. Banik, N., & Gilbert, J. (2008). Regional Integration and Trade Costs in South Asia. ADB Institute Working Paper, 127.
  5. Bergamaschi, I., Moore, P. V., & Tickner, A. B. (2017). South-South cooperation beyond the myths: Rising donors, new aid practices? Palgrave Macmillan.
  6. Bernhardt, T. (2016). South-South trade and South-North trade: Which contributes more to development in Asia and South America? Insights from estimating income elasticities of import demand. CEPAL Review, 118.
  7. Besherati, N. A., & MacFeely S. (2019). Defining and Quantifying South-South Cooperation, UNCTAD Research Paper, 30.
  8. Bo, X. (2020, January 14). Private firms lead China's imports, exports for first time. Xinhua.
  9. Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., du Toit, A., Riisgaard, L., & Halber, N. (2010). Integrating Poverty and Environmental Concerns into Value-Chain Analysis: A Conceptual Framework. Development Policy Review, 28(2).
  10. Dahi, O. S., & Demir, F. (2017). South-South and North-South Economic Exchanges: Does it Matter Who is Exchanging What and with Whom? Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(5).
  11. De Backer, K., De Lombaerde, P., & Iapadre, L. (2018). Analyzing Global and Regional Value Chains. International Economics, 153.
  12. Didier, L. (2017). South-South Trade and Geographical Diversification of Intra-SSA Trade: Evidence from BRICs. African Development Review, 29(2).
  13. Eichenauer, V.Z., Fuchs, A. Brückner, L. (2018). The Effects of Trade, Aid, and Investment on China's Image in Developing Countries. University of Heidelberg Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, 646.
  14. FAO. (2017). Value chain selection: assessing climate risks and impacts.
  15. Francois, J., & Elsig, M. (2021). Short overview of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). European Parliament.
  16. Hanson, G. H., & Robertson, R. (2008). China and the Manufacturing Exports of other Developing Countries. NBER Working Paper Series, 14497.
  17. He, Y. (2013). Does China's trade expansion help African development? - an empirical estimation. China Economic Review, 26.
  18. IMF. (2001). Global Trade Liberalization and the Developing Countries.
  19. Jaganmohan, M. (2021). Petroleum sector in India - statistics & facts.
  20. KPMG. (2020). Signing of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Impacts for the Asia Pacific region.
  21. Lin, B., & Mengmeng, X. (2019). Does China become the "pollution heaven" in South-South trade? Evidence from Sino-Russian trade. Science of The Total Environment, 666.
  22. MacMillan, J. (2007). Liberal internationalism. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 21-34). Routledge.
  23. Meng, J., Mi, Z., Guan, D., Li, J., Tao, S., Li, Y., Feng, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Wang, X., Zhang Q., & Davis, S.J. (2018). The rise of South-South trade and its effect on global CO2 emissions. Nature Communication, 9(1871).
  24. Mohanty, S.K., Franssen, L., & Saha, S. (2019). The Power of International Value Chains in the Global South. International Trade Centre.
  25. Panda, R. (2019). A Step Too Far: Why India Opted Out of RCEP. Global Asia, 14(4).
  26. Petri, P.A., & Plummer, M. (2020). RCEP: A new trade agreement that will shape global economics and politics. Brookings Institution.
  27. Raghavan, P. (2020, November 26). Explained: The economic implications of India opting out of RCEP. The Indian Express.
  28. Rata, R.S. (2009). Promoting South-South Trade: Recent Developments and Options (ARTNeT Policy Brief No. 17). Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade. United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
  29. Salo, J. (2016). Greening Value Chains: How Large Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean Can Influence Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impact Management in Their Value Chains: Case Study. Trucost, Inter-American Development Bank, Multilateral Investment Group.
  30. Shafaeddin, M. (2012). The Role of China in Regional South-South Trade in the Asia-Pacific: Prospects for Industrialization of the Low-Income Countries. TWN Trade & Development Series, 41.
  31. Shirotori, M., & Molina, A. C. (2009). South-South Trade: The Reality Check. Issues in New Geography of International Trade, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United Nations.
  32. Suresh, E. (2020). Mapping the Intra-Industry Trade in South Asian Countries through Grubel-Lloyd Approach: A Special Focus on the Vegetable Trade. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(13). The World Factbook: India. (2021, March 22).
  33. UNCTAD. (2015). Global value chains and South-South Trade: economic cooperation and integration among developing countries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  34. UNCTAD, & JETRO. (2008). South-South Trade in Asia: The Role of Regional Trade Agreements. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Japan External Trade Organization.
  35. United Nations. (2017). Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems (HS). United Nations International Trade Statistics Knowledgebase.
  36. United Nations. (2018a). Role of South-South cooperation and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Challenges and opportunities (A/73/383). United Nations: General Assembly.
  37. United Nations. (2018b). State of South-South cooperation. Report of the Secretary-General. United Nations: General Assembly.
  38. Varma, P., & Ramakrishnan, A. (2014). An Analysis of the Structure and the Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Agri-food Products: Case of India and Selected FTAs. Millennial Asia, 5(2).
  39. Vidya, C.T., & Prabheesh, K.P. (2019). Intra-Industry Trade between India and Indonesia. Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking, 21.
  40. Walia, A. (2021). SECTOR: Oil & Gas. India is the 2nd largest refiner in Asia. Investindia.
  41. Wang, Q., & Xue, Y. (2020). Imbalance of carbon embodied in South-South trade: Evidence from China-India trade. Science of The Total Environment, 707(134473).
  42. Ward, R. (2020). RCEP trade deal: a geopolitical win for China. International Institute for Strategic Studies.
  43. Weber, C. (2001). International Relations Theory: A critical introduction. Second edition. Routledge.
  44. WCO. (2012). What is the Harmonized System (HS)? World Customs Organization.
  45. WITS. (n.d.). Merchandise Trade Products Metadata.
  46. WITS/UN COMTRADE. (2021). World Integrated Trade Solution. The World Bank, United Nations.
  47. World Bank. (2020). World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. World Bank.
  48. The World Factbook: India. (2021, March 22).
  49. WTO. (2018). World Trade Statistical Review 2018. World Trade Organization.
  50. WTO, & JETRO. (2011). Trade patterns and global value chains in East Asia: From trade in goods to trade in tasks. World Trade Organization, Japan External Trade Organization.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2391-7601
Language
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2022.008
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu