中国参与RCEP：基础、规则与前景

程大中; 汪宁; 甄洋

PDF
Cite
Share

facebook

twitter

google

linkedin

May 2021

Article Contents

Citation: Dazhong CHENG, Ning WANG and Yang ZHEN. China’s Participation in the RCEP: Basis, Rules, Prospects[J]. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(3): 35-49. shu

China’s Participation in the RCEP: Basis, Rules, Prospects

Abstract

Employing detailed data, this paper analyzes the economic and trade foundation, institutional arrangements and development prospects of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP). Four conclusions are drawn. First, the RCEP is a vertical FTA covering the largest population and economies with different income levels, but it is not the largest FTA in the world if measured by GDP, trade, and investment. Second, the level of intra-RCEP trade is similar to those of the USMCA and the TPP, while that of intra-ASEAN trade is equivalent to that of the intra-MERCOSUR trade. Compared with Japan, China plays a greater role in promoting intra-RCEP trade. There exists an obvious asymmetry in the bilateral value chain linkages between China and the RCEP. Third, on the whole, as the RCEP members become increasingly similar in terms of GDP, the trade volume between them tends to increase. But this doesn’t necessarily hold for the relationships between China and all other RCEP members. Fourth, the RCEP can be seen as an important development of FTA construction in the Asian-Pacific region and China. However, compared with TPP/CPTPP and USMCA, and even with the WTO, the RCEP is not a high-standard FTA. It still has much room for improvement in reducing non-tariff barriers in such fields as investment and service trade.
- economic globalization,
- regional economic integration,
- RCEP
References
Access
1. [1]
  Baiyi WU , Yifei ZHANG . The Logic of State’s Return Phenomenon and the Dilemma of Global Governance. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(1): 80-92.
2. [2]
  PENG Diyun . Implementation on People's WellBeing —— A Study Based on the Development Strategy of Yangtze River Economic Belt. Academic Monthly, 2023, 55(7): 61-73.
3. [3]
  Zhibiao LIU . Regional Market Integration and Governance Mechanism Innovation in the Yangtze River Delta. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(10): 31-38.
4. [4]
  Nanzhi WEI . Dynamics of Conflicts of Cultural Identity & Social Inequality in United States. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(2): 85-96.
5. [5]
  ZHANG Y ouwen . . Academic Monthly, 2018, 50(9): 44-55.
6. [6]
  Jinfeng GE , Zhigang YUAN , Xiaoyan FAN . Understanding Globalization: An Analysis from the Perspective of the Co-evolution of Economic-Social-Political System. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(8): 31-44.
7. [7]
  , . . Academic Monthly, 2017, 49(12): 78-89.
8. [8]
  Zhiqing DONG , Hui WANG . Urbanization, Economic Agglomeration and Heterogeneity of Regional Economic Growth. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(10): 54-66.
9. [9]
  Xueliang ZHANG , Yang YANG . Several Types of Relationships Need to Deal in the New Stage of Yangtze River Delta Integration. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(10): 39-45.
10. [10]
  Yuanzhu DING . Construction of Social Relations Model: Community, Sovereign States and Globalization Perspective. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(7): 66-75.
11. [11]
  , . . Academic Monthly, 2016, 48(06): 37-52.
12. [12]
  Guanghua WAN , Meihua ZHU . De-globalization: Features, Causes and Outlook. Academic Monthly, 2020, 52(7): 33-47.
13. [13]
  Xiang WEN . Sociological Narratives of the Globalization of the Art Market : Performance, Mechanisms and Consequences. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(8): 118-128.
14. [14]
  Yi ZHOU . Thick and Thin: Traditional Chinese Values and Concepts in Globalization. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(10): 120-133.
15. [15]
  Zhang Kangzhi . . Academic Monthly, 2018, 50(5): 78-87.
16. [16]
  Jianjun CHEN , Jie HUANG . A Research on Yangtze River Delta Integrated Development Demonstration Zone: International Experience, Development Model and the Way to Realize. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(10): 46-53.
17. [17]
  Zhigang YUAN , Zhiwei ZHENG , Jinfeng GE . The Predicament and Outlet of Global Economic Growth. Academic Monthly, 2020, 52(8): 67-82.
18. [18]
  Wei WANG , Yufei LIU , Qing SHI . Population Aging、Urbanization and China’s Economic Growth. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(1): 68-82.
19. [19]
  Ming CHEN . Introduction to Political Economy of China’s Rural Modernization. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(9): 72-84.
20. [20]
  , , . . Academic Monthly, 2017, 49(06): 74-82.

Figures(6) / Tables(6)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Entire Issue PDF

Article Metrics

Article views: 1416 Times PDF downloads: 20 Times Cited by: 0 Times

Metrics

PDF Downloads(20)
Abstract views(1416)
HTML views(134)

Latest
Most Read
Most Cited

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

China’s Participation in the RCEP: Basis, Rules, Prospects

Available Online: 2021-03-22

Abstract: Employing detailed data, this paper analyzes the economic and trade foundation, institutional arrangements and development prospects of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP). Four conclusions are drawn. First, the RCEP is a vertical FTA covering the largest population and economies with different income levels, but it is not the largest FTA in the world if measured by GDP, trade, and investment. Second, the level of intra-RCEP trade is similar to those of the USMCA and the TPP, while that of intra-ASEAN trade is equivalent to that of the intra-MERCOSUR trade. Compared with Japan, China plays a greater role in promoting intra-RCEP trade. There exists an obvious asymmetry in the bilateral value chain linkages between China and the RCEP. Third, on the whole, as the RCEP members become increasingly similar in terms of GDP, the trade volume between them tends to increase. But this doesn’t necessarily hold for the relationships between China and all other RCEP members. Fourth, the RCEP can be seen as an important development of FTA construction in the Asian-Pacific region and China. However, compared with TPP/CPTPP and USMCA, and even with the WTO, the RCEP is not a high-standard FTA. It still has much room for improvement in reducing non-tariff barriers in such fields as investment and service trade.