An Analysis of Interaction Effects of China–South Korea and China– Australia FTAs and the Expanding TPP

Sun Yuhong 1 , Mu Yifei 1 , and Jun Yang 2
  • 1 Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, College of International Economics & Trade, China
  • 2 University of International Business and Economics, China


On 5 October 2015, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) led by the U.S. was signed. Already, 12 countries1 have joined the agreement, but China has not. Thus, lots of research has focused on the negative effect of the TPP on China’s foreign trade. On the other hand, China is moving forward in its own efforts to establish bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) and free trade zones. In June 2015, China-South Korea and China-Australia signed bilateral FTAs which went into effect in December 2015. Several questions were raised: Since South Korea and Australia are the major trade partners in the Pacific area and the bilateral FTAs will be effective before the TPP, will these FTAs’ positive effects on China’s foreign trade offset some of the negative effects of the TPP? If China and the U.S. adopted a competitive trade policy, which countries would benefit? If China and the U.S. adopted a cooperative trade policy, how would the trade value and economic welfare change? This paper simulates and analyses the mutual effects of China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs and the enlarging TPP using the computable general equilibrium model. The major conclusions drawn suggest that China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs will significantly offset the TPP’s negative effect on China’s foreign trade. If China is not included, the U.S. economic benefit from the TPP will be limited. The economic welfare for a country like Australia, which joined both the bilateral FTA and the TPP, will be increased the most. In the long run, China joining the TPP would be the most beneficial decision for its national interest. However, if the TPP cannot be approved by the US congress, the U.S.’s economic indicators and export would be decreasing sharply. China’s economy and export will benefit from FTAs.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aslan, B., Mavus, M., & Oduncu, A. (2014). The possible effects of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trans-Pacific Partnership on Chinese economy. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper No. 53431. Retreived from

  • Cao, L., Jiang, H., & Chen, X. (2013). Research on the trade creation and trade transfer effect of CAFTA. Macroeconomics, 6, 29-34.

  • Cheong, I., & Tongzon, J. (2013). Comparing the economic impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Asian Economic Papers, 12(2), 144-164.

  • Hertel, T. (1997). Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications. New York: Cambridge University.

  • Hertel, T. W., & Tsigas, M. E. (n.d.). Structure of GTAP. Retrieved from

  • Huang, P., & Wang, J. (2010). The effects of China and South Korea FTA and negotiation options based on the analysis of the GTAP model. World Economy Study, 6(196) 81-86.

  • Liu, P. (2014). The economic effect of China and South Korea free trade area under the TPP background: Based on the simulation analysis of GTAP model. Asia-Pacific Economic Review, 5, 20-25.

  • Petri, P. A., Plummer, M. G., & Zhai, F. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A quantitative assessment. East-West Center Working Papers, Economic Series No. 119. Retrieved from

  • Lu, S. (2013) potential impact of the Pan Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement on China's textile and apparel exports: Based on the evaluation of the general equilibrium model. World Economy Study, 11(237), 20-25.

  • Todsadee, A., Kameyama, H., Ito, S., & Yamauchi, K. (2012). Trans Pacific strategic economic partnership with Japan, South Korea and China integrated: General equilibrium approach. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 4(1), 40-46.

  • Todsadee, A., Kameyama, H., & Lutes, P. (2012). The implications of trade liberalization on TPP countries’ livestock product sector. Technical Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture of Kagawa University., 64, 1-6.

  • Wan, L. (2011). The American strategy in the TPP economic effect research-Based on the GTAP simulation analysis. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 4, 64-73.

  • Wang, L. (2013). The re analysis of the economic effects of the free trade agreement between China and South Korea: Based on the research of GTAP model. International Business Research, 34(193), 68-77.

  • Wang, W., & Zheng, Y. (2013). The influence of China and South Korea FTA on agricultural products trade: Based on the research of GTAP model. Journal of Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, 26(2), 74-79.

  • Wei, W. (2010). On the feasibility and economic effects of China and South Korea FTA. Forecasting, 29(1), 76-80.

  • Wei, W. C. (2009). The expected macroeconomic effects of China and South Korea FTA-Analysis based on dynamic GTAP model. Shangdong Economy, 134(5), 127-130.

  • Yang, J., Huang, J., & Chou, H. (2005). The establishment of China and Australia free trade area of economic impact analysis and policy recommendations. International Trade Journal, 11, 65-70.

  • Yang, L., & Lu, S. (2013). The TPP and FTA among China, Japan and South Korea economic impact of GTAP simulation analysis. Northeast Asia Forum, 4(108), 39-47.

  • Zhao, J. (2008). Prediction and analysis: Economic effectiveness of China South Korea free trade area. Collected Papers for Korea Studies, 2, 180-195.

  • Zhao, J. (2012). The motivation of the United States TPP strategy and its impact on the economic integration of Northeast Asia. Northeast Asia Forum, 6(104), 18-26.

  • Zhao, Y. (2012). An empirical study on the trade effect of TPP based on the GTAP model in the United States. Commercial Times, 4, 56-57.

  • Zhou, S., Wu, Q., Hu, B., & Cui, Q. (2006). China-Australia free trade area of the construction of economic impact analysis. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 6, 19-23.


Journal + Issues