1 Introduction
1.1 Pakistan and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
1.2 Review of studies on TPP
References | Data | Modeling/identification scheme | Major results |
---|---|---|---|
Gilbert et al. (2016) | GTAP 9a data, 27 Regions × 32 Commodities | Modification in the GTAP Elasticities for Japan, Steady State Closure | Simulation result shows the largest gains in absolute value are accrue to Japan. When measured relative to economic size, the largest gains are consistently estimated to accrue to Vietnam and Malaysia. The pattern can be attributed to initial tariff levels (maintained and faced), the importance of trade in GDP and strength of initial trade ties with TPP members |
Areerat et al. (2012) | GTAP 7 data, 17 Regions × 15 sectors | GTAP with focus on Agricultural products | Inclusion of Japan is very important to US gain, plus there were some significant shifts in production of agriculture. Overall gain from TPP is around $14 billion |
Cabinet Secretariat (2015) | GTAP 9 data, 12 regions × 27 sectors | Modified GTAP. Elastic supply of labor | 2.6% increase in Japan’s GPD, while labor supply increases by 1.3% and capital stock increases by 2.9% |
Ciuriak and Xiao (2014) | GTAP 8 data, 18 regions × 57 commodities | Recursive dynamic with Services and FDI. Baseline path to 2035 | $74–$166 billion total welfare gains are mostly driven by liberalization of services and reductions in NBT |
Disdier et al. (2016) | GTAP 8.1 data, 24 regions × 31 commodities | MIRAGE Recursive dynamic model | Expansion of US agri-food at the expense of other countries. Little interaction between TPP and TTIP, small welfare gains, and TTIP outcomes somewhat sensitive to NBT assumption in TPP |
Ganesh-Kumar and Chatterjee (2016) | GTAP 8.1 Data, 13 regions × 10 commodities | GTAP, Povcal used to assess poverty impacts on India | Changes in trade effects small (more in TTIP than TPP) and poverty and inequality worsens, while India is hurt by all agreements, especially the ones that include changes in textile trade |
Kagatsume (2012) | Japanese 2005, I-O Table 8 Japanese | Monash-MRF model | Agricultural production falls from 2% by between 0.3 and 2.2%, with varying impacts across different regions of Japan |
Li and Yao (2014) | 2011 base year, 13 regions × 2 sectors | Armington model with Money and Generalized trade costs | US and china trade imbalance with TPP slightly improves. Small welfare gains from TPP tariff reforms (with most benefits to China) that are substantially larger and more evenly distributed across members in relative terms when NTBs considered |
Li and Whalley (2014) | GTAP 9, 24 regions × 18 sectors | Employed an Armington-type model, but introduce money and generalized trade costs to the modeling framework | Modest welfare gains from tariff elimination (highest 0.2% of GDP for Australia/New Zealand). If NTBs cut or eliminated (up to 4% of GDP for ASEAN member of TPP) |
Rahman and Ara (2015) | GTAP 8, 17 regions x 10 commodities | Standard GTAP model | Welfare losses to South Asian economies, driven by agriculture and textiles |
Strutt et al. (2015) | GTAP 8.1, 21 regions × 31 commodities | GTAP Dynamic, Baseline to 2030 | $371 million (tariffs only) to $1.8 billion (tariffs plus NTBs) welfare gains to NZ. 0.4 and 2.2% growth in exports. Due to limited liberalization, smaller expansion of dairy despite strong comparative advantage |
Takamasu (2012) | GTAP 7, 13 regions × 14 commodities | Standard GTAP | 0.3–0.4% increase in Japan’s GDP. Devastating effects on the agricultural sector in Japan (rice production, for example, falls by 64.5–83.7%.) |
USITC (2016) | 19 regions × 56 sectors | GTAP, Elastic response of the total labor supply to real wages | $57 billion real income gains to USA by 2032 (0.23% of GDP. Merchandise trade component larger then services. 1% expansion of total exports (approx. 19% to new partners). Small expansion in overall employment and expansions in output of agriculture and services, while contractions in manufacturing |
Nguyen et al. (2015) | GTAP 9, 23 regions × 22 sectors, with focus on livestock products | GSIM focused on Livestock and Adjustment made for NTB in services | In terms of gains to Vietnam, TPP is superior to RCEP. Largest proportional welfare gains to Vietnam ($5.6 to 7.4 billion) from TPP. Large gains in investment. Significant expansion in export of apparel, textiles leather and footwear to TPP, while contraction of the livestock sector |
Petri et al. (2012) | GTAP 8, 24 regions × 18 sectors | Recursive dynamic CGE with firm heterogeneity | $ 30 billion of Welfare (EV) gains (including Korea) with largest gains to Japan (absolute) and Vietnam (relative). From completing move to FTAAP, there are larger gains, with about $300 billion rise in exports, while significant reduction in benefits if sensitive products are excluded |
2 Model and methodology
2.1 Computable general equilibrium (CGE) model
2.2 Global trade analysis project (GTAP)
2.3 MyGTAP model
2.4 Dataset
2.5 Income inequality estimation
2.5.1 Gini coefficient of inequality
2.6 Research scenarios/simulation
Simulations | Description |
---|---|
SIM-I | Full trade liberalization between CPTPP [11] economies and its impact on Pakistan |
SIM-II | Full Trade Liberalization between CPTPP [11] + Pakistan |
SIM-III | Full trade liberalization between CPTPP [11] economies + USA + Pakistan |
2.7 Model closure
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Impact of CPTPP on macroeconomic aggregates of Pakistan
SIM-1 [CPTPP (11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP (11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP (11) + Pakistan + USA] | |
---|---|---|---|
Real GDP (qgdp) | − 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.29 |
Real investment | − 0.56 | 5.30 | 6.74 |
Terms of trade (TOT) | − 0.17 | − 1.52 | − 0.30 |
Real exports (qxwreg) | − 0.03 | 24.29 | 27.0 |
Real imports (qiwreg) | − 0.23 | 10.94 | 14.35 |
3.2 Impact of CPTPP on sectoral output Pakistan
Sectors | SIM-I [CPTPP(11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan + USA] |
---|---|---|---|
Grain Crops | − 0.010 | 0.18 | 0.205 |
Veg-Fruit | 0.100 | 0.77 | 0.626 |
Meat & Livestock | − 0.01 | − 0.47 | − 0.481 |
Extraction | 0.08 | 2.17 | 0.97 |
Processed Food | − 0.05 | 1.23 | 1.139 |
Leather | − 0.03 | − 0.64 | − 0.63 |
Wearing Apparels (WAP) | − 0.08 | 7.52 | 13.4 |
Textile | − 0.07 | 12.38 | 17.634 |
Light Manufactures | 0.18 | − 11.11 | − 12.856 |
Heavy Manufactures | 0.07 | 2.9 | 0.699 |
3.3 Impact of CPTPP on sectoral exports of Pakistan
Sectors | SIM-I [CPTPP(11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan + USA] |
---|---|---|---|
Grain Crops | − 0.550 | − 7.880 | − 12.359 |
Veg-Fruit | 0.330 | 13.800 | 10.793 |
Meat & Livestock | − 0.340 | − 13.400 | − 19.313 |
Extraction | 0.420 | 13.310 | 10.364 |
Processed Food | − 0.420 | 77.950 | 67.456 |
Leather | 0.120 | 19.740 | 11.014 |
Wearing Apparels (WAP) | − 0.350 | 41.380 | 73.904 |
Textile | − 0.080 | 25.590 | 33.572 |
Light Manufactures | 0.180 | 31.570 | 19.607 |
Heavy Manufactures | 0.430 | 29.740 | 20.636 |
3.4 Impact of CPTPP on sectoral imports of Pakistan
Sectors | SIM-I [CPTPP(11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan + USA] |
---|---|---|---|
Grain Crops | − 1.270 | 27.250 | 32.739 |
Veg-Fruit | − 0.620 | 9.000 | 10.358 |
Meat & Livestock | − 1.430 | 19.880 | 28.446 |
Extraction | − 0.030 | 2.050 | 0.529 |
Processed Food | 0.490 | 27.190 | 30.199 |
Leather | − 0.020 | 99.380 | 109.879 |
Wearing Apparels (WAP) | − 0.170 | 64.730 | 76.344 |
Textile | − 0.050 | 31.050 | 38.259 |
Light Manufactures | − 0.840 | 51.710 | 57.817 |
Heavy Manufactures | − 0.180 | 2.800 | 5.938 |
3.5 Impact of CPTPP on household income
Household codes | Household’ types | SIM-I [CPTPP (11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP (11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP (11) + Pakistan + USA] |
---|---|---|---|---|
hhd-rs1 | Rural small farmer (quartile 1) | − 0.01 | 10.86 | 11.120 |
hhd-rs234 | Rural small farmer (quartile 234) | − 0.03 | 11.13 | 11.336 |
hhd-rm1 | Rural medium + farmer (quartile 1) | 0.17 | 15.07 | 11.864 |
hhd-rm234 | Rural medium + farmer (quartile 234) | − 0.02 | 14.40 | 12.497 |
hhd-rl1 | Rural landless farmer (quartile 1) | − 0.01 | 11.67 | 14.919 |
hhd-rl234 | Rural landless farmer (quartile 234) | − 0.04 | 10.26 | 12.090 |
hhd-rw1 | Rural farm worker (quartile 1) | − 0.04 | 4.08 | 11.069 |
hhd-rw234 | Rural farm worker (quartile 234) | − 0.09 | 1.46 | 4.490 |
hhd-rn1 | Rural non-farm (quartile 1) | − 0.14 | − 3.34 | 2.476 |
hhd-rn2 | Rural non-farm (quartile 2) | − 0.15 | − 3.58 | − 1.674 |
hhd-rn3 | Rural non-farm (quartile 3) | − 0.15 | − 3.71 | − 1.826 |
hhd-rn4 | Rural non-farm (quartile 4) | − 0.16 | − 3.79 | − 1.917 |
hhd-u1 | Urban (quartile 1) | − 0.12 | − 1.93 | − 1.970 |
hhd-u2 | Urban (quartile 2) | − 0.14 | − 2.99 | − 0.462 |
hhd-u3 | Urban (quartile 3) | − 0.15 | − 3.41 | − 1.289 |
Hhd-u4 | Urban (quantile 4) | − 0.16 | − 3.65 | − 1.630 |
3.6 Impact of CPTPP on real factor rewards
Factor codes | Factor description | SIM-I [CPTPP(11)] | SIM-II [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan] | SIM-III [CPTPP(11) + Pakistan + USA] |
---|---|---|---|---|
flab-s | Labor–small farmer | 0.11 | 15.27 | 14.53 |
flab-m | Labor–medium + farmer | 0.08 | 15.03 | 14.36 |
flab-w | Labor–farm worker | 0.16 | 15.01 | 13.33 |
flab-l | Labor–non-farm low skilled | − 0.05 | − 1.94 | − 1.10 |
flab-h | Labor–non-farm high skilled | − 0.05 | − 3.28 | − 2.33 |
flnd-s | Land–large | 0.15 | 17.59 | 16.85 |
flnd-m | Land–medium | 0.12 | 17.63 | 16.93 |
flnd-l | Land–small | 0.08 | 17.67 | 17.03 |
Fliv | Livestock | 0.00 | 7.54 | 7.07 |
fcap-a | Capital–agriculture | 0.08 | 17.67 | 16.96 |
fcap-f | Capital–formal | − 0.06 | − 2.23 | − 1.58 |
fcap-i | Capital–informal | − 0.05 | − 2.29 | − 1.54 |
3.7 Effect on overall Income inequality in Pakistan
CPTPP scenarios | Gini coefficient |
---|---|
Base Index | 0.41592 |
CPTPP (11) | 0.41591 |
CPTPP (11 + Pak) | 0.39558 |
CPTPP (11 + USA + Pak) | 0.39842 |