Trade Competition Between ASEAN,China,and India: The Post-trade War and COVID-19 Scenario

Abstract

This study examines the exports of large developing economies; such as Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, and India, and discusses the post-trade war and COVID-19 scenario. Applying an export sophistication index to their trade data, we investigate the export structure of these economies. In addition, using regression analysis, we examine the resilience of their skill and technology-intensive manufacturing exports to exchange rate and demand shocks. The estimated export sophistication index detects that China’s export sophistication has not always been a step ahead in comparison to ASEAN countries and India, which contrasts with China’s remarkable export growth. Our panel DOLS estimation reveals that their manufacturing exports are highly responsive to demand shocks, although the effects of bilateral exchange rate changes vary across product groups. An appreciation of the competitors’ currencies possibly encourages their manufacturing exports. In addition, our estimation reveals that China possibly mitigates the negative effects of the trade war and COVID-19 with its advantage in the global value chains as a contributor of value-added. These results have some implications for the effects of decoupling China and the USA because of their trade war and COVID-19 situation.

Keywords

Export sophistication manufacturing exports exchange rate changes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amador

, & Cabral

(2011). A simple cross-country index of trade specialization. Open Economies Review , 22(3), 447–461.

Bhattacharyya

, & Mukherjee

(2014). Do exchange rates affect exports in India? South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance , 3(2), 175–193.

Casella

, Bolwijn

, Moran

, & Kanemoto

(2019). Improving the analysis of global value chains: The UNCTAD-EORA database. Transitional Corporations , 26(3), 115–142.

Finger

J. M.

, & Kreinin

M. E.

(1979). Export similarity and its possible use. The Economic Journal , 89(2), 905–912.

Goldstein

, & Khan

(1985). Income and price effects in foreign trade. In R. Jones, & R. Kene (Eds.), Handbook of international economics , Vol. 2 (pp. 1041–1105). Elsevier Science Publications.

Hausmann

, Hwang

, & Rodrick

(2007). What you export matters. Journal of Economic Growth , 12(1), 1–25.

Kao

C. D.

(1999). Spurious regression and residual based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics , 90(1), 1–44.

Kao

C. D.

, & Chiang

M. H.

(2000). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in Econometrics , 15, 179–222.

Kato

(2015). Effects of exchange rate changes on East Asian technology intensive exports. The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development , 24(6), 809–821.

10.

Kwan

C. H.

(2002). The rise of China and Asia’s flying geese pattern of economics development: An empirical analysis based on US import statistics (RIETI Discussion Paper, 02-E-009). Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry.

11.

Mark

N. C.

, & Sul

(1999). A computationally simple cointegration vector for panel data . Mimeo.

12.

Mohamad

, Nair

, & Jusoff

(2009). Exchange rates and competitiveness in selected ASEAN economies. International Business Research , 2(2), 156–166.

13.

Thorbecke

(2015). Measuring the competitiveness of China’s processed exports. China and the World Economy , 23(1), 78–100.

14.

Thorbecke

, & Kato

(2012). The effect of exchange rate changes on Japanese consumption exports. Japan and the World Economy , 24(1), 64–71.

15.

Thorbecke

, & Kato

(2018). Exchange rates and the Swiss economy. Journal of Policy Modeling , 40(6), 1182–1199.

16.

Wilson

, & Stupnytska

(2007). Goldman Sachs (Global Economic Paper, No. 153).