Analysis of India’s Trade Potential with RCEP Members: A Study Using Gravity Model

Abstract

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement was concluded in the year 2020 between ASEAN and its five free trade agreement (FTA) partners excluding India, which was a part of the negotiation since its inception. RCEP remains important for India considering its volume of trade with member countries and FTAs it has with various members of the group. During signing of RCEP, India had FTAs with 12 members except China, Australia and New Zealand. Later, India signed an interim FTA with Australia in April 2022, followed by an Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement in December 2022. The trade potential India has with these countries will be of interest to the policymakers for influencing its future direction of trade. India’s trade potential with Australia, China and New Zealand with whom it did not have an FTA till the signing of RCEP is important from the perspective of entering into bilateral trade agreements. In this article, the gravity model is used to measure India’s potential trade with RCEP as a block and individually with China, Australia and New Zealand. Here, a high-dimensional fixed effect Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood model is used for measuring potential trade. A comparison of potential trade with the actual shows that India has more potential for expansion of exports than imports with RCEP as a block and in particular with China, Australia and New Zealand.

Keywords

RCEP Regional Trade FTA Gravity Model HDFE PPML Model India

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguiar

, Chepeliev

, Corong

E. L.

, McDougall

, & van der Mensbrugghe

(2019). The GTAP data base: Version 10. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 4(1), 1–27. 10.21642/JGEA.040101AF

Anderson

J. E.

(2011). The gravity model. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 133–160. 10.1146/annurev-economics-111809-125114

Anderson

J. E.

, & van Wincoop

(2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192. 10.1257/000282803321455214

Armington

P. S.

(1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Papers, 16(1), 159–178.

Baldwin

, & Taglioni

(2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper, No. 5850). 10.3386/w12516

Baniya

, Rocha

, & Ruta

(2020). Trade effects of the New Silk Road: A gravity analysis. Journal of Development Economics, 146, 102467. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102467

Batra

(2006). India’s global trade potential: The gravity model approach. Global Economic Review, 35(3), 327–361. 10.1080/12265080600888090

Batra

(2016). Revealed comparative advantage and gravity model analysis of trade patterns and regional economic integration: Empirical evidence in the Indian context (pp. 69–111). Academic Foundation.

Bhutani

(2021, February 10). India’s reluctance in joining the RCEP — A boon or a bane in the long-run? Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-reluctance-joining-rcep-boon-bane-long-run/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20by%20not,potential%20of%20its%20manufacturing%20sector

10.

Bussière

, & Mehl

(2008). China’s and India’s roles in global trade and finance: Twin titans for the new millennium? (ECB Occasional Paper No. 80). ECB. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp80.pdf

11.

CEPII database. (2021). Gravity. http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/en/bdd_modele/presentation.asp?id=8

12.

Chakravarty

S. L.

, & Chakrabarty

(2014). A gravity model approach to Indo-ASEAN trade-fluctuations and swings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 383–391. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.205

13.

Correia

, Guimarães

, & Zylkin

(2020). Fast Poisson estimation with high-dimensional fixed effects. The Stata Journal, 20(1), 95–115. 10.1177/1536867X20909691

14.

Cyrus

T. L.

(2012). Cultural distance and bilateral trade. Global Economy Journal, 12(4). 10.1515/1524-5861.1895

15.

(2010). Global economic and financial crisis: India’s trade potential and prospects, and implications for Asian regional integration. Journal of Economic Integration, 25(1), 32–68. 10.11130/jei.2010.25.1.32

16.

, & Kumarasamy

(2019). Assessing linkages between trade costs and trade flows: Application of gravity model. In Nag

& Chakraborty

(Eds.), India’s trade analytics: Pattern and opportunities (pp 260–277). Sage.

17.

Dhar

(2019). India’s withdrawal from the regional comprehensive economic partnership. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(45), 59–65.

18.

Ekanayake

E. M.

, Mukherjee

, & Veeramacheneni

(2010). Trade blocks and the gravity model: A study of economic integration among Asian developing countries. Journal of Economic Integration, 25(4), 627–643. 10.11130/jei.2010.25.4.627

19.

Government of Australia. (n.d.). Australia-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (AI-CECA). Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/negotiations/aifta/australia-india-comprehensive-economic-cooperation-agreement

20.

Hussain

, & Nag

(2019). Gravity model of international trade: Understanding the underlying dynamics. In Nag

and Chakraborty

(Eds.), India’s trade analytics: Pattern and opportunities (pp. 260–277). Sage.

21.

Kabir

, Salim

, & Al-Mawali

(2017). The gravity model and trade flows: Recent developments in econometric modeling and empirical evidence. Economic Analysis and Policy, 56, 60–71. 10.1016/j.eap.2017.08.005

22.

Kumar

, & Ahmed

(2015). Gravity model by panel data approach: An empirical application with implications for South Asian countries. Foreign Trade Review, 50(4), 233–249. 10.1177/0015732515598587

23.

Kumar

, & Prabhakar

(2017). India’s trade potential and free trade agreements: A stochastic frontier gravity approach. Global Economy Journal, 17(1). 10.1515/gej-2016-0074

24.

Larch

, & Wanner

(2017). Carbon tariffs: An analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects. Journal of International Economics, 109, 195–213. 10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.09.003

25.

Lohani

K. K.

(2020). Trade flow of India with BRICS countries: A gravity model approach. Global Business Review. Advance online publication. 10.1177/0972150920927684

26.

Narayanan

G. B.

, Sen

, & Srivastava

(2019). Tariff liberalization in the RCEP trade agreement and impact on India’s automobile industry: An applied general equilibrium analysis (Working Paper No. 183). Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade.

27.

Palit

(2019). RCEP and non-tariff barriers (NTBs). In Mukherjee

(Ed.), Economic integration in Asia. Routledge. 10.4324/9781351061346-5

28.

Pant

, & Paul

(2018). The role of regional trade agreements: In the case of India. Journal of Economic Integration, 33(3), 538–571. 10.11130/jei.2018.33.3.538

29.

Petri

P. A.

, & Plummer

M. G.

(2020). East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, COVID-19, and East Asia’s new trade blocs (Working Paper No 20-9). Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/east-asia-decouples-united-states-trade-war-covid-19-and-east-asias-new

30.

Press Information Bureau (PIB). (2023). India Australia economic cooperation and trade agreement: A win-win for India and Australia [Press Release]. Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1889525

31.

Ray

, Deepika

M. G.

, & Narayanan

G. B.

(2021). Analysis of India’s competitive position in RCEP. Vision, 25(3), 336–349.

32.

Roy

, & Chatterjee

(2013). Dynamics of trade potentials in ‘emerging Asia’ in the post financial crisis era. Global Business Review, 14(4), 639–650.

33.

Sharma

S. K.

, Narayanan

G. B.

, Dobhal

, & Akhter

(2023). Evaluating the reasons for India’s withdrawal from RCEP: A general equilibrium analysis. The Indian Economic Journal, 71(3), 508–531. 10.1177/00194662231159847

34.

Shimizu

(2021). The ASEAN Economic Community and the RCEP in the world economy. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 10(1), 1–23.

35.

Silva

J. S.

, & Tenreyro

(2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658. 10.1162/rest.88.4.641

36.

Sohn

C. H.

(2005). Does the gravity model explain South Korea’s trade flows? Japanese Economic Review, 56(4), 417–430. 10.1111/j.1468-5876.2005.00338.x

37.

Srivastava

(2019, August 15). Doing business with China is far from easy. The Hindu Business Line. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/ajay-srivastav/doing-business-with-china-is-far-from-easy/article29094620.ece#

38.

Subramanian

, & Wei

S. J.

(2007). The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 71(3), 151–175. 10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.07.007

39.

Tinbergen

(1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. The Twentieth Century Fund.

40.

Urata

, & Okabe

(2009). The impacts of free trade agreements on trade flows: An application of the gravity model approach. In Findlay

& Urata

(Eds.), Free trade agreements in the Asia Pacific (Vol. 11, pp. 195–239). World Scientific. 10.1142/9789814271394_0006

41.

Yang

, & Martinez-Zarzoso

(2014). A panel data analysis of trade creation and trade diversion effects: The case of ASEAN–China Free Trade Area. China Economic Review, 29, 138–151. 10.1016/j.chieco.2014.04.002