Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Political Geography Japan

1. Trade Balances and International Competitiveness in Cyber-physical, Digital Task-intensive, ICT Capital-intensive and Traditional Industries

Author:
Alexandra Bykova and Roman Stöllinger
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
In this report, we analyse the international competitiveness of the EU in four industry groups over the period 1995-2018. The groups are delineated by specific factor intensities, where these intensities are assessed from digital tasks performed by labour services and ICT capital stocks. The EU’s positions relating to trade balances, revealed comparative advantages and unit value ratios are assessed relative to its main competitors, such as the US, China, Japan and South Korea. The trade specialisation patterns confirm EU advantages in traditional industries, which still represent the largest part of global trade, and in the group of digital task-intensive industries. In the cyber-physical group of industries, which are characterised by both high digital task and ICT capital intensities, the EU records a trade deficit, although this has been receding in recent years. Competitiveness indicators depict heterogeneity among EU countries. The loss of international competitiveness for some technology front-runners is a worrying sign. On the positive side, however, a reduction in trade deficits or an improvement in product quality and market shares is evident for certain EU countries, especially in the Central European region.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, European Union, Trade, Digitalization, and International Competition
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

2. Japan and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

Author:
Mie Oba
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
This paper aims to clarify the role of Japan in the process leading up to the establishment of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). While emphasising that respect for the centrality of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was a principle of RCEP, Japan played a leading role in the process of RCEP negotiations. For Japan, RCEP is one of the fruits of its strategy in East Asia/Asia-Pacific that began the mid-1990s to protect and increase the interests and advantages of Japanese business and retain Japan’s political leverage in the region. When substantial negotiations for RCEP began in 2013, its importance for Japan was secondary to other free trade agreements (FTAs) including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, China–Japan–Korea FTA, and Japan–European Union FTA. However, the Government of Japan and the business community had set a lot of economic and strategic goals in promoting RCEP. After the withdrawal of the United States (US) from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, RCEP was seen as an essential framework for establishing a rules-based regional order in the Indo-Pacific region. Although it was after India’s withdrawal from the RCEP negotiations, Japan further emphasised the importance of RCEP as the measure to sustain and foster the rule-based regional order and simultaneously pursued the conclusion of negotiations and the establishment of high-level rules, achieving some success. Ultimately, the havoc brought about by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the sense of crisis in the traditional liberal international order caused by the intensifying strategic competition between the US and China, drove the conclusion of RCEP. RCEP will be increasingly important for economic order in Japan and Asia in the coming years. Ironically, as the strategic competition between the US and China escalates and leads to a surge in protectionism, the economic and strategic importance of RCEP – an FTA that incorporates China – is becoming more significant as a measure to counter unilateralism and protectionism. In addition, RCEP needs elements that address globalisation’s adverse effects and pitfalls, in areas such as the environment, labour rights, and a reduction in the disparity between the rich and poor.
Topic:
Development, Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

3. The Clash of Japan’s FOIP and China’s BRI?

Author:
Daisuke Akimoto
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
Since the late 2010s, the concept of the “Indo-Pacific” has been becoming increasingly significant in the international political arena. In August 2016, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe proposed a policy of “Free and Open Indo- Pacific” (FOIP) as Japan’s new diplomatic vision at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) VI held in Kenya. The FOIP strategy was supported by the Donald Trump administration followed by the renaming of the United States Indo-Pacific Command. However, China has viewed the FOIP as a containment strategy against the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The FOIP vision is unclear for general observers, and it might cause a security dilemma with the Chinese BRI. Is it possible for the FOIP vision to coexist with China’s BRI, or are these two strategic visions destined to clash with each other? In an attempt to answer these questions, the article aims to provide multiple perspectives of the FOIP concept by applying international relations (IR) theory. This article warns that the FOIP and the BRI are likely to bring about diplomatic tension that could be escalated into a military skirmish over the territorial dispute. In order to avoid the possible military clash, it finally seeks to explore possible future pathways of the peaceful coexistence of the two visions in the Indo-Pacific region.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

4. Can the Biggest Emitters Set Up a Climate Club? A Review of International Carbon Pricing Debates

Author:
Carole Mathieu
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The world’s largest emitting countries are reconsidering the role of carbon pricing instruments and increasingly looking at carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs) to address leakage concerns. This renewed momentum should trigger a broader discussion on how to make trade policies compatible with the climate agenda. With the Glasgow climate conference (COP26) approaching, the concept of putting a price on carbon is generating unprecedented interest in Canada and the United States (US), China and Japan. But the European Union (EU) still stands as an exception; it is the only regional trading bloc that is determined to leverage the full potential of its emissions trading system (ETS). To date, others have lacked the political backing to deploy nation-wide carbon pricing initiatives with a design sturdy enough to drive meaningful emission reductions. Canada has made significant progress with the adoption of a national framework for carbon pricing in 2018. The country’s draft regulations foresee the introduction of a federal ETS as of 2022 and a gradual increase in carbon prices, but its ambitions risk being upset by the lack of consistent efforts in the US, its largest trading partner. Given US political divides, a federal carbon pricing scheme is unlikely to materialize in the short run. In China, the long-delayed national ETS has finally been launched. However, its scope is restricted to the power sector for now, and it is likely to only have a modest impact on coal use with its current design. Several arguments may discourage China from fully extending its ETS as planned and rather argue in favor of introducing a complementary carbon tax. Japan has also engaged an expert debate on the benefits of introducing carbon pricing at the national level, but the government is struggling to find a balance between the risk of worsening competitiveness and the need to mobilize investment in clean technologies. For the EU, the upcoming reform of the EU ETS is an opportunity to introduce a truly demanding cap reduction for the 2023-2030 period and make this flagship instrument more robust, predictable, and fair. To initiate in-depth decarbonization of its industry, the EU will need to phase out free allowances. Therefore, other measures addressing unfair competition will have to be introduced and CBAM could be part of the solution. A unilateral application is however no panacea. The EU should move cautiously and start implementing the CBAM to a small set of sectors. This also means that the challenge of leveling the playing field with non-EU producers will remain largely unresolved. There is little chance that an international alliance on carbon pricing or “climate club” can be set up within a timeframe compatible with the climate emergency. Yet, the EU’s CBAM proposal can encourage trading partners to accelerate decision-making on carbon pricing, at least to obtain partial exemption. In addition, having a concrete anti-leakage proposal on the table leads to a sense of the inevitable mismatches between the global trade and climate agendas. Large emitters are starting to acknowledge the need for a multilateral discussion on how to decarbonize industries while maintaining a level playing field. The next step should be to kickstart an open discussion in all possible multilateral fora (G20, International Energy Agency, global industry associations, etc.) and mandate the World Trade Organization (WTO) to develop guidance on a wide range of instruments (including CBAM, but also eco-design labelling and standards, differentiated tariffs based on CO2 intensity, etc.) and including a common exemption approach for Least Developed Countries. Exploring a set of workable solutions should be more attractive to trade partners than pushing for a uniform solution, but results would still take time to materialize. Hence, establishing a level playing field with imports will likely require the EU – and all countries with an aggressive decarbonization agenda for their industries – to strengthen their financial and regulatory support to the deployment of innovative low-carbon manufacturing processes. Again, this almost-unavoidable resort to State aid would strongly benefit from a multilateral discussion.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, European Union, Carbon Tax, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, and Canada

5. East Asian Integration and Its Main Challenge: NTMs in Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and New Zealand

Author:
Yan Lili Ing and Grace Hadiwidjaja
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
While East Asia has been moving forward with its regional integration agenda, one main challenge remains and is growing – non-tariff measures (NTMs). Animal, vegetable, and food products tend to be more regulated than other products, largely due to quality and safety standards. NTMs affect 66%–98% of total trade in those sectors. Our paper presents the frequency index, coverage ratio, and prevalence score to measure NTMs in the region. They are highest amongst food, vegetable, and animal products; and vary amongst other products, depending on the economy. We find that the high frequency index of NTMs does not necessarily translate to a high value of coverage ratio for trade. One explanation could be that countries tend to regulate imported goods which compete with the domestic products more than imported goods which they need.
Topic:
Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Tariffs, Non-Tariff Measures, and Economic Integration
Political Geography:
Japan, China, India, Asia, South Korea, Australia, Southeast Asia, and New Zealand

6. Labour Market Impacts of Import Penetration from China and Regional Trade Agreement Partners: The Case of Japan

Author:
Kazunobu Hayakawa, Tadashi Ito, and Shujiro Urata
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
The impacts of imports on the domestic labour market have been hotly debated recently. The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the effects of not only imports from China but also those under regional trade agreements (RTAs) on employment in Japan. As in previous studies in the literature, we found that the rise in import penetration from China significantly decreases employment in Japan. However, import penetration under RTA regimes is found to have insignificant effects on employment. The finding suggests that the increase in imports under RTA regimes might not be harmful to the domestic labour market. In addition, we did not find significant effects of import penetration via input–output linkages. This insignificant result may be because imports by Japanese manufacturing firms are mostly conducted in the form of intra-firm trade, enabling them to avoid negative impacts on employment.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Labor Issues, Employment, and Manufacturing
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

7. Tariffs and Monetary Policy: A Toxic Mix

Author:
Michael D Bordo and Mickey D. Levy
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The ratcheting up of tariffs and the Fed’s discretionary conduct of monetary policy are a toxic mix for economic performance. Escalating tariffs and President Trump’s erratic and unpredictable trade policy and threats are harming global economic performance, distorting monetary policy, and undermining the Fed’s credibility and independence. President Trump’s objectives to force China to open access to its markets for international trade, reduce capital controls, modify unfair treatment of intellectual property, and address cybersecurity issues and other U.S. national security issues are laudable goals with sizable benefits. However, the costs of escalating tariffs are mounting, and the tactic of relying exclusively on barriers to trade and protectionism is misguided and potentially dangerous. The economic costs to the United States so far have been relatively modest, dampening exports, industrial production, and business investment. However, the tariffs and policy uncertainties have had a significantly larger impact on China, accentuating its structural economic slowdown, and are disrupting and distorting global supply chains. This is harming other nations that have significant exposure to international trade and investment overseas, particularly Japan, South Korea, and Germany. As a result, global trade volumes and industrial production are falling. Weaker global growth is reflected in a combination of a reduction in aggregate demand and constraints on aggregate supply.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Monetary Policy, Economic Growth, Tariffs, and Industry
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, Germany, North America, and United States of America

8. Learning to Love Trade Again

Author:
Frank Lavin and Oscar Guinea
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
We are at the moment, the first in seventy-five years, where there is no international consensus in support of trade. Indeed, trade is unloved, unsupported, and even unwanted. There is no shortage of topics in the rhetoric of trade complaints: from the rapid rise of China to Coronavirus as a metaphor for the evils of greater connectivity. Regardless of the validity of these complaints, none of them negate the central truth of trade: countries that engage in trade move ahead, and those that do not, stagnate. Our political leaders disagree. Anti-trade positions are held by leaders across the political spectrum, from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders. And yet, the public is increasingly warm to the idea of trade. When Gallup asks Americans, “Do you see foreign trade more as an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports or a threat to the economy from foreign imports?” a record high of 79% see trade as an opportunity, with 18% viewing it as a threat. How did the world arrive at this moment where the benefits of trade are clearly evidenced while trade has become politically toxic? We identify four main factors: (i) U.S. absenteeism from the leadership role; (ii) detachment between trade and security architecture; (iii) no alternative leadership in Europe or elsewhere; and (iv) the cumbersome WTO process. Against this background we put forward five initiatives that will be big enough to count but unobjectionable enough to be adopted. The Big Three. The U.S., EU, and Japan, should establish a consultative body on trade to forge a new approach that allows trade to move ahead in the absence of universal consensus. No harm, no foul. Each of the Big Three should commit to zero tariffs on any item not produced in each particular market. A de minimis strategy. Tariffs should be eliminated on all products where the current tariff is less than 2%. At that level tariffs are simply a nuisance fee. Mind the social costs. Expand the Nairobi Protocols to include health products and green tech. Scrapping import tariffs on medical and green goods would not only encourage additional trade but will also provide health and environmental benefits. Harmonize down. The Big Three should commit that on every tariff line each of the three will be no worse than the next worse. In other words, each of the Big Three will agree to reduce its tariff on every product where it has the highest tariff of the three. These actions will spur the WTO, not undermine it. The measures we propose can be set up on a plurilateral basis that would allow other trading powers to participate. By breaking away from the tyranny of universal consensus, these actions will encourage the trading community – including the WTO – to get back in forward motion. In some respect, convergence between the Big Three is already happening. The EU and Japan signed an FTA that lowers import tariffs between these two economies, while the U.S. and Japan agreed to negotiate a comprehensive FTA. And if China is willing to step up? China should be welcomed into this group if it supports the four initiatives, changing the Big Three to the Big Four.
Topic:
International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, Global Markets, Trade, and WTO
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Europe, and Global Focus

9. Implications of Foreign Direct Investment, Capital Formation and its Structure for Global Value Chains

Author:
Amat Adarov and Robert Stehrer
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
In the age of globalisation, international trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) have become integral elements of cross-country production sharing. In this paper we empirically assess the impact of FDI, as well as capital dynamics and structure, on the formation of global value chains (GVC) and trade in value added at country and sectoral levels based on a database constructed for a sample of European countries over the period 2000-2014. The analysis reveals that inward FDI is especially conducive to the formation of backward linkages while outward FDI facilitates forward GVC participation, especially in high-tech manufacturing sectors. A particularly robust influence of FDI and capital accumulation on GVC integration is identified in the textile and clothing industry. While capital accumulation in general intensifies GVC linkages for most sectors, ICT capital appears to be especially instrumental for backward integration of electrical and transportation equipment sectors.
Topic:
Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Foreign Direct Investment, Trade, and Global Value Chains
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, and Europe

10. The Global Exchange (Winter 2018)

Author:
Adam Frost, David J. Bercuson, Stephen Blank, Monica Gattinger, Sarah Goldfeder, Colin Robertson, Hugh Stephens, Laura Dawson, Randolph Mank, Ferry de Kerckhove, Colin Robertson, Andrew Caddell, Robert Hage, David Perry, and Kelly Ogle
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Global Exchange
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
During the 1947 Duncan & John Gray Memorial Lecture then-minister of external affairs, Louis St. Laurent, outlined guiding principles for Canada’s engagement with the world. In his address, he recognized that Canada could not maintain the standard of living Canadians had come to enjoy in isolation from the rest of the world. He said, “[we] are dependent on markets abroad for the large quantities of staple products we produce and cannot consume, and we are dependent on supplies from abroad of commodities which are essential to our well-being.” This irrefutably remains true today. Canada’s ability to utilize its vast wealth of resources has afforded it the opportunity to become one of the most affluent and developed nations in the world, making the preservation of such ability of vital national interest. However, trade in the 21st century is more complex than ever before. Technology allows for transactions between parties scattered across the globe to occur near instantaneously, and complicates the tracking and classification of many goods and services. Moreover, global political developments and economic transformation are threatening the liberal world order built and protected by the United States since the Second World War. China’s emergence as an economic juggernaut is shifting the global economic centre of gravity. Furthermore, reactionary domestic political forces within much of the western liberal democratic world, including the United States, question the value of continued support for the status quo. Tectonic change is afoot. In response, Canada is charting its path to navigate the challenges of 21st century global trade. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is pursuing a progressive trade agenda as it seeks to modernize existing agreements, implement newly minted agreements, and explore potential future opportunities. The lead package of this issue examines a multiplex of challenges and opportunities presented to those currently crafting Canadian trade policy. Geographically, it spans not only the management of relations with the United States and NAFTA renegotiation, but also the geopolitical considerations of bolstered engagement with Asia and the underappreciated opportunities present in Africa and South America. In addition to "with whom", this package also addresses the "how and why" of trade: the difficulty of adapting trade practices to the digital age and the costs, benefits and limitations of projecting Canadian values via trade relations. In computer simulated and professional chess matches white consistently wins more often than not. The lack of first-mover advantage is a formidable deficit to overcome. Those who are not leading, are fated to play catch-up. The challenges facing Canada’s policy-makers responsible for protecting and advancing our national interest via trade are legion. To optimally address these challenges, Canada is best served by being proactive at the forefront of negotiations. The benefits of cultivating a proactive posture are enticing, and the costs for failing to do so are avoidable. Canada must adapt to the dynamism of the global economic order, or fight to catch-up.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Internet, NAFTA, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Africa, Japan, Canada, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America