Issue's contents
russian version
previous article Regionalistica 2019 Volume 6 number 3 pages 66-79 next article

Title of the article The Assessment of Trade Barriers within Prospective Integration Unions in the Asia-Pacific Region
Pages 66-79
Author Tomilov Mikhail VladimirovichTomilov Mikhail Vladimirovich
junior researcher
Economic Research Institute FEB RAS
153, Tikhookeanskaya Street, Khabarovsk, Russia, 680042
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract The article represents the assessment of interregional trade barriers within integration unions in the Asia-Pacific region made by APR trade gravitation model construction and the estimation of border effect based on it. As a result it is concluded that considered blocs (The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) have a small potential in terms of possible effects for their participants after reducing trade barriers within these groups. In order to achieve some tangible effects the agreements on the establishment of considered unions should be qualitatively different from existing bilateral and multilateral trade formats.
Code 339.92+339.54
DOI 10.14530/reg.2019.3.66
Keywords trade integration ♦ trade barriers ♦ gravitation model ♦ border effect ♦ APR ♦ CPTPP ♦ RCEP
Download 2019-03.66.pdf
For citation Tomilov M.V. The Assessment of Trade Barriers within Prospective Integration Unions in the Asia-Pacific Region. Regionalistica [Regionalistics]. 2019. Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp. 66–79. DOI: 10.14530/reg.2019.3.66. (In Russian).
References 1. Izotov D.A. Integration Processes in the Аsia-Рacific Region: Dynamic and Structural Changes. Izvestiya Dalnevostochnogo federalnogo universiteta. Economika i upravleniye [Far Eastern Federal University Bulletin. Economics and Management]. 2016. No. 3. Pp. 86–100. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.163479. (In Russian).
2. Kostyunina G.M. Integration Models of East Asian Community Formation. Rossiyskiy vneshneekonomicheskiy vestnik [Russian Foreign-Economic Bulletin]. 2015. No. 5. Pp. 33–48. (in Russian)
3. Potapov M.A. Economic Integration in the Asia-Pacific: in Search of Model. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations]. 2017. Vol. 61. No. 11. Pp. 57–65. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-11-57-65. (In Russian).
4. Tomilov M.V. Institutional Change within Trans-Pacific Partnership. In: Territorial Studies: Goals, Results and Perspectives. Theses of IX Russian Scientific Conference of Young Researches, Birobidzhan, October 3–4, 2017. Ed. by Ye.Ya. Frisman, N.G. Bazhenova, D.M. Fetisov, M.Yu. Havinson, A.V. Dosova. Birobidzhan, 2017. Pp. 96–99. (In Russian)
5. Tomilov M.V. Configuration of Free Trade Zones in the Asia-Pacific Region: Comparison of Integration Potentials. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika = Spatial Economics. 2019. Vol. 15. No. 1. Pp. 84–106. DOI: 10.14530/se.2019.1.084-106. (In Russian).
6. Tomilov M.V. Agriculture Regulation within Trans-Pacific Partnership. In: Young Researches to Khabarovskiy Kray: Theses of XIX Regional Competition of Young Researches and Postgraduates, Khabarovsk, January 13–20, 2017. Khabarovsk, 2017. Pp. 37–42. (In Russian)
7. Shumilov A.V. Estimating Gravity Models of International Trade: A Survey of Methods. Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal VShE [HSE Economic Journal]. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 2. Pp. 224–250. (In Russian)
8. Anderson J.E., van Wincoop E. Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review. 2003. Vol. 93. No. 1. Рp. 170–192. DOI: 10.1257/000282803321455214
9. Baldwin R., Taglioni D. Trade Effects of the Euro: A Comparison of Estimators. Journal of Economic Integration. 2007. Vol. 22. No. 4. Рp. 780–818. DOI: 10.11130/jei.2007.22.4.780
10. Balistreri E.J., Hillberry R.H. Structural Estimation and the Border Puzzle. Journal of International Economics. 2007. Vol. 72. No. 2. Pp. 451–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2007.01.001
11. Cimino-Isaacs C., Schott J.J. Trans-Pacific Partnership: An Assessment. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2016. 369 p.
12. Coughlin C., Novy D. Estimating Border Effects: The Impact of Spatial Aggregation. CEPR Discussion Papers. 2016. No. 11226. 57 p. DOI: 10.20955/wp.2016.006
13. Coughlin C., Novy D. Is the International Border Effect Larger than the Domestic Border Effect? Evidence from U.S. Trade. CESifo Economic Studies. 2013. No. 59. Pp. 249–276. DOI: 10.1093/cesifo/ifs002
14. Evans C. Border Effects and the Availability of Domestic Products Abroad. Canadian Journal of Economics. 2006. Vol. 39. No. 1. Pp. 211–246. DOI: 10.1111/j.0008-4085.2006.00345.x
15. Evans C. The Economic Significance of National Border Effects. American Economic Review. 2003. Vol. 93. No. 4. Pp. 1291–1312. DOI: 10.1257/000282803769206304
16. Fergusson I.F., McMinimy M.A., Williams B.R. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): In Brief. Available at: (accessed 10 December 2018).
17. Fergusson I.F., Williams B.R. TPP Countries near Agreement without U.S. Participation. Available at: (accessed 10 December 2018).
18. Gorodnichenko Y., Tesar L. Border Effect or Country Effect? Seattle May Not Be So Far from Vancouver After All. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. 2009. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 219–241. DOI: 10.1257/mac.1.1.219
19. Havranek T., Irsova Z. Do Borders Really Slash Trade? A Meta-Analysis. IMF Economic Review. 2017. Vol. 65. No. 2. Pp. 365–396. DOI: 10.1057/s41308-016-0001-5
20. Head K., Mayer T. Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade. CEPII Working Paper. 2002. No. 1. 32 p.
21. Helliwell J.F. National Borders, Trade, and Migration. Pacific Economic Review. 1997. Vol. 2. No. 3. Рp. 165–185. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0106.00032
22. Helliwell J. Do National Borders Matter for Quebec’s Trade? Canadian Journal of Economics 1996. Vol. 29. No. 3. Pp. 507–522.
23. Helliwell J., Schembri L. Borders, Common Currencies, Trade, and Welfare: What Can We Learn From the Evidence? Bank of Canada Review. 2005. Spring. Pp. 19–33.
24. Helliwell J., Verdier G. Measuring Internal Trade Distances: A New Method Applied to Estimate Provincial Border Effects in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics. 2001. Vol. 34. No. 4. Pp. 1024–1041. DOI: 10.1111/0008-4085.00111
25. Magerman G., Studnicka Z., Van Hove J. Distance and Border Effects in International Trade: A Comparison of Estimation Methods. Available at: economics/discussionpapers/2015-69 (accessed 10 December 2018).
26. McCallum J. National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns. American Economic Review. 1995. Vol. 85. No. 3. Рp. 615–623.
27. Nitsch V. National Borders and International Trade: Evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics. 2000. Vol. 33. No. 4. Pp. 1091–1105. DOI: 10.1111/0008-4085.00055
28. Obstfeld M., Rogoff K. The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause? NBER Macroeconomics Annual. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 1. Pp. 339–390. DOI: 10.1086/654423
29. Sanchita B.D. RCEP and TPP: Comparisons and Concerns. ISEAS Perspective. 2013. No. 2. Pp. 202–213.
30. Schott J., Cimino-Isaacs C., Jung E. Implication of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for the World Trading System. Available at: (accessed 10 December 2018).
31. Toshihiro O. The Border Effect in the Japanese Market: A Gravity Model Analysis. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 2004. Vol. 18. No. 1. Pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-1583(03)00047-9
32. Wei S. Intra-National Versus International Trade: How Stubborn are Nations in Global Integration? NBER Working Paper. № 5531. DOI: 10.3386/w5531
33. Wolf H. Patterns of Intra- and Inter-State Trade. NBER Working Paper. № 5939. DOI: 10.3386/w5939
34. Zhu H., Gu H. China-US Border Effect of Agricultural Trade Using Gravity Model. Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture II. 2009. Vol. 2. Pp. 891–900. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0211-5_12


Лицензия Creative Commons
Если не указано другое, контент этого сайта доступен по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.