4 asian tigers

Economic Growth and International TradeJapan and MalaysiaAnalysis of the various impacts of free trade and discovering examples of each of the economies under review and their relative success, we have come to the conclusion that “Free Trade” is one of the best available solutions to get ourselves out of the chaotic mess that we find ourselves in and there is a lot we can learn from our Asian counterparts on how they have used this weapon up their arsenal to establish themselves on the world stage.

2010

Submitted To: Mr. Akhtar LodhiSubmitted By: Muhammad Saiq Lakhani

Ali Bilawal Khan Faizan Shahzad

5/23/2010

Economic Growth and International Trade

Table of Contents

S.No. Contents Page #

1 Introduction 8

2 Benefits of Free Trade 9

3 Terms-of-Trade Effect of Growth 11

4Effect of Economic Growth on

International Trade11

5 Arguments against Free Trade 12

6 Impact of Free Trade on the World 13

7 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) 19

8 Specific Advantages of promoting FTAs 20

9 Points to bear in mind in promoting FTAs 20

10 JAPAN

11 Introduction 21

12 Motivations for Free Trade 22

13 Japanese Growth 23

14 Challenges 24

15 MALAYSIA

16 Introduction 37

17 Statistics of Malaysian Economy 37

18 Tiger Economy 38

19 External Trade 39

20 Free Trade Efforts 40

2


21 Major Imports and Exports 41

22 Export Commodities 41

23 Exports Partners 42

24 Import Commodities 42

25 Import Partners 42

26 Trade Relations with U.S. 43

27 Trade with U.S. 43

28 Top Exports to U.S. 43

29 Fastest Growing Malaysian Exports 44

30 Top Imports from U.S. 44

31 Fastest Growing Malaysian Imports 45

32 Comparative Trade Advantages 45

33 Challenges 45

34 Conclusion 46

35 References 44

3


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we would like to thank Allah Almighty for giving us the opportunity to study in such a

prestigious institution and under the guidance of a brilliant faculty.

We would also like to thank our “Global Economic Environment” teacher, Mr. Akhtar Lodhi, for his

continued guidance and support for our topic and not least through out the semester.

We would also like to thank our families for bearing with us when we devote ourselves to the

project and become unavailable to them in the process.

4


PREFACE

This report is primarily based on exploring the pros and cons of free trade by analyzing the impacts

of free trade on Asian power house i.e. Japan as a bench mark for Asia.

Moreover, this topic is also being viewed from the developing countries perspective including the

analysis of the economies of Asian Tigers with particular emphasis on Malaysia and Taiwan.

This report is aimed to enhance the understandings of the various impacts of free trade and the

relative success of the economies under study.

5


RESEARCH POINT

In today’s era of fierce competition, there is very little margin of error when it comes to formulating

economic policies. If the policy frame work is not setup correctly, there is little chance the

economies would survive. This is evident from the innumerable impacts of free trade on the Asian

power house Japan and the developing economies of the Asian Tigers.

The appropriate frame work and policies of an economy becomes even more important in the case

of our country where there is acute shortage of natural resources and potential export bonanzas.

Therefore, our research is aimed to promote ‘better understanding’ of the various impacts that free

trade can have, their different implications, and to find out what lessons can we learn from the

economies under review.

6


THESIS SENTENCE

After a thorough analysis of the various impacts of free trade and discovering examples of each of

the economies under review and their relative success, we have come to the conclusion that “Free

Trade” is one of the best available solutions to get ourselves out of the chaotic mess that we find

ourselves in and there is a lot we can learn from our Asian counterparts on how they have used this

weapon up their arsenal to establish themselves on the world stage.

7


INTRODUCTION

The act of opening up economies is known as "free trade" or "trade liberalization." It usually

benefits the larger, wealthier countries whose big companies are looking to expand and sell their

goods abroad. In the one sector where developing countries have the most to gain - agricultural

goods - wealthier countries maintain the highest level of "protection" of their own markets.

Globalization has made the world a much smaller place. Global trade refers to the act of buying and

selling goods and services between countries. Today these goods and services can travel further

and faster so that - for instance - products from all over the world can be found at your corner

shop. This can be anything from fruits and vegetables, to cars, banking services, clothing, and

bottled water.

The scale and pace of this kind of trade has only increased over time, and has become a very

powerful tool. International trade is considered a prime driver of how well a country develops, and

affects very much how well the economies of different countries are doing.

The act of opening up economies is known as "free trade" or "trade liberalization." Trade

liberalization means opening up markets by bringing down trade barriers such as tariffs. Doing this

allows goods and services from everywhere to compete with domestic products and services but in

practice the set-up of global trade rules and the way they are administered by the World Trade

Organization, works best for those countries who are already rich, and increases the gap between

them and poorer countries who are already struggling to compete. The part of the problem is that

trade is not always equal. It is not just a tool - it can also be a weapon. When countries put

restrictions, such as tariffs, on goods from other countries, imported goods become more expensive

and less competitive than goods from their own country. Another thing that can be done is

subsidizing domestic businesses. This means that governments give money or other forms of

support to local or domestic businesses, to make sure that they are cheaper over imported

products and services. This can allow unsuccessful and inefficient businesses to do well, since they

8


receive all kinds of government support. And while these businesses continue to grow, smaller or

local producers, especially in many poorer countries - those that need support the most - are being

destroyed.

Any measure like this is called "protectionist," since it has the effect of closing off a country's

markets to goods from other countries. Many wealthy countries in Europe, as well as the US and

Japan use these tactics to support their own domestic economies, making it impossible for smaller,

or less developed countries to gain a foothold in the global marketplace. As they go about

protecting and closing off their own markets, many of these very same countries are creating

double standards, by forcing other countries to open up their markets.

Free trade is a complex concept-it can at least be classified according to the geographic areas in

which it applies, and for whom it applies. Small world's networks modeling have demonstrated that

preferred locations have a clustering and concatenation effect such that location confers

advantages that aren't a consequence of better business intelligence or invention. In global trade

with trans-nationally assembled products the local and small business perhaps has a permanent

disadvantage and the global business the preferred location. Free trade disadvantages nations and

good citizens and promotes the trans-national and irresponsible capitalist class without regard to

the environment's harm or the reduction in the quality of life for the populace in some cases-for

the quest for a pecuniary sort of profit in business may regard government as a hindrance and the

best interests of a nation and its people as concepts of a leftist nature.

BENEFITS OF FREE TRADE

The Theory of Comparative Advantag

This explains that by specializing in goods where countries have a lower opportunity cost, there can

be an increase in economic welfare for all countries.

Reducing Tariff Barriers Leads To Trade Creation

Trade creation occurs when consumption switches from high cost producers to low cost producers9


Increased Exports

As well as benefits for consumers importing goods, firms exporting goods where the UK has a

comparative advantage will also see a big improvement in economic welfare. Lower tariffs on UK

exports will enable a higher quantity of exports boosting UK jobs and economic growth.

Economies of Scale:

If countries can specialize in certain goods they can benefit from economies of scale and lower

average costs, this is especially true in industries with high fixed costs or that require high levels of

investment. The benefits of economies of scale will ultimately lead to lower prices for consumers.

Increased Competition.

With more trade domestic firms will face more competition from abroad therefore there will be

more incentives to cut costs and increase efficiency. It may prevent domestic monopolies from

charging too high prices.

Trade is an Engine of Growth

World trade has increased by an average of 7% since the 1945, causing this to be one of the big

contributors to economic growth.

Make Use of Surplus Raw Materials

Middle Eastern counties such as Qatar are very rich in reserves of oil but without trade there would

be not much benefit in having so much oil. Japan on the other hand has very few raw material

without trade it would be very poor.

Tariffs May Encourage Inefficiency

If an economy protects its domestic industry by increasing tariffs industries may not have any

incentives to cut costs.

10


TERMS- OF- TRADE EFFECT OF GROWTH

The terms of trade have an inverse relationship with the volume of trade and are by no means

beneficial for the growth and development of international trade or local economy for that matter

EFFECT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

11


ARGUMENTS AGAINST FREE TRADE

Infant Industry Argument:

If developing countries have industries that are relatively new, then at the moment these industries

would struggle against international competition. However if they invested in the industry then in

the future they may be able to gain Comparative Advantage. This shows that comparative

advantage can change over time. Therefore protection would allow them to progress and gain

experience to enable them to be able to compete in the future.

The Senile Industry Argument:

If industries are declining and inefficient they may require large investment to make them efficient

again. Protection for these industries would act as an incentive to for firms to invest and reinvent

themselves. However protectionism could also be an excuse for protecting inefficient firms

To Diversify The Economy:

Many developing countries rely on producing primary products in which

they currently have a comparative advantage. However relying on agricultural products has several

disadvantages

Prices can fluctuate due to environmental factors

Goods have a low income elasticity of demand. Therefore with economic growth demand

will only increase a little

Raise revenue for the govt.

Import taxes can be used to raise money for the govt however this will

only be a small amount of money

Help the Balance of Payments

Reducing imports can help the current account. However in the long term this is likely to lead to

retaliation

Cultural Identity

12


This is not really an economic argument but more political and cultural. Many countries wish to

protect their countries from what they see as an Americanization or commercialization of their

countries

Protection against Dumping

The EU sold a lot of its food surplus from the CAP at very low prices on the world market. This

caused problems for world farmers because they saw a big fall in their market prices

Environmental Factors

It is argued that free trade can harm the environment because LDC may use up natural reserves of

raw materials to export. Also countries with strict pollution controls may find consumers import the

goods from other countries where legislation is lax and pollution allowed. However supporters of

free trade would argue that it is up to individual countries to create environmental legislation.

IMPACT OF FREE TRADE ON THE WORLD

The free market has been lauded as a hallmark of a democratic and free society. G-8 countries

convene every year, discovering ways to spread the good news of this economic gospel.

Domestically, the free market promises that the good life could be held by all if one would just work

hard enough at his dream. Yet not all seems to be rosy with this dream. On an international and

domestic level, the free market has not given the liberation it has promised. In some ways, it has

only cemented the inequality already there.

This same economic story could be told in Indonesia, where the Chinese only account for three

percent of the population yet control seventy percent of the economy. Liberation of Indonesia in

1998, which the US hailed as a grand celebration for democracy and free markets, only served to

spark the violence in Indonesia that still continues until this day. One way to explain this

phenomenon is that since the Indonesian natives were never accorded dignity, they used their

initial days of freedom to express the violence that had been brewing for so long, much the same

way an adolescence rebels when he finds freedom from an oppressive family. Yet all the violence

and all the rhetoric of freedom spinning have still not given either the Filipinos or the Indonesians 13


economic destiny. Global financiers still hold prime real estate and control the markets within the

region.

On the American domestic front, much of the same reality takes place as overseas. Companies

feel that they are generous when they start out paying a dollar or two above minimum wage,

saying that teenagers who live at home take many of these jobs. While this is true, many of these

teenagers are not saving up for a car as much as needing the job to help subsidize their families.

And many more of these people who live at minimum wage are not teenagers without children, but

teenagers and adults with dependent children to support. Generally speaking, three hundred

dollars a week before taxes does not provide for the necessities of life in any part of the country;

very few regions of have living wage laws. And while people like Bill O'Reilly legitimately claim to

pay a higher amount of taxes when they file to the government, the working poor are subject to the

same sales tax that the affluent are. A man making $100,000 a year may congratulate himself on

being frugal by buying shampoo at the bulk discount store, but the same two dollar shampoo may

be a "splurge" for the man on minimum wage because he can afford nothing more. Both pay the

same amount in sales tax, regardless of who can afford it more.

The answer to the free market problem is not necessarily to destroy it and replace it with socialism.

Switching economic styles may just shift the same problem into different squares; the economic

oppression may just go from an individual entrepreneur to the government itself, accomplishing

nothing. Adding to this, the rich, even in a socialist economy have the money to lobby the

government, much like is under capitalism, so then all has changed is the semantics.

What needs to be done is to introduce a sense of fairness and morality to the global market, and a

reality check that recognizes where the free market exacerbates the innate prejudices already

present. Throwing a few dollars at the problem and declaring elections will do little to change the

climate when greed rules the marketplace. In the case of the international market, those who

employ natives need to be more generous in their application of economics, for example, making

sure that their employees are treated with respect. Those who are doing international business

would need to see the people they are employing as equal human beings who have just as much

standing as they do in the human scheme of things, and not as a lesser racial or ethnic group.14


In the case of the domestic market, much of the same principle applies. Those who are in the

highest corporate echelons need to reprioritize what it means to be successful, and be willing to

divert some of the profits from making their corporation bigger to the coffers of their employees.

Middle class consumers may become more conscientious in their buying as some of the cost is

diverted to them, perhaps limiting resources exploited for consumer purposes, but if one considers

his fellow man to be his brother, a higher price that makes sure his brother is fed well will not be as

bothersome.

An exact distribution of moneys is not necessary, and may not even be feasible without major

outside control factors, illogical to employ in a free society. But a decent living wage for all people is

only moral. In this respect, when the lessons of fairness and regard of others as equal human beings

worthy of dignity takes place, perhaps the golden dream of free market can work its wonders.

Free trade needs to be placed within a rational context regarding to what ends it serves and how

well it serves those ends. Free trade isn't the same in all times and places. If the Kennedy's or the

Bushes of the world war one and two eras freely traded with the Nazis of Germany that would have

been a disadvantage to the national interests of the people of the United States that opposed

fascism in Europe, while trading with Germany today is more of an advantage for Americans

because BMW will produce a better electric car than Chevy next year very most likely, and quiting

reliance on fossil fuels for transportation is a way to decrease trade deficits and keep cash in the

United States for investment here. Free trade and capitalism cannot replace democracy and good

government of the people, by the people and for the people, yet if a government does support and

reinforce a national democracy free trade can be one way of creating comparative advantage

internationally and of course domestically.

Free trade does not develop on an even field globally. Free trade, free speech and other civil

rights develop at a differential rate. The founders would not have demonstrated a fascist's

disregard for democracy within secure boundaries as do the corporatist spawn bought and paid for

in the U.S. Congress. Sycophantic stooges of international stooges are to rave, collectivist and hip to

enjoy a nation and democracy responsibly and will seal their own probable national doom as have

many prior civilizations and nations sated with gluttony and dulled too much for rational political 15


intelligence. 'Talk' radio is itself a spoiler for corporatist power advancing corrupted ideas to be able

to add the conservatives to the liberals in the globalist, collectivist's pockets.

Capitalism is fine when democracy still exists as a rational government defending a nation's vital

public interests, but when corporations and corporate values dwarf and purchase the government

irrational profit motives replaces government and national interests dry up deleteriously replaced

by ad hoc elite class collectivists exploiting the world like crazed thirsty camels chasing water holes

in a broadening period of global warming.

IMPLEMENTATION OF FREE TRADE

The biggest misunderstanding underlying the concept of "free trade" is that free trade has to

somehow be implemented or instituted, usually by the state. This is the polar opposite of the truth:

16


free trade is the natural state of humanity. Free trade can only be taken away or diminished; it

cannot be somehow enhanced or magnified.

We are born on this earth to engage in free trade and exchange. The ignorance of this basic fact is

evident in the belief that states or nations must go through some great process or sign elaborate

treaties and documents to institute free trade. This is equivalent to some government declaring

that all citizens now have the right to "free air". Treaties and documents seek to control and limit

trade, not to enhance it.

In collusion with these misunderstandings is the idea that "nations" engage in free trade. Again, this

is as far from reality as is possible. The idea that large "corporations" engage in and promote free

trade is connected to this same principle. Multinational corporations usually engage in controlled

and planned trade immediately after the signing of such documents. Free trade agreements are

almost always promoted to encourage controlled trade and benefit multinational corporations.

True free trade is simply unbridled and consentual exchange between two or more humans. This

can involve their time as labor or some product of their labor. This type of free trade or exchange

has probably been going on since day one. No documents or treaties are necessary to complete this

simple and natural transaction. The world didn't somehow become complicated and therefore

necessitate copious paperwork to ensure free trade. Paperwork, documents or treaties are always

limitations on what humans do naturally on the earth, engage in exchange. Free trade is defined

fundamentally as unrestrained exchange free of force, either internal force within the exchange or

external force. If we accept this definition, then any treaty, agreement or document is an "outside

force" limiting the scope or "freedom" of the exchange or trade.

Promotion of free trade is always an oxymoron. Free trade cannot be "promoted", as it already

exists in our natural state. However, controlled and forced trade certainly can be promoted in many

ways. As mentioned, treaties and documents seek to control and promote certain types of

exchange in order to benefit some and disadvantage others. This is always a loss of overall

exchange freedom, not a gain. To understand this, we must clearly view the fundamentals of trade

or exchange. All exchange and trade originates locally. We trade first with those closest to us. It is

17


free economic principles that govern this. It always takes more energy to trade with those further

away. Because of this, products that are further away must have more value than comparable local

products. The cost of transport must be accounted for. If this principle of locality is allowed to

freely develop, exchange and distribution of products would organize balancing ease of production

and distance from markets.

Every product would be produced and distributed in its most efficient manner. If the cost of

transport justified the greater ease of producing apples twenty miles from their final market instead

of five miles, this would occur. If it were somehow justified to produce, pack and ship an item

overseas and transport the products on a boat to some distant and strange foreign land, this would

also occur. But, this transport over great distances must also be examined for its role in a true free

trade.

Free trade to actual is "free" must also be free of subsidy or coercive promotion. Subsidy is the

forced collection of funds through taxation and the insertions of those same funds into economic

transactions. This can take the form of actual payment or some tax break. A tax break has virtually

the same effect as a delayed payment. Price can be supplement or discounted through subsidy.

Whatever form it takes, it violates the freedom of the taxpayer, who if given the choice would most

likely not partake in the trade or transaction and violates freedom of trade by advantaging one

party and disadvantaging another.

However, the vilest and most unrecognized form of subsidy limit freedom of trade is that of

transportation. As we mentioned, free trade organizes itself naturally based on locality. Any forced

collective input into transportation destroys this basic principle. Whenever a road or bridge is built

out of public funding, freedom of trade is thwarted. It is true that public transportation

infrastructure promotes a form of trade. It, much like trade agreements and other subsidies,

promote "controlled" trade. Trade becomes based on proximity not to local consumers, but to

public transportation. Access to highways, publicly built airports and ports becomes more

important than what products are needed locally. In fact, local demands are put aside to satisfy

foreign markets. We are all aware of local products being unavailable while the shelves are stocked

18


with far away items produced thousands of miles away. This is not an example of free trade but

rather controlled and subsidized trade.

In doesn't take a genius to realize that something is amiss when locally produced lettuce sells for

twice what a head grown in South America and transported by truck, airplane and again by truck to

our local shelves. The true costs, transportation and otherwise, have been socialized and the

result cannot be referred to as "free trade". All this simply points out the fact that trade has

become a "commodity", much like everything else. Trade or the rights to trade is bought and sold,

molded and determined by agreements, laws and subsidy.

The heart of trade, the product, takes a back seat to the requirements and restrictions of the

transaction. The foundation of free trade, locality, becomes subordinate to the political "position"

of the trade partners. What was originally free and available to all of us, the free exchange of

products and labor with others, has become marginalized and distributed by those in control of

trade to those they seek to advantage. It seems the more any concept related to freedom is

espoused upon and pronounced loudly publicly, the less there really is of it!

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (FTAs)

Amid the advance of economic globalization, it is important to maintain and strengthen the free

trade system. While the World Trade Organization continues to play an important role in this effort,

free trade agreements (FTAs) offer a means of strengthening partnerships in areas not covered by

the WTO and achieving liberalization beyond levels attainable under the WTO. Thus, entering into

FTAs is a highly useful way of broadening the scope of Japan's economic relationships with other

countries.

The European Union and the United States have pursued policies oriented both toward

negotiations under the WTO and the creation of large-scale regional trade frameworks. The current

round of WTO negotiations could be the last multilateral trade negotiations prior to the creation of

19


these large-scale integrated regional frameworks. It is necessary for Japan as well to address not

only WTO negotiations but also FTA trends in strengthening its economic relationships with other

countries.

SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES OF PROMOTING FTAs

Economic Advantages

FTAs lead to the expansion of import and export markets, the conversion to more efficient industrial structures, and the improvement of the competitive environment. In addition, FTAs help reduce the likelihood of economic frictions becoming political issues, and help expand and harmonize existing trade-related regulations and systems.

Political and Diplomatic Advantages

FTAs increase Japan's bargaining power in WTO negotiations, and the results of FTA negotiations could influence and speed up WTO negotiations. The deepening of economic interdependence gives rise to a sense of political trust among countries that are parties to these agreements, expanding Japan's global diplomatic influence and interests.

POINTS TO BEAR IN MIND IN PROMOTING FTAs:

Conformity with the WTO Agreements

Three points must be ascertained. First, the duties and other regulations of commerce should not be higher or more restrictive than the corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce prior to the formation of the FTA. Second, they must eliminate duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce with respect to substantially all the trade. Third, they must ensure completion of RTAs within a 10-year period, at least in principle. The reference to "substantially all the trade" implies that countries must achieve a standard of liberalization that compares favorably to international standards in terms of trade volume (based on the figures reported, the NAFTA average is 99%, while the average for the FTA between Mexico and the EU is 97%).

Impact on Domestic Industries

20


A country cannot secure the advantages of FTAs without enduring some pain arising from the opening of its markets, but this should be regarded as a process that is necessary for raising the level of Japan's industrial structures. Unavoidable issues will emerge concerning various areas of regulatory control, including movement of natural persons, as well as the opening of markets and the implementation of structural reforms in the agricultural sector. With due respect for political sensitivities, unless a stance is taken linking FTAs to economic reforms in a country, it will not succeed in making them a means of improving the international competitiveness of itself as a whole.

JAPAN (THE ASIAN POWER HOUSE)

INTRODUCTION

Japan’s trade policy has historically centered on multilateral negotiations and dispute resolution

mechanisms. The rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade

Organization (WTO) have provided Tokyo an ability to interact with its trade partners on an equal

basis. Given its global trade interests, a contentious bilateral past with the United States, and

historic legacy with Asian countries, particularly Korea and China, reliance on the multilateral

system has helped promote Japan’s trade interests. Over the past five years, Japan has shifted

course somewhat by pursuing negotiations in the WTO but by also seeking free trade agreements

(FTAs) and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with mostly Asian countries. An FTA is an

agreement between two countries or regional groupings to eliminate tariffs and other trade

barriers, while an EPA goes further by also attempting to facilitate the free movement of people

and capital among the partners to an agreement. Nonmembers find their exports discriminated

against. As a practical matter, officials at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI)

acknowledge that there is little difference between an FTA and EPA. METI, however, prefers the

EPA label based on the view that it does less to provoke domestic political opposition than the “free

trade” moniker. The pursuit of FTAs is occurring worldwide with nearly 300 estimated to be

currently in effect. The United States has an extensive FTA program and agenda, and has FTAs in

21


effect with two Asian-Pacific countries — Singapore and Australia. Europe has been pursuing a

similar course for years. China and six ASEAN states (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines,

Singapore, and Brunei) are in the process of establishing an FTA by 2010. Now Japan is trying to

catch up.

Economists still disagree about the merits of negotiating FTAs on the grounds that discrimination

may undermine the multilateral trading system while others believe that FTAs promote multilateral

deals in the long run. The concern is that FTAs could lead to a “spaghetti bowl” of overlapping

conflicting trading partnerships each with its own set of rules at the expense of a more unified and

non-discriminatory set of multilateral rules. But domestic support in Japan for an FTA program

appears strong. Prime Minister Koizumi is firmly behind the approach, as well as the ruling LDP-

Komeito coalition. While the Democratic Party, the major opposition party, supports the general

thrust of the policy, some members maintain that the United States and China should be

considered as prospective FTA partners. Given its own aggressive FTA program, the United States is

hardly in a position to criticize Japan’s new policy orientation. But it has considerable interest in

whether Japan’s policy evolves in a manner that is supportive of U.S. interests in Asia — which

include promoting a stable Balance of power and insuring that U.S. trade and investment interests

are not discriminated against in the region.

MOTIVATIONS FOR FREE TRADE

Japan’s FTA program has been motivated by a combination of economic and political objectives.

The most important entail avoidance of becoming isolated as other major trading countries actively

pursue FTAs, energizing domestic economic activity, and promoting Japanese influence in Asia.

Japan’s concern about the possible emergence of economic blocs in the Americas and in Europe

goes back to the early 1990s. In 1994 the United States entered into the North America Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) and announced plans to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Europe at

the same time was busy entering into preferential trade agreements and subsequently has come to

conduct trade relations on a multilateral or non-discriminatory basis with only a handful of trading

partners, including Japan and the United States. In 1999 the collapse of multilateral trade

22


negotiations at the WTO Ministerial in Seattle shook Japanese confidence in the future of

multilateralism. China’s decision in 2001 to negotiate an FTA with ASEAN countries was also a

seminal event, providing more ammunition for those in Japan that were advocating a change of

policy course. The case for developing an FTA program was also driven by Asian economic trends

and opportunities. METI officials see East Asia as the fastest growing region in the world and a

region that is increasingly vital to Japan’s economic future.8 FTAs and EPAs are viewed as one way

to deepen economic ties with East Asia and facilitate a new division of labor and production

sharing. The experience of the European Union has demonstrated that, as institutional integration

develops, so too does intra-regional division of labor that leads to a more effective production

network and to more efficient industrial structures. As a result, METI maintains that both individual

parties to an FTA, as well as the region as a whole, can enjoy more robust economic growth

powered by an expansion of exports and imports. Reform-minded METI officials also hope that an

aggressive FTA-EPA program will serve as a force for promoting domestic agricultural reforms. By

entering into negotiations with trading partners that continue to demand liberalization of Japan’s

protected agricultural sector, it is hoped that domestic support for programs that might aid farmers

transition to a less protected environment would be proposed and implemented. Finally, many

decision makers see FTAs providing Japan with varied political and diplomatic advantages. These

ranges from increasing Japan’s bargaining power in WTO negotiations to helping Japan better

compete with China for influence in Asia. Under the view that FTAs symbolize special relationships

based on political trust, Japan hopes to bolster its diplomatic influence on a range of political and

security issues.

JAPANESE GROWTH

More than a decade ago, there was concern in the United States that Japan was an economic threat

because its economy was too strong. Subsequently, U.S. policymakers have come to believe that

Japan is more of a problem when its economy is weak. A lackluster growth position in Japan not

only affects U.S.-Japan trade and financial ties adversely, but also undermines growth of the East

Asian economy. Moreover, an economically strong Japan is needed to serve as a counterweight to a

rising China. Despite regaining a good deal of financial stability in recent years, Japan’s economy

23


remains weak. With growth projections of no more than 1.3%-1.6% over the next five years, Japan

will not be in a position to play much of a locomotive role either for the United States or the region.

This assessment is not likely to be altered by the estimated weak impact of Japan’s FTA program on

growth. Lagging China in FTAs with Asian countries, as well in other trade and investment linkages,

Japan currently cannot be said to be moving rapidly to establish itself as a credible counterweight

to a rising China.

CHALLENGES

Japan’s ability to promote its economic interests through an aggressive FTA/EPA program is

constrained by protection of its agricultural sector and rigid immigration policies. While the

FTA/EPA negotiations themselves provide pressures for more open policies, the ministries charged

with these portfolios (Agriculture and Justice, respectively) have not yet advanced effective reform

policies that would make a substantial difference.

Agriculture:

Agriculture accounts for only 1.3% of Japan’s GDP and 4.6% of its total employment, but remains

heavily supported and protected from import competition. According to the OECD, support to

producers as a percent of gross receipts was 58% in 2002-04, down from 61% in 1986-1988, but still

almost twice the OECD average. Rice, wheat, other grains, meat, sugars, and dairy are the most

heavily supported commodities. Tariff-rate quotas are employed to shield these commodities from

international competition, resulting in food prices that in Tokyo are on average 130% higher than

the rest of the world. Many in Japan believe that support for agricultural protection will disappear

over time. They cite the declining share of the population engaged in agriculture and the high

percentage of farmers (60%) who are over 65 years old and who derive the majority of their income

from non-agricultural activities. In the process, the hold of the agricultural lobby is said to be

slipping as evidenced by the slippage of the LDP in the 2004 Upper House election.33 The LDP

derives most of its support from rural areas, in part, due to Japan’s disproportionate electoral

24


districting system; each rural vote is worth an estimated 2 urban votes. However, policy reforms to

help move Japan away from considerable agricultural protection have been slow to materialize.

While the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries has released papers that have raised the

idea that Japan should stop wasting resources on crops that can be imported more cheaply, little

follow-up has occurred. These reports advocate consideration of policies that would increase

competition in the sector by encouraging new entrants and providing direct compensation to

farmers through tax incentives in lieu of price controls and high tariffs. In large measure, this is due

to opposition from influential members of the LDP’s “farm tribe.” In the absence of a substantive

reform plan to make Japan’s farm sector more efficient, agriculture is bound to continue to be a

major stumbling block for concluding economically meaningful FTAs/EPAs.

Immigration

Among industrial nations, Japan maintains the tightest policy towards accepting foreign workers

and remains extremely cautious about changing course. However, due to a declining birthrate and

an aging workforce, Japan’s decision-makers are under increased pressure to accept more foreign

workers to keep the economy from stagnating. The demands of FTA negotiating partners such as

the Philippines and Thailand to liberalize Japan’s labor market prohibitions have brought added

pressures and debate about a more open door policy. A 1999 government employment plan called

for Japan to promote foreign employment in “specialized and technical areas,” but a “careful

approach based on national consensus” towards manual workers. Despite the needs in certain

sectors to accept more foreign workers, such as nurses and care providers, public support is lacking.

Concerns about increased crime rates, the social costs of accepting more foreigners, and an adverse

impact on Japanese homogeneity tend to dominate, along with the resistance of labor unions. In

addition, neither the LDP nor the Democratic Party stands clearly in favor of liberalizing

immigration. The significance of the immigration issue transcends the problems it creates for Japan

reaching closure on FTA negotiations with its Asian partners, such as Thailand and the Philippines.

The continuation of exclusionary immigration policies may also undercut Japan’s ambition to play a

leading role in a more integrated and interdependent Asian economy.

25


26


The Share of Asian Economies in Japanese Trade

27


The Structure of Japanese Exports to Asia

The Structure of Japanese Imports from Asia

28


29


The Impact of Trade Liberalization among Japan, China and ASEAN Countries

30


31


32


33


34


35


36


MALAYSIAINTRODUCTION

Malaysia is a growing and relatively open state-oriented market economy. The state plays a significant but declining role in guiding economic activity through macroeconomic plans. In 2007, the economy of Malaysia was the 3rd largest economy in South East Asia and 29th largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity with gross domestic product for 2007 estimated to be $357.9 billion with a growth rate of 5% to 7% since 2007. In 2009, the nominal GDP was US$207,400 billion, and the nominal per capital GDP was US$8,100.

The Southeast Asian nation experienced an economic boom and underwent rapid development during the late 20th century and has a GDP per capita of $14,800, being considered a newly industrialized country. On the income distribution, there are 5.8 million households in 2007. Of that, 8.6% have an monthly income below RM1,000, 29.4% had between RM1,000 and RM2,000, while 19.8% earned between RM2,001 and RM3,000; 12.9% of the households earned between RM3,001 and RM4,000 and 8.6% between RM4,001 and RM5,000. Finally, around 15.8% of the households have an income of between RM 5,001 and RM 10,000 and 4.9% have an income of RM 10,000 and above.

As one of three countries that control the Strait of Malacca, international trade plays a large role in its economy. At one time, it was the largest producer of tin, rubber and palm oil in the world. Manufacturing has a large influence in the country's economy.

STATISTICS OF MALAYSIAN ECONOMY

GDP $381.1 Billion (2009)GDP GROWTH -2.2% (2009)GDP PER CAPITA $14,800 (2009)GDP BY SECTOR Agriculture (10.1%); Industry (42.3%); Services (47.6%) (2009)INFLATION (CPI) 0.4% (2009)POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE

3.5% (2007)

LABOR FORCE BY OCCUPATION Agriculture (13%); Industry (36%); Services (51%) (2007)UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 5% (2009)INDUSTRIES Rubber and palm oil processing and manufacturing, light manufacturing

industry, electronics, tin mining and smelting, logging and processing timber, tourism, petroleum production and refining, logging

37


EXPORTS IN VALUE $156.4 Billion (2009)MAJOR EXPORTS Electronic equipment, petroleum and liquefied natural gas, wood and

wood products, palm oil, rubber, textiles, chemicalsMAJOR EXPORT PARTNERS Singapore 13.9%, China 12.2%, United

States 10.9%, Japan 9.8%, Thailand5.4%, Hong Kong 5.2% (2009 est.)IMPORTS IN VALUE $119.5 billion (2009 est.)MAJOR IMPORTS Electronics, machinery, petroleum products, plastics, vehicles, iron and

steel products, chemicalsMAJOR IMPORT PARTNERS China 13.9%, Japan 12.5%, Singapore11.1%, Thailand 6%, Indonesia 5.3

%, South Korea 4.6%, Tawian4.2%, Germany 4.2% (2009 est.)

TIGER ECONOMY

Macro-Economic TrendThis is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Malaysia at market prices estimated by the International Monetary Fund with figures in millions of Malaysian Ringgit.

Year GDP(in millions)

Exchange(1 USD to MYR)

Inflation Index(2000=100)

Per Capita Income(as % of USA)

1980 54,285 2.17 51 14.78

1985 78,890 2.48 64 11.44

1990 119,082 2.70 70 10.47

1995 222,473 2.50 85 15.69

2000 343,216 3.80 100 11.47

2005 494,544 3.78 109 12.67

For purchasing power parity comparisons, the US Dollar is exchanged at 1.70 Ringgit only. Average wages in 2007 hover around $30–37 per day.

From 1988 to 1997, the economy experienced a period of broad diversification and sustained rapid growth averaging 9% annually.

By 1999, nominal per capita GDP had reached $3,238. New foreign and domestic investment played a significant role in the transformation of Malaysia's economy. Manufacturing grew from 13.9% of GDP in 1970 to 30% in 1999, while agriculture and mining which together had accounted for 42.7% of GDP in 1970, dropped to 9.3% and 7.3%, respectively, in 1999. Manufacturing accounted for 30% of GDP (1999). Major products include electronic components – Malaysia is one of the world's largest exporters of semiconductor devices – electrical goods and appliances.

38


Foreign funds were attracted to invest making the local money market and bourse liquid. This created opportunity for local businesses to raise capital on the KLSE, and carry out infrastructure development in areas like telecommunications, highways and power generation to meet bottlenecks caused by rapid industrialization. An intense labor shortage created employment for millions of foreign workers. Subsequent events show that more than 50% were illegal.

The influx of foreign investment led to the KLSE Composite index trading above 1,300 in 1994 and the Ringgit trading above 2.5 in 1997. At various times the KLSE was the most active exchange in the world, with trading volume exceeding even the NYSE. The stock market capitalization of listed companies in Malaysia was valued at $181,236 million in 2005 by the World Bank.

Concerns were raised during the time about the sustainability of the rapid growth and the ballooning current account. The mainstream opinion prevalent at that time was that the deficit was temporary and would reverse once imported equipment started producing for export. In spite of that, measures were taken to moderate growth especially when it threatened to overheat into the double digits. The main target was asset prices, and restrictions were further tightened on foreign ownership of local assets. Exposure of local banks to real estate loans were also capped at 20%.

As was widely expected, the current account deficit did narrow steadily, year to year, from 9% to 5% of GDP.

Malaysia has the largest operational stock of industrial robots in the Muslim world.

EXTERNAL TRADE

Malaysia is an important trading partner for the United States. In 1999, two-way bilateral trade between the U.S. and Malaysia totaled U.S. $30.5 billion, with U.S. exports to Malaysia totaling U.S. $9.1 billion and U.S. imports from Malaysia increasing to U.S. $21.4 billion. Malaysia was the United

39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006Malaysian_exports.PNG


States' 10th-largest trading partner and its 12th-largest export market. During the first half of 2000, U.S. exports totaled U.S. $5 billion, while U.S. imports from Malaysia reached U.S. $11.6 billion.

The Malaysian Government encourages Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). According to Malaysian statistics, in 1999, the U.S. ranked first among all countries in approved FDI in Malaysia's manufacturing sector with approved new manufacturing investments totaling RM5.2 billion (US$1.37 billion). Principal U.S. investment approved by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA) was concentrated in the chemicals, electronics, and electrical sectors. The cumulative value of U.S. private investment in Malaysia exceeded $10 billion, 60% of which is in the oil and gas and petrochemical sectors with the rest in manufacturing, especially semiconductors and other electronic products.

FREE TRADE EFFORTSMalaysia is the founding member of the ASEAN Free Trade Area which was established in 1992 to promote trade among ASEAN members. Most tariffs among the first generation member states were scrapped in 2007. ASEAN itself is increasingly playing a large role in free trade negotiation on behalf of its members. ASEAN as a group hopes to establish a free trade agreement with the European Union by 2009.

The Malaysian Government is negotiating free trade deals with Australia, Chile and India, but has suspended negotiation of free trade deal with United States indefinitely after eight rounds of negotiation. Officials have expressed desire for free trade agreements their ASEAN members Singapore and Thailand. The Malaysian Trade Ministry released a statement in Vietnam saying that the FTA "has the potential to increase trade, investment cross flows and economic cooperation between the two countries. The agreement would also serve to make Chile a gateway for Malaysia's exports to the Latin American market."

Malaysia signed a Japan-Malaysia Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan on 13 December 2005. This leads to a Free trade agreement which was in effect from 13 July 2006 and expected to be fully realized in 2016. The agreement itself is an extension of an FTA between ASEAN and Japan, which is called Asean-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

On 8 November 2007, Malaysian and Pakistan signed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement which will come in force on 1 January 2008. Malaysia will cut tariffs on 140 lines while Pakistan will cut 124 lines. Most tariffs and duty is expected to be eliminated by 2012.

Other 'economic areas' showing an interest in establishing free-trade agreements with Malaysia are the European Union and Hong Kong. However, before any talks can be initiated regarding new FTAs, Joint Economic Co-operation deals need to be concluded. International Trade and Industry

40


Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has expressed the hope that talks will be concluded by the end of 2008.

MAJOR IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Southeast Asia, particularly Malaysia, has been a trade hub for centuries. Since the beginning of

history, Malacca has served as a fundamental regional commercial center for Chinese, Indian, Arab

and Malay merchants for trade of precious goods. Today, Malaysia shares healthy trade relations

with a number of countries, specifically the US. The country is associated with trade organizations,

such as APEC, ASEAN and WTO. The ASEAN Free Trade Area that was established for trade

promotion among ASEAN members also has Malaysia as its founding member. Malaysia has also

signed Free Trade Agreements with countries including Japan, Pakistan, China and New Zealand.

Malaysia was once the world’s largest producer of tin, rubber and palm oil. Its manufacturing

sector has a crucial role in its economic growth. The export industry was hit hard during the late

2000 economic recession drastically dropping to 78% i.e. FDI to RM4.2 billion in the first two

quarters of 2009. Total exports fell down to $156.4 billion in 2009 from $198.7 billion in 2008. The

imports also reduced from 154.7 billion in 2008 to $119.5 billion 2009.

EXPORT COMMODITIES

Electronic equipment

Petroleum and liquefied natural gas

Wood and wood products

Palm oil

Rubber

Textiles

41


Chemicals

EXPORT PARTNERS

IMPORT COMMODITIES

Electronics

Machinery

Petroleum products

Plastics

Vehicles

Iron and steel products

Chemicals

42


IMPORT PARTNERS

TRADE RELATIONSHIP WITH U.S.Malaysia Leads as High-Tech Products Exporter of Computers, computer accessories and telecommunications equipment account for 52% of Malaysian exports while semiconductors which generate 47% of sales to America.

Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was an estimated US$222.2 billion in 2008, making Malaysia the world’s 39th richest country.

With a population of 25.7 million Malaysians who enjoyed an average GDP of $15,200 per person last year, Malaysia placed 74th among other nations in terms of GDP per capita.

As the world’s 21st biggest exporting nation, Malaysia shipped $198.9 billion worth of exports in 2008. Malaysian exports include electronic equipment, petroleum, liquefied natural gas, wood, rubber and textiles. Based on 2008 statistics, Malaysia’s largest export clients were Singapore (15.6%), the United States (12.9%), China (12.5%), Japan (9.6%) and Thailand (4.1%).

According to the CIA World Factbook, Malaysia imported $154.7 billion worth of foreign goods last year. Major commodities imported into Malaysia include machinery, petroleum products, plastics, vehicles, iron and steel products and chemicals. Leading suppliers to Malaysia were Singapore (23%), China (12.7%), Japan (9.8%), the United States (7.8%), Thailand (5.7%) and South Korea (4.3%).

In total, Malaysia’s international trade amounted to $353.6 billion or 159.1% in relation to its overall GDP. This compares with roughly 25% for the U.S. and 60% for Canada.

43


TRADE WITH THE U.S.

Last year, Malaysian exports to America fell 5.8% to $30.7 billion. Over that same period, Malaysia bought $12.9 billion worth of U.S. imports – an increase of 10.9%.

After subtracting imports from exports, one can quickly calculate Malaysia’s trade surplus with the U.S. to equal a healthy $17.8 billion in 2008.

The lists below present the top 10 exports and imports that American and Malaysian enterprises exchanged in 2008. The fastest-growing trade product categories are also listed.

TOP EXPORTS TO AMERICA

Malaysia’s top 3 exports were hi-tech products that represented 51.8% of Malaysian exports to the U.S. last year. In total, the following 10 Malaysian exports generated 77.1% of the total value of shipments from Malaysia to America in 2008.

1. Computers … US$6.7 billion, down 17.2% from 2007 (21.9% of US imports from Malaysia)2. Computer accessories and parts … $4.8 billion, down 14.4% (15.6%)

3. Telecommunications equipment … $4.4 billion, down 1.2% (14.3%)

4. Semiconductors … $2.9 billion, up 2% (9.6%)

5. Food oils and oilseeds … $1.2 billion, up 76.7% (3.9%)

6. Other household goods including clocks … $964.8 million, down 21.8% (3.1%)

7. Other scientific, medical and hospital equipment … $899.5 million, up 19.4% (2.9%)

8. Household items including baskets and furniture … $710.5 million, down 8.2% (2.3%)

9. Stereo equipment including radios … $566.1 million, down 6.3% (1.8%)

10. Video equipment (DVD players, VCRs, TV receivers) … $516.6 million, up 12.3% (1.7%).

FASTEST-GROWING MALAYSIAN EXPORTS TO THE U.S.

Malaysian exported tin had the most dramatic increase in sales to the U.S., while 7 other product categories showed impressive triple-digit gains.

1. Tin … US$34.9 million, up 1,881% from 20072. Oilfield and drilling equipment … $14.1 million, up 990.4%

44


3. Feedstuff and food grains … $21.2 million, up 183.3%

4. Crude oil… $63.2 million, up 169.8%

5. Synthetics (cork, gums, resins, rubber, wood)… $6.8 million, up 162.4%

6. Vegetables and preparations … $6.4 million, up 153.4%

7. Paper and paper products … $9.7 million, up 137%

8. Miscellaneous non-ferrous metals … $12.6 million, up 121.6%

9. Agricultural machinery and equipment … $2.7 million, up 91.4%

10. Fertilizers and pesticides … $43.2 million, up 87.1%.

TOP IMPORTS FROM AMERICA

Semiconductors, steelmaking and plastic materials illustrate the fact that many of America’s exports to Malaysia are source inputs for Malaysian manufacturers. The following top 10 exports from America to Malaysia accounted for 74.6% of Malaysia overall imports from the U.S.

1. Semiconductors … US$6.1 billion, up 21.7% from 2007 (47.3% of US exports to Malaysia)2. Computer accessories … $586.7 million, up 7.4% (4.5%)

3. Steelmaking materials … $525.6 million, up 45.4% (4.1%)

4. Other industrial machines … $421.8 million, down 20.3% (3.3%)

5. Electric apparatus … $421 million, down 8.5% (3.3%)

6. Telecommunications equipment… $416.7 million, down 13.2% (3.2%)

7. Measuring, testing and control instruments … $369.8 million, up 29.9% (2.9%)

8. Civilian aircraft… $346.8 million, down 31.6% (2.7%)

9. Generators and accessories … $245.5 million, up 98.6% (1.9%)

10. Plastic materials … $163.5 million, up 5.7% (1.3%).

FASTEST-GROWING MALAYSIAN IMPORTS FROM THE U.S.

The top 10 list of Malaysian growth imports were for relatively small dollar amounts. Three of these import categories were up by triple-digits while the remaining 7 product categories had double-digit gains.

1. Artillery, guns, missiles and tanks … US$28.6 million, up 653.1% from 200745


2. Food oils and oilseeds … $8.4 million, up 553.9%

3. Other iron and steel products … $27.3 million, up 111.7%

4. Generators and accessories … $245.5 million, up 98.6%

5. Chemical fertilizers… $22 million, up 97.3%

6. Marine engines and parts … $34.1 million, up 84.7%

7. Trucks, buses and special purpose vehicles … $2.3 million, up 79.3%

8. Textile and sewing machines … $6.3 million, up 69.2%

9. Unmanufactured agriculture industry products … $27.1 million, up 67.4%

10. Unmanufactured tobacco … $20.9 million, up 66%.

COMPARATIVE TRADE ADVANTAGES

During 2008, Malaysia exported $11.5 billion worth of computers and accessories to the U.S. while importing $715 million of those same product categories from America.

These Malaysian-American trade statistics show that Malaysia has a comparative advantage over the U.S. in the trade of computers and accessories between the 2 nations.

On the other hand, America exported $6.1 billion worth of cornputers to Malaysia in 2008 compared with $2.9 billion in Malaysian semiconductors imported into the U.S.

That the U.S. shipped to Malaysia over twice the value of imported Malaysian semiconductors clearly shows that America has a comparative advantage in trading semiconductors with Malaysia.

CHALLENGES

According to Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the country should diversify trade pattern and explore China's sectors.

With reference to an excerpt from the article published in KUALA LUMPUR, May 22 (Bernama) –

Malaysia should diversify its trade pattern and explore emerging sectors in China which have high potential for future growth, according to Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

"Currently, most of our bilateral trade comprises electronics and electrical products, palm oil and chemicals. Clearly, we can do much more to diversify the pattern," he said.

Muhyiddin said with the move towards the Asean-China Free Trade Area, Malaysia could and should significantly diversify and broaden opportunities for trade and investment with China.

46


CONCLUSION

After a thorough analysis of the various impacts of free trade and discovering examples of each of

the economies under review and their relative success, we have come to the conclusion that “Free

Trade” is one of the best available solutions to get ourselves out of the chaotic mess that we find

ourselves in and there is a lot we can learn from our Asian counterparts on how they have used this

weapon up their arsenal to establish themselves on the world stage.

REFERENCES

47


Pekkanen, Saadia M., “The Politics of Japan’s WTO Strategies,” Orbis, Winter 2004, pp. 135-147. The concept of an EPA and how it differs from an FTA is not commonly made, but appears unique to Japan. Interview with Norio Nakazawa, METI Counsellor for Regional Cooperation, June 28, 2005. Schott, Jeffrey J. “Free Trade Agreements: Boon or Bane of the World Trading System?” In Bergsten, C. Fred., The United States and the World Economy, Institute for International Economics, 2005. Interview with Kenzo Fujisue, Upper House Diet Member, Democratic Party, June 23, 2005. CRS Report RL32688, China-Southeast Asia Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications for the United States,

by Bruce Vaughn. Hatakeyama, Noboru. “Japan’s Movement toward FTAs,” Speech delivered at the Institute for International

Economics, Washington, D.C., May 8, 2003. METI projects that East Asia’s share of world GDP will increase to 16% by 2020, up from 5% in 1990, with the

shares accounted for by Japan, the United States, and Europe all dropping. East Asia’s economic growth is also projected to average 5.5% between 2010-2020, compared to 0.5% for Japan, 1.4% for the United States, and 1.5% for Western Europe.

Interview with Isamu Ueda, Lower House Diet Member, Komeito Party, June 23, 2005. According to WTO data, Japan’s simple average tariff rate is now around 6.3%. Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan’s FTA Strategy, October 2002. Found at [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/strategy0210.html]. Government Adopts FTA Policy Focusing on Partners in Asia,” The Japan Times, December 22, 2004. “Japan Settles for ‘Low-Risk, Low-Return’ FTA Goals,” The Japan Times, April 22, 2005. “Japan, U.S. Set for Game of Diplomacy on FTA,” The Nikkei Weekly, June 7, 2004. Japan Settles for Low-Risk, Low Return FTA Goals,” The Japan Times, April 22, 2005. World Trade Atlas. Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry , Japan APEC (1997), The Impact of Trade Liberalization in APEC, Economic Committee, Asia Pacific

Economic Cooperation, Singapore Armington, P. S. (1969), “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production”,

International Monetary Fund Staff Paper Vol. 16 No. 1 Brown, D. K. (1992), “The Impact of a North American Free Trade Area: Applied General Equilibrium

Models”, in Lusting et al. Eds. North American Free Trade: Assessing the Impact, Brookings Institution Dee P., C. Geisler and G. Watts (1996), “The Impact of APEC’s Free Trade Commitment”, Staff

Information Paper, AGPS, Canberra Dee, P., A. Hardin and M. Schuele (1998), “APEC Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalisation”, Staff

Research Paper, Australian Productivity Commission DFAT (1999), Global Trade Reform: Maintaining Momentum, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs

and Trade EPA (2000), Issues toward Enhancement of Economic Relationships among Japan, China and Korea:

Assessment of Current States of and Impact of Liberalization in Trade and Investment, Research Bureau, Economic Planning Agency (in Japanese)

Francois, J. F., B. J. McDonald and N. Nordström (1996), “Liberalization and Capital Accumulation in the GTAP Model”, GTAP Technical Paper No. 7, Centre for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

GATT (1994), The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Hanslow, K. (2000), “A General Welfare Decomposition for CGE Models”, GTAP Technical Paper No. 19, Centre for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

Hanslow, K., T. Phamduc and G. Verikios (2000), The Structure of the FTAP Model, Research Memorandum MC-58, Productivity Commission, Canberra

48


Hertel, T. W. (1997), Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hertel, T. W., T. Walmsley and K. Itakura (2001), “Dynamic Effects of the “New Age” Free Trade Agreement between Japan and Singapore”, Journal of Economic Integration, December

Huff, K. and T. W. Hertel (2001), “Decomposing Welfare Changes in GTAP”, GTAP Technical Paper No. 5, Centre for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

Ianchovichina, E., J. Binkley and T. W. Hertel (2000), “Procompetitive Effects of Foreign Competition on Domestic Markups”, Review of International Economics, 8(1)

IDE (2000),”Economic Relationships between Japan and Korea in the 21st Century”, Report by the Study Group on the Economic Relationships between Japan and Korea in the 21st Century , Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (in Japanese)

Itakura, K., T. Hertel and J. Reimer (2002), “Free Trade Agreement in East Asia: Implications for Trade, Prodcution and Welfare”, a paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, June 5-7, 2002, Taipei

Itakura, K., T. Hertel and J. Reimer (2003), “The Contribution of Productivity Linkages to the General Equilibrium Analysis of Free Trade Agreements”, GTAP Working Paper No. 23, Centre for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

Kawasaki, K. (1999), Applications of the Computable General Equilibrium Model: Simulation Analysis on Trade Liberalization and Regulatory Reform, NIHONHYORONSYA (in Japanese)

Kawasaki, K. (2003), “WTO and Free Trade Area in Asia”, Chapter 7 in Japan’s Trade Policy and WTO, K. Iwata ed., NIHONKEIZAISHINBUNSYA (in Japanese)

KIEP (2000), ”Economic Effects of and Policy Directions for a Korea-Japan FTA”, Korean Institute for International Economic Policy

McDonald, S. and T. Walmsley (2003), “Preferential Trade Agreements and the Optimal Liberalization of Agricultural Trade”, a paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, June 12-14, 2003, The Hague

METI (2003), White Paper on International Trade 2003, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Nakajima, T. and O. Kwon (2001), “An Analysis of Japan-Korea FTA”, ERINA Discussion Paper No.

0101e, Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia Nakajima, T. (2002), “An analysis of Japan-Korea FTA: Sectoral Aspects”, a paper presented at the Fifth

Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, June 5-7, 2002, Taipei Shoven, J. B. and J. Whalley (1992), Applying General Equilibrium, Cambridge University Press Tsutsumi, M. and K. Kiyota (2002), “The Impact of Free Trade Agreement around Japan: An Analysis by a

CGE Model”, JCER DISCUSSION PAPER No. 74, Japan center for Economic Research (in Japanese) www.wikipedia.com/economyofmalaysia http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/malaysia/export-import.html http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/malaysias_top_imports_exports_2008 Latest statistics from the US Census Bureau- Foreign Trade Statistics and CIA World Factbook as of

the date of article publication.

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsbusiness.php?id=500392

49

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsbusiness.php?id=500392

http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/malaysias_top_imports_exports_2008

http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/malaysia/export-import.html

http://www.wikipedia.com/economyofmalaysia

4 asian tigers

Documents