AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND : POTENTIAL IMPACT ON ASEAN GROWTH
By Phạm Hữu Tài, Scott H. Murray
Discipline of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Information Sciences & Engineering,
University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Email: tai.pham@canberra.edu.au
Work phone: +61 2 6201-2329
Work fax: +61 2 6201-5231
Cell phone: +61433613330
Short title: Australia and NZ impact on ASEAN growth
Abstract:
This paper explains important roles that could be played by Australia and New Zealand in the
economic development of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Data and a
comparative framework are used to analyze and evaluate Australia and New Zealand’s
impact on ASEAN economic growth. Our research shows that two important roles can be
played by Australia and New Zealand: firstly as an intermediary, helping ASEAN countries
adopt and administer the rules, regulations and commitments agreed upon with the World
Trade Organization (WTO), and also assisting them to build and implement FTAs with other
countries within the WTO; and secondly as a major trading partner supporting ASEAN in its
high and sustained economic growth.
Keywords: globalization, WTO, ASEAN, free trade agreement, regional trade arrangement,
growth, intermediary, major dialogue partner, major trade partner.
Acknowledgements:
Parts of this paper are based on a talk given by the first author at the Summer Conference at
the National University of Singapore in 2011 with the title: “The Challenges Facing Vietnam
and the ASEAN Countries”.
1
Introduction
The nations of South East Asia formed ASEAN with the initial objective of promoting
regional peace and security (Yue, 2011). The founding members in 1967 were Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei joined in 1984, Vietnam in 1995,
Laos and Burma in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999 (ASEAN, 2012). The first economic
cooperation scheme was the ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangement in 1977; the ASEAN
Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1992 further increased economic integration between the
members of ASEAN. Since then, the members of ASEAN have committed themselves to
create a single market by 2020, to be called the ASEAN Economic Community (ASEAN,
2003).
In addition, the ASEAN region has seen a wave of free trade agreements in recent years,
especially focusing on the trade relation between ASEAN and its five major dialogue partners
(DPs), namely Australia and New Zealand1, China, South Korea, India, and Japan (Sen and
Das, 2007). According to the Asia Regional Integration Center’s data (ADB, 2012), ASEAN
countries have signed 37 FTAs, with another 48 under negotiation or consultation. ASEAN
itself is signatory to five FTAs with dialogue partners (see below), and is negotiating the
ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement. A Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia
and an ASEAN-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement are under consultation and study.
According the Midterm Review of the Hanoi Plan of Action (ASEAN, 2010), ASEAN is
often not in compliance with its commitments to promote liberalization and cooperation, or to
pass new legislation and change existing legislation. Thus, it is important for ASEAN to have
major dialogue partners who can be active intermediaries between ASEAN and the WTO in
administering WTO rules and regulations.
We have collected and analyzed data showing that Australia and New Zealand already has
considerable positive effects on economic growth in ASEAN. This paper gives an overview
of the interaction between three factors: globalization, the World Trade Organization (WTO,
2012), and free trade agreements (FTAs) or regional trade arrangements (RTAs). We explain
1
We usually consider Australia and New Zealand as a single economic entity due to their common market, the
Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) (Scollay, Findlay, & Kaufmann, 2010).
2
how Australia and New Zealand could be the most effective intermediaries between ASEAN
and WTO. We also explain that Australia and New Zealand already play an important role in
the high and sustained growth of ASEAN. We will conclude with three recommendations
related to the development of human resources and the consolidation of coordination and
commitments within the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANFTA).
The relationship between globalization, the WTO, and ASEAN’s FTAs
Before examining the partnership role of intermediaries between ASEAN and WTO, it is
necessary to consider interactions between three factors: the globalization of the world
economy, the WTO, and FTAs or RTAs.
Globalization can be defined as the decline in costs of doing business across international
borders (Anderson, 2001). Indeed, history proves that, along with three technological
revolutions2, reforms in foreign trade policy and cuts in tariffs in particular have produced
remarkable results in reducing the costs of trading between countries (O`Rourke and
Williamson, 1999). Globalization improves not just overall prosperity but also distributional
outcomes, which makes the free-trade argument morally compelling as well (Bhagwati,
2011)
International economic organizations, especially the WTO, have contributed a lot to
globalization by achieving preset objectives for lowering tariffs, by administering impartial
regulations for trade, and by providing a mechanism for dealing with trade disputes
(Anderson, 2001). These rules and mechanisms are crucial to reducing transaction costs and,
without the WTO, full global engagement would not have been realized (Lawrence, 2007).
FTAs or RTAs are intermediate steps towards the realization of globalization without
violating the rules and the regulations of WTO (Brotosusilo, 2010). An FTA is a commitment
by members to remove trade barriers such as tariffs and import quotas between themselves.
FTAs are allowed by the WTO as an exception to the general most favoured nation treatment
2
There have been three technological revolutions. The first one happened with the use of steam engines, steel
hulled ships, and the telegraph in the 19th century. The second one occurred in the 20th century with the mass
production of means of transport and containerization. The third and current revolution in transport and
communications technology, beginning towards the end of the 20th century, is digital. All three revolutions
reduced transport and communication costs.
3
prescribed in Article 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)3. An FTA
must meet by the following three criteria (Urata, 2002):
1. Trade barriers must not be raised higher than they were before integration
2. Trade barriers are to be abolished for substantially all trade
3. Regional integration must be completed within a reasonable length of time.
These criteria are somewhat ambiguous and so FTAs are usually used as a tool by which
governments pursue non-economic goals (Skalnes, 2001).
An RTA is a collective term for different levels of regional integration. In order from
shallowest to deepest integration (Evans et al, 2004) they are:
1. Trade preferences, which liberalize trade in specific commodities or sectors between
two countries.
2. Regional FTAs, which remove trade barriers between members.
3. Customs unions (CUs), which adopt common external tariffs for countries outside the
union.
4. Common markets, which allow the free movement of labour and capital within the
union.
FTAs can be expected to have both positive and negative effects (Viner, 1950). Trade
creation and trade diversion are the concepts used to distinguish positive and negative effects
of FTAs. Trade creation occurs when consumption shifts from a high cost producer to a low
cost producer. For example, suppose that New Zealand is the most efficient producer of lamb
and, after entering into the AANFTA, ASEAN imports lamb from New Zealand without
paying tariffs. This will lead to better prices for ASEAN’s consumers.
In contrast, trade diversion occurs when consumption shifts from a lower cost producer
outside the trading bloc to a higher cost one within it. For example, suppose that Argentina is
the most efficient producer of wine – a country has not entered into an FTA with ASEAN.
Before entering into the AANFTA, ASEAN has the same tariff rate on wine from Argentina
and Australia; it would therefore import more wine from Argentina rather than Australia.
After entering into the AANFTA, it would import more wine from Australia and this would
lead to a negative effect on ASEAN’s consumers.
3
GATT was a multilateral agreement regulating international trade. It was signed in 1948 and lasted until
1993.It was replaced by the World Trade Organization in 1995. The agreements negotiated under GATT are
now part of WTO regulations.
4
In conclusion, globalization, the WTO, and FTAs or RTAs constitute a unified dynamic
which reduces costs and supports the global prosperity.
Australia & New Zealand could be an intermediary between ASEAN and the WTO
Drawing on Robert Keohane’s work (1969), we identify two prerequisites for an economic
power to act as an effective intermediary between ASEAN and the WTO. First, it must have
close economic ties with the ASEAN countries, preferably including multilateral or bilateral
trade agreements. Second, it must have a leadership role in the WTO.
ASEAN has five major Dialogue Partners (DPs). These DPs have economic ties with
ASEAN through multilateral and bilateral agreements. ASEAN as a group and the ASEAN
countries individually are involved in 22 bilateral and seven multilateral agreements with
these DPs. Japan is implementing seven FTAs with ASEAN countries and one with ASEAN
as a group. Australia and New Zealand have entered into 3 bilateral and one multilateral.
China, India and South Korea have fewer agreements. Thus, it is clear that Japan, Australia
and New Zealand, and, to a lesser extent, China, India and South Korea all have close
economic ties with ASEAN (see Table 1). Note that the USA and the EU are not considered
as DPs, since they are not in the region and they have no current FTAs with ASEAN as a
group.
In addition, the provisions of these FTAs demonstrate the economic ties between the DPs and
ASEAN countries. According to CARIS (2011), the AANFTA is “the most comprehensive
agreement between ASEAN with a major trade partner concluded so far”. It contains
ambitious provisions for trade in services, intellectual property rights, competition and
investment, in addition to trade in goods. Australia and New Zealand have separately
concluded bilateral FTAs with three ASEAN countries: Malaysia with New Zealand, and
Singapore and Thailand with both. The Australia-Singapore FTA and the New ZealandSingapore FTA (in force since 2003 and 2001, respectively) are the most comprehensive
FTAs signed by ASEAN members with DPs and in particular they cover complete
elimination of all tariffs (CARIS, 2011)
Early participation in the WTO is an important factor to identify a good intermediary.
Australian, New Zealand, and India have participated in international trade organizations
since the 1940s. They were among the first 23 signatories of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1955, 1967 and 2001 respectively, Japan, South Korea, and
China were slower to join the WTO (see Table 2). Hence Australia, New Zealand, and India
5
are among countries that helped to build the international legal framework for the world
trading system. By participating early, they became leaders in the GATT/WTO legal
framework.
The leadership role of DPs in the WTO is also reflected by the nationality of the individuals
that have served on dispute settlement panels of the WTO. These panelists are well-qualified
individuals who were nominated by the Secretariat to settle disputes. Table 2 provides data
on the number of panelists from the different DPs from 1995 to 2006. A striking feature is
that individuals originating in Australia and New Zealand have appeared as panelists 73
times, while India, Japan, and South Korea have had 27, 12, and 11, respectively. China has
had no panelists. This reflects the important leadership role of Australia and New Zealand in
the WTO.
Australia is also a leader of the Cairns Group in the WTO (Cairns, 2011). The Cairns Group
is a coalition of 19 agricultural exporting countries committed to reforming trade in
agricultural produce. This group accounts for 25% of the world’s agricultural exports, and
this quantitative dominance allows it to put agriculture onto the agenda of multilateral trading
negotiations as well as general reforms in agricultural trading. Japan is in the Quad Group
along with the USA, the European Union, and Canada. The remaining DPs (China, India, and
South Korea) do not play any such prominent role in the WTO.
In summary, India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand satisfy the prerequisites as
intermediaries for the ASEAN countries in administering WTO rules, thereby accelerating
their economic integration.
Australian and New Zealand are important partners for ASEAN in sustaining high
economic growth
In addition to their role as intermediaries, Australia and New Zealand are also important trade
partners that contribute directly to ASEAN economic growth. Two fundamental questions
should be considered when examining the economic effects of an FTA. The first is whether
the two economies are complementary or competitive. The second is whether the agreement
increases production, investment, and employment (CIE, 2008). The Index Method4 measures
4
There are six indexes: Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantage, Bilateral Trade Intensity, Trade
Specialization, Intra-Industry Trade, Inter-Industry Trade and Trade Complementarity
6
the degree to which two economies are complementary or competitive. Computable General
Equilibrium (CGE) models5 measure changes in production, investment, and employment for
each sector of the economy (CIE, 2008).
Several economists, such as Srivastava and Rajan (2004), Sally and Sen (2005), and Skulska
(2010) argue that an increased index of revealed symmetric comparative advantage is a basic
indicator determining whether the two economies compete against or complement each other.
For example, two economies that export similar products to the same markets are considered
as competing economies even if their bilateral trade is increasing. They claim that an
increased index of bilateral trade in a developing economy is usually caused by rises in
export of raw materials or unprocessed products. On the other hand, a similar increase in a
developed economy usually originates from exports competing against products from
developing economies. Thus, the two economies in question are by nature competing
regardless of their increased bilateral trade intensity, trade specialization, intra-industry trade,
or inter-industry trade.
Although this view has some merit, we believe that an FTA can often increase production,
investment, and employment in the two economies, even if they are competing (see, for
example, Okamoto, 2010). Okamoto also argues that a poor competitive edge drives
developing economies to increase bilateral trade by raising intra-industry trade. That is, by
exporting more raw materials or unprocessed products. He points out imports from developed
economies will incorporate immediate products supplied by the developing economy, and so
increase production, investment, and employment for the latter.
Thus, the first view tends to use indexes to determine whether the two economies compete
against or complement each other. This viewpoint would recommend increased free trade
commitments for complementary economies, but limiting cooperation between competing
economies. The second viewpoint implies that the key factor in designing FTAs is the overall
increase in production, investment and employment that results
In light of this debate, we now consider on trading relationships between the ASEAN and its
DPs
5
A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model describes a wide range of economic behaviors by driving
the economy into sectors, and modeling their interactions.
7
Australia and New Zealand
A study by the Australian Center for International Economics (CIE, 2004, 2008, 2009)
concludes that the two economies are complementary to the ASEAN economy. We expect
that the New Zealand economy is similarly complementary, but such a detailed analysis is not
available in this case. The CIE observed the following outstanding features:

Both economies have the USA, Japan, and China as major trading partners but their
exports and imports do not compete in these markets.

Bilateral trade is mostly inter-industry, while the intra-industry trade is very small.

Their CGE models show increases in production, investment and employment under
reasonable assumptions. These increases are greater for ASEAN that for Australia.
China
Srivastava and Rajan (2004) and Sally and Sen (2005) note that:

ASEAN and China are competing economies, particularly in exports. China competes
with ASEAN countries in manufactured goods, and in the assembly of parts and
components for capital goods. For example, China competes against Malaysia for
markets in data processors, telecommunication equipment and electric appliances;
against Thailand in clothing, household goods and electric appliances; and against
Indonesia in furniture. This has caused major shifts in the structure of the international
goods trade, with China expanding production and exports at the expense of the
ASEAN countries.

China complements ASEAN in the intermediate goods used in manufacturing, which
China imports in large quantities from ASEAN. However, a significant amount of
Foreign Direct Investment has been rerouted from ASEAN Countries to China for
intermediate input production (Chanda and Gopalan, 2008).

The CGE model constructed by Park & Estrada (2008) showed positive impacts on
production gains from the ACFTA. However we believe this model is based on
incorrect assumptions, and it has not been in agreement with subsequent changes to
actual production levels since 2008.
India
Research by Srivastava and Rajan (2004), Sally and Sen (2005), Chanda and Gopalan (2008),
and Okamoto (2010) show that:
8

The two economies are largely complementary. Although both India and ASEAN
export manufacturing and processed goods, these exports are mostly not in direct
competition.

The bilateral service trade between India and ASEAN is an area of potential growth.
This is particularly evident in areas such as information and communication
technology, tourism, and transport.

Their relationship is expected to be significant in the long term but is currently limited
by the difficulty of entering the highly protected Indian market. So ASEAN countries
have few opportunities to promote inter-industry trade in goods.

No CGE model is available to estimate increases in production, investment and
employment from this relationship.
Japan
Yamazawa and Hiratsuka (2003), Heng (2008), and Gugler and Chaise (2010) show that:

Japan and ASEAN are complementary economies, with Japan producing expensive
high-end products compared with ASEAN.

Increases in the bilateral trading relationship come from intra-industry trade while
inter-industry trade is poor because of high Japanese protectionism.

A noticeable feature of the ASEAN-Japan trading relation is the flow of direct
investment from Japan to ASEAN countries.

We have been unable to find a CGE model estimating increases in production,
investment, and employment.
South Korea
Park, Park and Estrada (2008) argue that:

Although South Korea and ASEAN are competing economies, their competition is not
as fierce as that between China and ASEAN. They may become more complementary
if the AKFTA is carried out successfully.

Both inter- and intra-industry trade face imbalances in both imports and exports.
ASEAN mostly exports raw materials to South Korea, while South Korea mostly
exports finished consumer goods.

Their CGE model shows an overall increase in ASEAN’s production, investment and
employment from AKFTA, but a negative impact on some individual ASEAN
countries.
9
The above analyses show that Australia and New Zealand have the best potential trade
relationship with ASEAN among its five DPs.
Recommendations and conclusion
We make the following recommendations:

Australia and New Zealand are ideally placed to act as intermediaries between
ASEAN and the World Trade Organization. Taking this role would benefit both
parties, and would align with Australia’s aid priorities (AID, 2012; AusAID, 2012).

As part of this role as an intermediary, Australia and New Zealand should focus on
training and development of human resources in ASEAN countries, especially in
management and international commercial law. ASEAN countries should consider
Australia and New Zealand as key training centers for future leaders in this area.

As ASEAN works towards a single market in 2020, they should also continue to
strengthen their free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand.
In a future paper, we will use a CGE model to examine in more detail the impact of the
AANZFTA on the economy of Vietnam. We will focus particularly on the impact of
Australia and New Zealand on the restructuring of the Vietnamese economy to deal with the
challenges presented by globalization.
In conclusion, Australia and New Zealand are major trade partners for ASEAN, and so
contribute directly to high and sustained economic growth in the region. But they could play
a larger role in developing the international trading capacity of ASEAN countries by acting as
an intermediary with the WTO.
10
References
ADB.2012. Free Trade Agreements in Asia. http://aric.adb.org/FTAbyGroup.php (accessed
September 20, 2012).
AID, New Zealand. 2012. New Zealand Aid Programme. http://www.aid.govt.nz/ (accessed
October 28, 2012).
Anderson, Kym. 2001. Globalization, WTO and ASEAN.
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/papers/0104.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).
ASEAN. 2003. Declaration on the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.
http://www.aseansec.org/A7F632E4-A8C1-466A-AA8AC5696155FD9F/FinalDownload/DownloadId27C81AF43D8D69EDC0F864321B730F17/A7F632E4-A8C1-466A-AA8AC5696155FD9F/5187-10.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).
ASEAN. 2012. About ASEAN. http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm (accessed October 28, 2012).
AusAID. 2012. AusAID. http://www.ausaid.gov.au/Pages/home.aspx (accessed October 28,
2012).
Bhagwati, Jagdish. 2011. Why Free Trade Matters. http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/bhagwati14/English (accessed October 15, 2012).
Brotosusilo, Agus. 2010. WTO, Regional and Bilateral Trade Liberalization: It’s Implication
for Indonesia. http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/FC7F3CD1-7E0C-4989-AEEAA1A536F5B05D/FinalDownload/DownloadIdA7AF581C0B7340B06B384A51DD7A3734/FC7F3CD1-7E0C-4989-AEEAA1A536F5B05D/9GAdocs/w3_Indonesia.pdf (accessed January 20, 2011).
Cairns. 2011. The Cairns Group. http://cairnsgroup.org/ (accessed July 1, 2012).
Chanda, Rupa, and Gopalan, Sasidaran (Eds.). 2008. Understanding India's Regional
Initiatives within Asia. Institute of South Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore.
CIE. 2004. The Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement: econmic effects.
http://ise.canberra.edu.au/taipham/files/2012/08/TAFTA-economic-effects-CIE.pdf
(accessed September 15, 2012).
CIE. 2008. Economic Modelling for an Australia-India FTA Feasibility Study.
http://ise.canberra.edu.au/taipham/files/2012/08/AusIndia_FTA.pdf (accessed
September 15, 2012).
CIE. 2009. Estimating the impact of an Australia- Indonesia trade and investment agreement.
http://ise.canberra.edu.au/taipham/files/2012/08/aus-indon_fta_cie.pdf (accessed
September 15, 2012).
Evans, David; Holmes, Peter; Iacovone, Leonardo; and Robinson, Sherman. 2004. A
Framework for Evaluating Regional Trade Agreements: Deep Integration and New
Regionalism. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/PRU/tradelib_firms_Robinson.pdf
(accessed September 15, 2012).
GATT.Chapter 1: most-favoured-nation treatment principle.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gCT9901e.html (accessed September 15,
2012).
Gugler, Philippe, and Chaisse, Julien (Eds.). 2010. Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries:
Corporate and Regulatory Drivers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, UK.
Heng, Mun Toh. 2008. Relationship between the AJCEP and Japan’s Bilateral EPAs with
ASEAN Countries. http:// www.asean.org/aadcp/repsf/docs/05-002-FinalReport.pdf
(accessed July 1, 2011).
Horn, Henrik, and Mavroidis, C. Petros. 2008. The WTO Dispute Settlement System 19952006: Some Descriptive Statistics.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRES/Resources/4692321107449512766/DescriptiveStatistics_031408.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).
11
Keohane, R. O. 1969. Lilliputians' dilemmas: Small states in international politic.
International Organization 23(2), 291-310.
Lawrence, Z. Robert. 2007. The United States and the WTO Dispute Settlement System.
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/WTO_CSR25.pdf (accessed July 1,
2012).
Leebouapao, Leebeer; Insisienmay, Sthabandith; and Nolintha, Vanthana. 2012. ASEAN–
China Free Trade Area and the Competitiveness of Local Industries: A Case Study of
Major Industries in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. no.98.
http://aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP98_Leebouapao_et_al_ASEANChina_Free_Trade_Area.pdf (accessed October 20, 2012).
O`Rourke, H Kevin , and Williamson, G Jeffrey (Eds.). 1999. “Transport Revolution and
Commodity Market Integration.” In Globalization and History: The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.
Okamoto, Yumiko. 2010.Challenges and Opportunities for ASEAN from Japanese
Perspective. http://www.eco.kindai.ac.jp/kansai48/paper2.3.pdf (accessed July 1,
2011).
Park, Donghyun; Park, Innwon; and Estrada, B. Gemme Esther. 2008. Is the ASEAN-Korea
Free Trade Area (AKFTA ) an Optimal Free Trade Area.
http://216.109.65.20/documents/papers/regional-economic-integration/WP21ASEAN-Korea-FTA.pdf (accessed July 1, 2011).
Sally, Razeen , and Sen, Rahul 2005. Whither Trade Policies in Southeast Asia? The Wider
Asian and Global Context.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asean_economic_bulletin/summary/v022/22.1.sally01.ht
ml (accessed July 1, 2011).
Scollay, Robert; Findlay, Christopher Charles; and Kaufmann, Uwe. 2010. Australia New
Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) and Regional
Integration. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore.
Sen, Rahul, and Das, Basu Sanchita. 2007. Brick by Brick: The Buiding of an ASEAN
Economic Community. Institute of Southest Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singpapore.
Skalnes, S. Lars. 2001. Politics, Markets, and Grand Strategy: Foreign Economic Policies as
Strategic Instruments. University of Michigan Press, USA.
Skulska, Drelich Boguslawa. 2010. Economic Effects of the Integration process of China with
ASEAN Countries. http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/2011/aprilnewcastle/papers/Skulska.pdf (accessed october 1, 2012).
Srivastava, Sadhana, and Rajan, S. Ramkishen. 2004. What Does the Economic Rise of China
Imply for ASEAN and India?: Focus on Trade and Investment Flows.
http://www.freewebs.com/rrajan01/Keha_ch09.pdf (accessed July 1, 2011).
Urata, Shujiro. 2002. Globalization and the Growth in Free Trade Agreements.
www.wright.edu/~tdung/Globalization_and_FTA.pdf - United States (accessed July
1, 2011).
Viner, Jacob. 1950. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endownment for
International Peace.
WTO. 2012. What is the WTO?. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm
(accessed September 15, 2012).
Yamazawa, Ippei , and Hiratsuka, Daisuke (Eds.). 2003. ASEAN- Japan Competitive
Strategy: Papers and Proceedings of the International Sumposium 'Toward ASEANJapan Comprehensive Economic Partnership'. Institute of Developing Economies,
Chiba -Japan
Yue, Siow Chia. 2011. Association of Southeast Asian Nations Economic Integration:
Developments and Challenges. 6(1), 43-63.
12
Tables
Table 1: Bilateral and Multilateral FTAs with ASEAN.
Japan
Australia and New Zealand
Bilateral FTAs with ASEAN
Multilateral FTA with
countries
ASEAN as a group
7 (Brunei, Indonesia,
ASEAN - Japan in
Malaysia, Philippines,
Agreement on
Singapore, Thailand ,
Comprehensive Economic
Vietnam)
Partnership (AJCEP)
3 (Malaysia, Singapore,
ASEAN-Australia-New
Thailand)
Zealand Free Trade
Agreement (AANFTA)
China
2 (Singapore, Thailand)
ASEAN-China Free Trade
Agreement (ACFTA)
India
2 (Malaysia, Singapore)
ASEAN-India Free Trade
Agreement (AIFTA)
South Korea
1 (Singapore)
ASEAN- Korea Free Trade
Agreement (AKFTA)
Source: Asia Regional Integration Center
Table 2: Date of joining GATT/WTO and number of WTO dispute panelists for each of
ASEAN’s dialogue partners
Australia
New
India
Japan
Zealand
Date of joining
1 Jan 1948
GATT/WTO
Number of
30 July
China
Korea
8 July1948
1948
28
South
45
27
dispute
panelists
Source: WTO & World Bank (Horn, 2008)
13
10 Sep
14 April
11 Dec
1955
1967
2001
12
11
0