Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries:
Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
February 8, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42344
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Summary
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) currently
under negotiation between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the
United States, and Vietnam. The negotiating partners have expressed an interest in allowing this
proposed “living agreement” to cover new trade topics and to include new members that are
willing to adopt the proposed agreement’s high standards. To that end, Canada, Japan, and
Mexico recently stated that they would seek consultations with the partner countries about the
possibility of joining the negotiations.
The TPP negotiations are of significant interest to Congress. Congressional involvement includes
consultations with U.S. negotiators on and oversight of the details of the negotiations, and
eventual consideration of legislation to implement the final trade agreement. In assessing the TPP
negotiations, Members may be interested in understanding the potential economic impact and
significance of TPP and the economic characteristics of the other TPP countries as they evaluate
the potential impact of the proposed TPP on the U.S. economy and the commercial opportunities
for expansion into TPP markets.
This report provides a comparative economic analysis of the TPP countries and their economic
relations with the United States. It suggests that the TPP negotiating partners encompass great
diversity in population, economic development, and trade and investment patterns with the United
States. This economic diversity and inclusion of fast-growing emerging markets presents both
opportunities and challenges for the United States in achieving a comprehensive and high
standard regional FTA among TPP countries.
The proposed TPP and its potential expansion are important due to the economic significance of
the Asia-Pacific region for both the United States and the world. The region is home to 40% of
the world’s population, produces over 50% of global GDP, and includes some of the fastest
growing economies in the world. While current TPP negotiating partners made up about 5% of
U.S. trade in 2010, Asia-Pacific economies as a whole, made up over 60%.
The United States is the largest TPP market in terms of both GDP and population. In 2010, non-
U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $2.3 trillion, 16% of the U.S. level, and a population
of 195 million, 63% of the U.S. level. Entry of Canada, Japan, and/or Mexico would increase the
economic significance of the agreement on both these metrics. Among the TPP partners, the
majority of overall U.S. trade and investment flows are with Australia and Singapore. In
merchandise trade, however, the United States imports more from Malaysia than any other TPP
country. Considering the TPP region collectively, over 25% of all U.S.-TPP imports and exports
are in computers/electronic components. At the bilateral level, top U.S. exports are largely in the
same major product categories, but top U.S. imports vary considerably by country.
There are four U.S. bilateral FTAs in place with current TPP partners: Australia, Chile, Peru, and
Singapore. All other TPP partners except Peru, have agreements in place with five or more of the
other TPP partners. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Brunei,
Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are members, accounts for much of this existing
interconnectedness. Moreover, ASEAN agreements with larger regional economies (e.g., China,
Japan, and Korea), present a second possible avenue for Asia-Pacific economic integration, albeit
one that currently excludes the United States.
Congressional Research Service
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Economic Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2
Asia-Pacific Region................................................................................................................... 2
TPP Countries............................................................................................................................ 4
Potential New TPP Participants................................................................................................. 7
Japan.................................................................................................................................... 7
Canada and Mexico............................................................................................................. 7
Existing Trade and Economic Agreements...................................................................................... 8
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)............................................................................ 9
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)................................................................... 9
Free Trade Agreements............................................................................................................ 10
U.S. FTAs and TPP ........................................................................................................... 11
Bilateral Investment Treaties ................................................................................................... 12
Trade, Investment, and Tariff Patterns........................................................................................... 13
U.S.-TPP Trade........................................................................................................................ 13
Merchandise Trade ............................................................................................................ 13
Services Trade ................................................................................................................... 17
Intra-TPP Trade ....................................................................................................................... 21
World-TPP Trade..................................................................................................................... 23
Investment Patterns ................................................................................................................. 25
Tariff Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 27
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Figures
Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. U.S. and TPP Average GDP Growth Rates....................................................................... 6
Figure 3. U.S. -TPP Trade and Investment Flows ........................................................................... 6
Figure 4. U.S. Merchandise Trade ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Existing Trade Agreements among TPP Members......................................................... 11
Figure 6. U.S. Trade with Current FTA Partners and TPP Countries............................................. 12
Figure 7. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Exports to TPP Countries................................................... 14
Figure 8. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Imports from TPP Countries .............................................. 14
Figure 9. Total U.S Merchandise Imports from and Exports to TPP Countries............................. 15
Figure 10. Bilateral U.S. Services Exports to Select TPP Countries ............................................. 18
Figure 11. Bilateral U.S. Services Imports from Select TPP Countries......................................... 18
Figure 12. Total U.S. Services Exports to Select TPP Countries................................................... 18
Figure 13. Total U.S. Services Imports from Select TPP Countries .............................................. 18
Figure 14. Bilateral U.S. Services Exports to Select TPP Countries, by Category........................ 19
Congressional Research Service
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 15. Bilateral U.S Services Imports from Select TPP Countries, by Category.................... 19
Figure 16. Services to TPP Countries and Japan through MOFAs of U.S. MNCs ........................ 20
Figure 17. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships............................................................. 22
Figure 18. Source of Merchandise Imports for non-U.S. TPP Countries ...................................... 24
Figure 19. Destination of Merchandise Exports for non-U.S. TPP Countries ............................... 24
Figure 20. Merchandise Imports into Singapore............................................................................ 25
Figure 21. Merchandise Imports into Australia ............................................................................. 25
Figure 22. Sources of U.S. FDI from TPP Countries..................................................................... 26
Figure 23. Destination of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad to TPP Countries ................................ 26
Figure 24. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita..................................................................... 28
Figure 25. Trade-to-GDP Ratio...................................................................................................... 29
Tables
Table 1. APEC Member Economic Statistics, 2010......................................................................... 3
Table 2. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories ....................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Flows for TPP Countries ............................................ 26
Table 4. Highest Tariffs by Product Category................................................................................ 28
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries ............................................................................ 30
Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade ...................................................................................... 32
Appendixes
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 30
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Introduction1
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement (FTA) under
negotiation between the United States and eight other countries. Current negotiating partners
include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and
Vietnam. Several FTAs already exist between the negotiating countries, some of these are
bilateral and others, like the TPP, are regional.2 Canada, Japan, and Mexico have expressed
interest in possibly joining the negotiations. The proposed agreement’s ability to attract and
incorporate new members may impact the ultimate global significance of its regional platform
and the new trade rules it embodies.
Congress has a major role in the negotiation and implementation of FTAs. Throughout the
negotiating process, Congress may conduct oversight hearings and consultations with U.S. trade
negotiators, providing Members an opportunity to oversee and influence the development of the
final TPP. Any final FTA must also be implemented by Congress before it can enter into force.
The United States has a number of objectives in the proposed TPP agreement.3 These include:
• achieving a comprehensive and high standard regional FTA that eliminates and
reduces trade barriers and increases opportunities for U.S. trade and investment;
• allowing the United States to play a role in developing a broader platform for
trade liberalization, particularly throughout the Asia-Pacific region;4 and
• providing the United States with an opportunity to establish new rules on
emerging trade issues, such as regulatory coherence, supply chain management,
state-owned enterprises, and increasing trade opportunities for small- and
medium-sized businesses.5
This report focuses primarily on U.S. economic interests in the TPP agreement. It provides a
comparative economic analysis of the countries currently negotiating the TPP and describes the
U.S. trade flows with these countries at the bilateral level and in relation to the countries’
economic linkages with the rest of the world. It also provides information on the existing trade
agreements of TPP countries. As such, this report aims to serve as an introduction to the economic
relationship these countries have, both individually and collectively, with the United States.
1 For more information on the negotiations and subjects of negotiation, see CRS Report R40502, The Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement, by Ian F. Fergusson and Bruce Vaughn.
2 For basic information on the various structures of trade agreements, see CRS Report RL31356, Free Trade
Agreements: Impact on U.S. Trade and Implications for U.S. Trade Policy, by William H. Cooper.
3 This report covers economic aspects of TPP countries and does not address U.S. foreign policy interests. These are
covered in the previously mentioned CRS Report R40502, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
4 Potential TPP membership has not been expressly defined, but some see members of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) forum as the most likely candidates. For a complete list of APEC members see Table 1.
5 Letter from Ambassador Ronald Kirk, USTR, to The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, December 14, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Economic Overview
Asia-Pacific Region
The Asia-Pacific region, defined for the purposes of this report as the current members of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, has substantial global economic significance.
Among its 21 member economies, APEC includes all nine of the current TPP participants. It is
home to 40% of the world’s population and more than half of global GDP.6 Moreover, the
region’s economies are growing quickly. In 2010, over three-quarters of the economies in the
Asia-Pacific had GDP growth above the 3% level reached in the United States, and two-thirds
enjoyed growth above the world average of 5.1% (see Table 1).7 The region is significant not just
as a burgeoning market, but also as an integral part of international supply chains. The East Asian
members, in particular, are highly connected through intermediate goods trade and involve the
United States in complex production networks spanning the Pacific. In 2009, for example, 64% of
Asian non-fuel imports were in intermediate goods and over $600 billion in intermediate goods
moved between Asia and North America.8
The Asia-Pacific region represents an important source and destination for U.S. trade and
investment. Together, these economies represent over 60% of overall U.S. trade and about one-
quarter of the stock of both U.S. direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment (FDI) in
the United States. 9 Yet, there remains great potential for further U.S. economic engagement with
the region. Some U.S. policy observers argue that the United States has fallen behind in its focus
on market access abroad, particularly in emerging Asia and Latin America.10 However, the
proposed TPP, recent congressional approval of the U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and
South Korea, and the Administration’s National Export Initiative (NEI) goal of doubling exports
by 2015, suggest a continued U.S. interest in expanding U.S. economic engagement abroad.11
6 Analysis by CRS. Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Economic Outlook, September 2011.
7 Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF World Economic Outlook, September 2011.
8 World Trade Organization and Institute of Developing Economies, Trade Patterns and Global Value Chains in East
Asia: From Trade in Goods to Trade in Tasks, 2011, p. 83.
9 Analysis by CRS. Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA).
10 Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Trade and Investment Policy, Independent Task Force Report No. 67, 2011, p. 3.
11 Executive Order 13534, "National Export Initiative," March 11, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Table 1. APEC Member Economic Statistics, 2010
GDP (in billions
Real GDP
of U.S. dollars)
Population (in
Growth (in
Member
millions) GDP/Capitaa (PPP)
%)
TPP Countries
Australia
$1,237
22.2
$39,764
2.68
Brunei $12
0.4
$48,333
2.60
Chile $203
17.2
$15,040
5.19
Malaysia
$238
28.3
$14,744
7.19
New
Zealand
$141
4.4
$27,130
1.66
Peru $154
29.6
$9,358
8.79
Singapore
$223
5.2
$56,694
14.47
Vietnam
$104
88.3
$3,143
6.78
Non-U.S. TPP Total
$2,312
195.6
United
States
$14,527
310.0
$46,860
3.03
Total
$16,839
505.6
Near-Term Potential
TPP Countries
Canada
$1,577
34.1
$39,171
3.22
Japan
$5,459
127.6
$33,885
3.96
Mexico
$1,034
108.6
$14,406
5.42
Total
$8,070
270.3
Other APEC
China
$5,878
1,341.4
$7,544
10.33
Hong
Kong
$224
7.1
$45,944
6.97
Indonesia
$707
237.6
$4,347
6.11
South
Korea
$1,014
48.9
$29,997
6.16
Papua New Guinea
$10
6.5
$2,307
7.03
Philippines
$200
94.0
$3,920
7.63
Russia
$1,480
142.9
$15,612
4.00
Taiwan
$430
23.2
$35,604
10.88
Thailand
$319
63.9
$9,221
7.78
Total
$10,262
1,965.5
APEC Total
$35,171
2,741.4
Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook, September 2011.
Notes:
a. GDP/Capita figures are in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). This adjusts international GDP figures to
reflect differences in cost of living among countries. Hence, GDP figures for developing countries are
typically higher in PPP terms (see footnote 12).
Congressional Research Service
3
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
TPP Countries
The nine countries that constitute the current group of TPP participants is economically and
demographically diverse. As shown in Figure 1, the United States is much larger than the other
members in terms of its economy and population. Compared to the next closest TPP member in
each category, the United States has nearly four times as many people as Vietnam and almost 12
times the GDP of Australia. GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP), a rough measure of
a country’s level of economic development, ranges from just over $3,000 in Vietnam to over
$56,000 in Singapore, nearly $10,000 higher than that of the United States.12 These countries vary
greatly in their geography as well. They range from Australia, a large and resource-rich continent,
to Singapore, a small, trade-dependent city-state. As discussed in the final section of this report,
some of this economic and demographic diversity is reflected in both the type and intensity of
trade and investment flows between the United States and the other eight TPP countries.
A potential TPP FTA may present an opportunity for the United States to expand its trade and
investment with a large and fast-growing regional market. Excluding the United States, TPP
countries collectively represent a potential market with a population nearly two-thirds that of the
United States. Although the collective GDP of TPP countries is only a fraction of that of all APEC
economies, they have been growing rapidly relative to the United States over the past 10 years.
Figure 2 shows that during 2008-2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the average GDP
growth rate of non-U.S. TPP economies was more than 3 percentage points higher than that in the
United States. Additionally, over the past decade, U.S. exports to and investment in these
countries have increased significantly (Figure 3). U.S. exports to TPP countries nearly doubled
during this period, approaching $90 billion in goods and $30 billion in services in 2010. The
volume of U.S. direct investment flows abroad to TPP countries have varied more than exports
over the past decade, but have increased more than five-fold, surging from $8 billion in 2001 to
$45 billion in 2010.
12 GDP data at purchasing power parity (PPP) attempts to reflect differences in the cost of living among countries. This
requires comparison of the prices of goods and services in each of the countries concerned. For example, consider
Vietnam and the United States. In less developed countries, goods and services typically cost less than they do in more
highly developed countries (i.e.¸ one U.S. dollar converted to local Vietnamese currency would buy more goods and
services there than it would in the United States). Nominal GDP figures converted into U.S. dollars do not take account
of these price differences across countries. In order to account for the lower prices, Vietnam’s GDP/capita at
purchasing power parity ($3,143) is more than twice its nominal GDP/capita in U.S. dollars ($1,174), according to the
September 2011 edition of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook.
Congressional Research Service
4
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries
(trade data in billions of U.S. dollars, 2010)
Source: Analysis by CRS. FTA data from the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Population and GDP
data from IMF, World Economic Outlook, September 2011. Trade data from the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC).
Notes: Exports reflect “total exports” and imports reflect “general imports.” Data are also available based on
“domestic exports” and “imports for consumption.” The differences between these data have to do with the
treatment of goods that enter U.S. territory from abroad and are re-exported with minimal modification while in
Congressional Research Service
5
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
the United States. These re-exports can be high in particular countries. For instance, they were above 10% of
total exports to Singapore in 2010.
Figure 2. U.S. and TPP Average GDP Growth Rates
(in percent)
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
United States
TPP, Weighted Average (excluding U.S.)
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF, World Economic Outlook, September 2011.
Notes: The value for non-U.S. TPP countries was computed by taking the average of each country’s GDP
growth rate, weighted by its GDP.
Figure 3. U.S. -TPP Trade and Investment Flows
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
U.S. Direct Investment Abroad
Services Exports
Merchandise Exports
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Notes: U.S. direct investment abroad represents the annual flow of investment from the United States to TPP
countries.
Congressional Research Service
6
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Potential New TPP Participants
One of the United States’ expressed interests in the proposed TPP FTA is its potential expansion
to include other Asia-Pacific economies. Currently, Canada, Japan, and Mexico have announced
their intent to seek consultations with existing participants on the possibility of joining the
negotiations. It is unclear if and at which point these additional countries may join the current
negotiations. According to Deputy United States Trade Representative (USTR) Demetrios
Marantis, the United States and the other TPP participants are exploring these options with the
potential entrants bilaterally, while concurrently continuing with the ongoing nine-party TPP
negotiations.13 A consensus among all nine negotiating partners is required before any additional
parties are added to the negotiations.14
Each of these potential new participants is a key U.S. trading partner. Current TPP countries
represent about 5% of all U.S. trade. Canada, Japan, and Mexico would increase the TPP’s share
of U.S.-world trade from 5% to 40%. As Figure 4 shows on the following page, expansion of the
TPP negotiations to these additional economies would increase its economic significance.
Japan
As the third largest economy in the world and the fourth largest trading partner of the United
States, Japan’s entry into the TPP negotiations would considerably increase the economic
significance of the proposed agreement. It would be the second largest country participating in
the negotiations behind the United States, both in terms of population (128 million) and GDP
($5.5 trillion). Japan’s entry would triple the collective GDP of non-U.S. TPP partners and nearly
double the collective population of non-U.S. TPP partners. Some analysts argue that a TPP
agreement that included Japan could attract other potential Asia-Pacific countries and achieve the
goal of membership expansion. Others argue that Japan’s entry could complicate the negotiation
process, adding a significant economic counterweight to the United States among TPP countries.
Japanese interest in the agreement may stem from a desire to remain competitive with South
Korea in the U.S. market following the passage of the U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS). Nearly
70% of U.S. imports from the two East-Asian nations come from the same three commodity
categories: vehicles, machinery, and electrical machinery.15
Canada and Mexico
Economically, and as North American neighbors, both Canada and Mexico are important to the
United States. They are the 1st and 3rd largest U.S. trading partners, respectively. In terms of the
magnitude of GDP and population, the TPP agreement would expand considerably were it to
include Canada and Mexico. However, given that most of Canada and Mexico’s trade with the
United States is already covered through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
the actual economic significance of their entry for the United States would depend on the
inclusion of products and practices not covered by NAFTA, such as the extent to which the final
TPP agreement addresses such issues as regulatory coherence, state-owned enterprises, and the
13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, Hearing on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 14, 2011.
14 Ibid.
15 Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Congressional Research Service
7
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
reduction of other non-tariff barriers to trade. In terms of the overall TPP membership, like Japan,
Mexico and Canada could add economic and geopolitical strength to the TPP.
Figure 4. U.S. Merchandise Trade
(shares of total, 2010)
Wor
Wo l
r d
l
100%
1
APEC
63%
TPP + Japan,
Canada,
Mexico
Me
40%
TPP + J
P
apan
11%
TPP
5%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from U.S. ITC.
Existing Trade and Economic Agreements
TPP participants belong to various multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade and economic
agreements. For example, all TPP countries are members of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), with Vietnam joining most recently in 2007. In addition, TPP countries have FTAs in
effect with each other, as well as with countries outside the current TPP agreement. The United
States, for example, has FTAs with four TPP participants (Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore)
and with Canada, Mexico, and most recently, South Korea. In total, there are more than 180
preferential trade agreements among Asia-Pacific countries, most of which do not include the
Congressional Research Service
8
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
United States.16 The United States Trade Representative (USTR), as well as certain stakeholder
groups, view the proposed TPP FTA as an opportunity for the United States to address this rapid
rise in preferential trade agreements, with a goal of ensuring that U.S. goods and services remain
competitive in the region and that the United States plays a central role in developing a
framework for future regional free trade negotiations.17,18 Given the potential for future expansion
in TPP membership, the ability to influence the strength and coverage of the agreement at the
beginning stage may be particularly advantageous.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
TPP participants are part of a broader network of international partnerships within the Asia-
Pacific.19 The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is a primary vehicle for broader
regional interaction on trade and economic issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The annual APEC
Leaders (heads-of-state) meeting provides an opportunity for stakeholders throughout the region,
including political and business leaders, to address regional impediments to trade and economic
integration through non-binding commitments.20 Although the organization itself does not
negotiate trade agreements, its stated goals, known as the “Bogor Goals,” include freer trade and
investment throughout the region. Specifically, APEC views itself as an “incubator” of an
eventual Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) and supports the TPP as one step towards
that goal.21 APEC’s 21 members include the three largest economies in the world and the four
largest U.S. trading partners.22
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
ASEAN is the other major regional economic partnership that includes TPP countries. ASEAN
members include: Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Unlike APEC, ASEAN has already created a free
trade area among its members. However, import tariffs on intra-ASEAN trade are being removed
at different rates in different ASEAN countries depending on levels of economic development.
Import duties have been completely eliminated on over 99% of tariff lines (product categories) in
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Burma (Myanmar),
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have been slower to fully open their markets. In these lesser
developed ASEAN countries, import duties with other ASEAN members are now 0-5% on 99%
of tariff lines.23 According to the group’s economic community blueprint, ASEAN members
16 Ambassador Ronald Kirk, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda, Office of the United States Trade Representative, March 2011,
p. 4, http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2597.
17 Ibid.
18 Emergency Committee for American Trade, ECAT 2011 Agenda, June 14, 2011.
19 For more information on Asian regional partnerships see CRS Report RL33653, East Asian Regional Architecture:
New Economic and Security Arrangements and U.S. Policy, by Dick K. Nanto.
20 For more information on the most recent APEC meetings, see CRS Report R42071, The Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Meetings in Honolulu: A Preview, by Michael F. Martin.
21 Carlos Kuriyama, The Mutual Usefulness between APEC and TPP, APEC Policy Support Unit, October 2011, p. 9.
22 The three largest economies in the world as measured by nominal GDP are the United States, China, and Japan. The
four largest trading partners of the United States are Canada, China, Mexico, and Japan. Table 1 includes a complete
list of APEC economies.
23 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Economic Community Factbook, February 2011, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
9
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
intend to promote further economic integration and freer flow of goods, services, investment,
capital, and labor throughout their membership in the future.24
The association has also established FTAs collectively with non-ASEAN countries including
Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Further regional integration via
ASEAN and its FTA partners, known as the ASEAN +3 (ASEAN, China, Japan, and South
Korea) and ASEAN +6 (ASEAN +3, Australia, India, and New Zealand) models that are under
consideration, could be an alternative to the TPP in achieving freer trade throughout the Asia-
Pacific region. Some see these ASEAN economic partnerships that exclude the United States but
include the other major economies of the Asia-Pacific as presenting a challenge to the United
States’ ability to retain its economic clout and full economic engagement with the region.25
Free Trade Agreements
Table A-1 in the appendix shows free trade agreements of TPP countries that have either been
concluded or are under negotiation. While such a list provides a general overview of a country’s
proclivity toward economic openness, these FTAs may differ greatly in the extent of their tariff
reduction, product inclusion, and trade rules. Due to this variation, a country may enter into a
trade agreement as a member of a larger body (e.g., ASEAN-Australia) and also negotiate
separate bilateral FTAs (e.g., Malaysia-Australia). The table includes both bilateral FTAs and
larger regional agreements.
TPP participants have multiple FTAs in place throughout the Asia-Pacific and the world. As
shown in Table A-1, TPP countries have several agreements with China and Japan, the second
and third largest economies in the region (and the world), behind the United States. Excluding the
United States, all TPP countries are either in negotiation or have an FTA in place with China,
while the same is true for all but New Zealand with respect to Japan.26
TPP countries are also well connected to one another through their existing trade agreements.
Figure 5 below shows that only the United States and Peru have agreements with fewer than five
of the other TPP members. Singapore has agreements in place with the entire TPP membership.
The FTA among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore that served as the starting point for
the current TPP, known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement (P-4), and
ASEAN play a large part in this interconnectedness, each joining four of the TPP economies into
a free trade area. This preexisting network of trade agreements among TPP members suggests that
the negotiating countries may envision benefits from a concluded TPP agreement that extend
beyond reduction of traditional trade barriers.
24 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015, April 2009, p. 22.
25 “U.S. seeks to lead huge new Asia-Pacific trade bloc,” Oxford Analytica, October 17, 2011.
26 New Zealand is currently “considering” a trade agreement with Japan. See http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-
Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Japan/index.php.
Congressional Research Service
10
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 5. Existing Trade Agreements among TPP Members
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
u
s
a
ei
lia
e
Per
ate
laysi
un
Chile
ra
apor
Vietnam
Br
Zealand Aust
ng
ited St
Ma
Si
Un
New
In Force
Awaiting Implemenation or in Negotiation
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from individual TPP government websites and the WTO’s trade agreements
database.
Notes: This represents only trade agreements with other TPP members.
U.S. FTAs and TPP
The United States currently has FTAs in force with 17 countries and has three more in the process
of being implemented. Figure 6 places the potential TPP agreement in context with these existing
U.S. FTAs. Even with only the current members, a completed TPP would be the second largest
U.S. FTA by trade flows. In 2010, trade between TPP countries and the United States was nearly
twice the level of U.S. trade with South Korea, the largest of the United States’ recent FTA
partners. A TPP agreement that included Japan would encompass over 10% of all U.S. trade.
However, as Figure 6 depicts, even including Japan with the TPP countries, their collective trade
with the United States would still represent only a fraction of the U.S. trade under NAFTA (U.S.-
Canada-Mexico).
Congressional Research Service
11
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 6. U.S. Trade with Current FTA Partners and TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2010)
550
550
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
a
o
le
e
cc
ru
bia
rea
Oman
Chi
tralia
TPP
om
A-DR Israel Ko
Panam Bahrain oro
M
Jordan Pe
Aus Col
+ JapanNAFTA
Singapor
CAFT
P
TP
Exports
Imports
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Notes: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) includes the United States, the
Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
Bilateral Investment Treaties
International economic relations include investment flows between nations, in addition to trade in
goods and services. These investment flows can be the subject of negotiated disciplines in
bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or as part of FTAs. The United States typically includes
investment provisions in its FTAs, as with each of the existing FTAs between the United States
and four TPP participants. Currently, no U.S. BITs are in place with the other four TPP countries.
Among TPP participants, Malaysia and New Zealand have been the most proactive in negotiating
BITs, according to the latest United Nations data on international investment treaties. As of June,
2011, both countries had 49 BITs in force, while Australia and Brunei had the lowest number of
investment treaties with 21 and 3, respectively. The United States had 40 BITs in force as of June
2011 (see Table 3).
Congressional Research Service
12
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Trade, Investment, and Tariff Patterns
Examining trade and investment flows into and out of TPP countries is part of analyzing their
economic relations with the United States and the potential impact the proposed TPP FTA may
have on those relations. Given the variation in geography, population, and economic development
among TPP countries, the type and quantity of trade and investment varies greatly from country-
to-country. Additionally, existing tariff structures among the TPP countries highlight the variation
in openness to trade among the TPP countries and may identify some potential difficulties in
liberalizing trade between such diverse countries.
The analysis and description that follows depends on the quality and scope of the relevant data.
Hence, the most comprehensive examination is on merchandise trade. Three broad patterns on
trade and investment are considered where possible: (1) between the United States and other TPP
members; (2) among all TPP members; and (3) between non-U.S. TPP members and the rest of
the world.
U.S.-TPP Trade
Merchandise Trade27
Trade in goods between the United States and other TPP countries represents about 5% of overall
U.S. trade, and is relatively balanced. However, the majority of U.S.-TPP trade is concentrated
with a few members. Figure 7 and Figure 8 below show the goods imports and exports between
the United States and its TPP negotiating partners over the past decade. In 2010, of the $89 billion
in U.S. goods exports to the region, over half went to just Australia and Singapore, while over
half of the $82 billion in U.S. imports came from Malaysia and Singapore.
Although these top U.S. trading partners have been dominant in U.S.-TPP trade over the past
decade, substantial increases in trade between the United States and some of the smaller
economies have occurred. For example, U.S trade with Peru and Chile, with whom the United
States signed FTAs in the past decade, has more than doubled. In the same period, U.S. trade with
Vietnam has increased more than ten-fold. Figure 8 below highlights Vietnam’s rapid rise in
supplying goods to the United States, moving from the 7th to 3rd biggest supplier of U.S. imports
among TPP countries. Much of this increase likely reflects the improved trade relations between
Vietnam and the United States over the past decade. The United States granted Vietnam
conditional normal trade relations (NTR) in 2001 and then permanent NTR (PNTR) in 2006 as
Vietnam was acceding to the WTO.28
The current merchandise trade surplus the United States has with TPP partners emerged in the
past three years. Figure 9 below shows that this rise in the U.S. trade surplus is due to both a
decrease in imports and an increase in exports in recent years. As of 2010, U.S. imports from the
27 Exports reflect “total exports” and imports reflect “general imports.” Data are also available based on “domestic
exports” and “imports for consumption.” The differences between these data has to do with the treatment of goods that
enter U.S. territory from abroad and are re-exported with minimal modification while in the United States. These re-
exports can be high in particular countries. For instance, they were above 10% of total exports to Singapore in 2010.
28 For more information on U.S.-Vietnam economic relations, please see CRS Report R41550, U.S.-Vietnam Economic
and Trade Relations: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Michael F. Martin.
Congressional Research Service
13
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
region were almost $10 billion below their 2006 peak, while exports increased by nearly $20
billion during the same period. The most recently available 2011 data (Jan.-Nov.), show the U.S.
surplus with TPP countries at $6 billion above, or double, that achieved during the same period in
2010. The major contributors to this rising trade balance between the United States and TPP
countries have been falling U.S. imports from Malaysia, and rapidly increasing exports to
Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore, who are also U.S. FTA partners.
Figure 7. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Exports to TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Australia
Brunei
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Peru
Singapore
Vietnam
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Figure 8. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Imports from TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Australia
Brunei
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Peru
Singapore
Vietnam
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Congressional Research Service
14
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
At the aggregate level, machinery and electrical machinery are the largest categories of both
imports and exports between the United States and other TPP countries. Together they represent
over 35% of the U.S.-TPP goods flow. The significant flow of these products in both directions
may reflect the supply chains and production linkages that exist between the United States and
Asia-Pacific countries, particularly Malaysia and Singapore. Figure 9 shows a breakdown of
product categories for U.S. imports from and exports to TPP countries over the past decade. The
figure shows that U.S.-TPP goods trade is becoming more diversified as the top categories
continue to make up a smaller share of the overall trade. Some of the fastest growing U.S. export
categories – all more than tripling in value since 2000 – have been mineral fuels (oil refinements
mostly), pharmaceutical products, precious stones/metals, and iron/steel.
Figure 9. Total U.S Merchandise Imports from and Exports to TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
portsorts portsports
ortsports ortsorts portsorts portsports portsports ortsorts portsorts portsports portsports
- Im Exp - Im Ex
ImpEx
ImpExp - Im Exp
Ex
Ex
ImpExp - Im Exp - Im Ex
Ex
0
1
3 -
4
- Im
- Im
- Im
05
06
7 -
8
9
10
200
200
2002 -
200
200
20
20
200
200
200
20
Electrical Machinery
Machinery
Other
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Considering bilateral flows, U.S. exports are largely in the same top product categories across
countries. However, U.S. imports from TPP countries vary greatly. Table 2 shows the top three
imports/exports for each of the TPP countries, their value, and the percent of each country’s total
U.S. imports/exports that category represents. Machinery appears in the list of the top three U.S.
exports to each TPP country. Other top U.S. exports include electrical machinery, vehicles, and
aircraft, highlighting the U.S. advantage in high-tech products.
U.S. imports from TPP countries reflect the dominant industries and relative strengths in each
country. Agriculture and natural resource products are the top U.S imports from Australia, Chile,
New Zealand, and Peru. Malaysia and Singapore export primarily manufactured products, such as
machinery, chemicals, and electrical machinery. Vietnam, the TPP country with the lowest per
capita GDP, specializes in the labor intensive apparel industry with over 40% of its exports to the
United States in knitted and woven apparel.
Congressional Research Service
15
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Table 2. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories
(in millions of U.S. dollars and percentage, 2010)
Percent
Percent
Country
Top U.S. Imports
Value
of Total
Top U.S. Exports
Value
of Total
Australia
(1) Meat
$1,148
16 %
(1) Machinery
$4,530
25 %
(2) Precious Stones & Metals
$1,068
15 %
(2) Vehicles
$2,407
13 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$764
11 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$1,940 11
%
Instruments
Instruments
Brunei
(1) Knitted Apparel
$4.4
37 %
(1) Machinery
$36
31 %
(2) Organic Chemicals
$2.6
22 %
(2) Aircraft
$25
21 %
(3) Woven Apparel
$0.8
6 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$15 13
%
Instruments
Chile
(1) Copper
$2,238
35 %
(1) Machinery
$2,363
25 %
(2) Fruits and Nuts
$1,514
24 %
(2) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$2,297
24 %
(3) Seafood
$559
9 %
(3) Vehicles
$1,167
12 %
Malaysia
(1) Electrical Machinery
$11,582
47 %
(1) Electrical Machinery
$7,055
56 %
(2) Machinery
$6,189
25 %
(2) Machinery
$1,706
14 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$1,387
6 %
(3) Aircraft
$903
7 %
Instruments
New Zealand
(1) Meat
$726
29 %
(1) Aircraft
$597
26 %
(2) Dairy, Eggs, & Honey
$258
10 %
(2) Machinery
$410
18 %
(3)
Beverages
$219 9
%
(3) Optical, Medical
$179 8
%
Instruments
Peru
(1) Mineral Fuel, Oil, etc.
$1,198
25 %
(1) Machinery
$1,623
28 %
(2) Copper
$691
15 %
(2) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$981
17 %
(3) Knitted Apparel
$636
13 %
(3) Electrical Machinery
$588
10 %
Singapore
(1) Machinery
$5,286
31 %
(1) Machinery
$5,601
21 %
(2) Electrical Machinery
$2,753
16 %
(2) Electrical Machinery
$5,531
21 %
(3) Organic Chemicals
$2,653
16 %
(3) Aircraft
$3,807
14 %
Vietnam
(1) Knitted Apparel
$3,359
25 %
(1) Machinery
$466
16 %
(2) Woven Apparel
$2,438
18 %
(2) Vehicles
$307
11 %
(3) Furniture, Bedding, etc.
$1,826
14 %
(3) Food Waste & Animal Feed
$266
9 %
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Notes: Excludes products categorized as “special classification” under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff System (HTS).
Congressional Research Service
16
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Services Trade29
A main focus of the proposed TPP FTA, billed as a “21st century” agreement, is emerging issues
in international trade. Although covered in previous U.S. FTAs, trade in services, particularly as it
relates to digital trade is one such emerging issue. The United States, in which services provide
83% of non-agricultural jobs and over 65% of GDP, is considered to be particularly competitive
in this sector.30 Services, unlike goods, are typically intangible (e.g., financial, legal, accounting),
making their trade more complex to measure than tracking a shipping container from location A
to location B. As a result, trade in services data, collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA), lack the detail provided for trade in goods. The analysis below only covers the TPP
countries individually included in the BEA data: Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, and
Singapore. Elsewhere in this document, if not specified, trade simply refers to merchandise
(goods) trade.
Cross-Border Trade in Services31
U.S. services trade with the five TPP countries for which data are available, presents the same
pattern of competitiveness seen in U.S. services trade with the rest of the world. In 2010, the
United States had a collective services trade surplus of more than $15 billion with the five TPP
countries. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show services exports to and imports from the five TPP
countries over the past decade. They show that Australia and Singapore are the major U.S.
services trade partners among the five TPP countries. While both countries are also important for
goods trade, their dominance is more pronounced for services. The United States has a significant
services trade surplus with all TPP countries for which individual data are available, except for
New Zealand, with which it has a nearly balanced services trade. While services exports to the
region have grown over the past decade for the five TPP countries, services exports to Australia
have nearly tripled from $4.8 to $13.1 billion. Services imports from Australia to the United
States have increased more slowly causing the U.S. services trade surplus with Australia to surge
from $1.2 to $7.6 billion.
The composition of U.S. services exports to the five TPP countries differs considerably from the
composition of U.S. services imports. Figure 12 and Figure 13 below show that the largest
differences between imports and exports are in travel and transportation, financial services, and
royalties. Financial services and royalties are major U.S. services exports to the five TPP
countries, making up 14% and 24% of the total. However, they each comprise only 4% of U.S.
services imports from the five TPP countries. Meanwhile, travel and transportation accounts for a
much larger share of U.S. services imports from (49%) than exports to (26%) the five TPP
countries.
29 For a more thorough discussion of U.S. trade in services see CRS Report RL33085, Trade in Services: The Doha
Development Agenda Negotiations and U.S. Goals, by William H. Cooper.
30 Ibid.
31 The Bureau of Economic Analysis collects data on both “cross-border” services trade and services supplied through
foreign affiliates of multinational companies. The following report provides details on the distinctions between these
different types of service. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Services, October 2011,
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/10%20October/1011_services%20text.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 10. Bilateral U.S. Services Exports Figure 11. Bilateral U.S. Services Imports
to Select TPP Countries
from Select TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
14
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Australia
Chile
Malaysia
Australia
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Singapore
New Zealand
Singapore
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Figure 12. Total U.S. Services Exports to
Figure 13. Total U.S. Services Imports
Select TPP Countries
from Select TPP Countries
(Category Shares, 2010)
(Category Shares, 2010)
Education,
Education,
Insurance,
Insurance, Financial
& Telecom
& Telecom Services
6%
5%
Financial
4%
Services
Royalties
14%
4%
Travel &
Transport
26%
Travel &
Transport
49%
Business,
Royalties
Prof., &
24%
Technical
Business,
38%
Prof., &
Technical
30%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: TPP countries included are Australia, Chile,
Notes: TPP countries included are Australia, Chile,
Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Congressional Research Service
18
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
There is also variation in services trade among the five individual TPP countries. Figure 14
shows the breakdown of U.S. exports to the five TPP countries by sector. Figure 15 does the
same for imports. Some of the differences by sector follow geographic patterns. For instance, the
top U.S. services imports and exports for Malaysia and Singapore are business, professional, and
technical services, while for Australia, Chile, and New Zealand, the top services imports and
exports are travel and transportation. A few industries appear to be particularly important for one
country in terms of services trade, but not others. For example, insurance and telecommunications
comprise around 12% of U.S. service exports to Chile, but less than 5% in all other TPP
countries. The United States also provides more education services to Malaysia than to any of the
other five TPP countries even though Malaysia’s total U.S. services imports are less than one-
sixth of U.S. services imports from Australia. In Singapore, royalties are a significant services
import from the United States, making up nearly 36% of total U.S. services exports to Singapore.
Figure 14. Bilateral U.S. Services Exports to Select TPP Countries, by Category
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2010)
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
Australia
Singapore
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Travel & Transport
Business, Prof., & Technical
Royalties
Financial Services
Insurance & Telecom
Education
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Figure 15. Bilateral U.S Services Imports from Select TPP Countries, by Category
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2010)
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
Australia
Singapore
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Travel & Transport
Business, Prof., & Technical
Royalties
Financial Services
Insurance & Telecom
Education
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Congressional Research Service
19
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Services Supplied through Foreign Affiliates
In addition to trading services across international borders, countries also provide services to
foreign residents by establishing a commercial presence in local markets. The BEA collects data
on services supplied to foreign residents by majority-owned foreign affiliates (MOFAs) of U.S.
multi-national corporations (MNCs) (i.e., U.S. companies with operations in foreign countries).
Typically, the value of U.S. services supplied through MOFAs is considerably larger than the
cross-border trade in services discussed above. For instance, in 2009, more than $1 trillion in
services were provided to foreign residents through foreign affiliates of U.S. companies,
compared to $487 billion supplied through cross-border trade. At a much smaller scale, the same
pattern holds true for U.S. services provided to the five TPP countries for which services data are
available. During 2004-2009, the latest period for which consistent data are available, services
supplied through U.S. MOFAs grew rapidly, particularly in the five TPP countries.
This growth is especially evident if one compares U.S.-MOFA services provided in Japan with
those in the five TPP countries. Figure 16 shows that, in 2004, Japan accounted for a greater
share of the services supplied by U.S. MOFAs than the five TPP countries combined. However,
during the next five years, the value of services supplied through U.S. MOFAs increased by 75%
among the five TPP countries, but by only 30% in Japan, and by 58% in the rest of the world. By
2009, services supplied to the five TPP countries through U.S. MOFAs were one-third greater
than those to Japan. As with U.S.-TPP cross-border trade in services, in 2009, the majority of
services supplied to TPP countries through U.S. MOFAs went to Australia and Singapore (nearly
85%).
In 2009, the value of services supplied to U.S. residents through majority-owned U.S. affiliates
(MOUSAs) of foreign MNCs (i.e., foreign companies that have established a commercial
presence in the United States) was only about 60% of the value of services supplied abroad
through MOFAs of U.S. MNCs. This same pattern is even more evident among the five TPP
countries: services supplied to the United States through TPP MOUSAs are less than one-quarter
of those supplied to TPP countries from U.S. MOFAs.
Figure 16. Services to TPP Countries and Japan through MOFAs of U.S. MNCs
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
TPP
Japan
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the BEA.
Congressional Research Service
20
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Intra-TPP Trade
As highlighted throughout this report there is great variation in location, population, and
economic development among TPP countries. That variation is also reflected in the trading
patterns among TPP members. Figure 17 provides an illustration of each TPP country’s relative
trading relationship with the other TPP members.
Figure 17 is intended to show at a glance for each country, the relative strength of its trade
relationships (exports and imports) with each of its eight TPP trading partners. For instance,
consider Australia’s trade represented in segment (a) of Figure 17. Australia’s imports from the
United States, shown as a wide arrow pointing towards Australia, are larger than its exports to the
United States. Moreover, Australia’s imports from the United States far outweigh both its imports
and exports with every other TPP country. As shown in segment (i), the opposite is true for
Vietnam. Vietnamese exports to the United States are larger than both its imports from the United
States and its imports from and exports to all other TPP countries. A strong U.S. presence in the
trading relationship of each TPP country is not surprising given the size of the U.S. economy
relative to the other TPP members.
Both geography and relative economic size can play substantive roles in determining a country’s
most important trading partners. This can be seen in two examples: one with partners of similar
economic (GDP) size, and one with partners of unequal size. For example, similarly-sized,
Malaysia (d) and Singapore (g) are each other’s largest TPP trading partner. On the other hand,
for unequally sized neighbors Australia (a) and New Zealand (e), Australia, with an economy
nearly ten times as great, is a much more significant trading partner for New Zealand than vice
versa.
As discussed above, and as represented by the blue shading in Figure 17, FTAs are prevalent
throughout the TPP region. They also account for some of the most significant trading
relationships in the region. This may explain, in part, the willingness of the current negotiating
partners to focus on complex issues such as those in a more comprehensive, high standards
agreement, such as the proposed TPP, because much of their trade is already covered under
existing trade agreements. The two largest bilateral trading relationships not covered under
current FTAs are U.S.-Malaysia and U.S.-Vietnam (see segments d, h, and i).
Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships: Interpreting Figure 17
•
Nine segments (a-i) depict trade between the nine TPP countries, and their eight TPP trading partners.
•
The direction of the arrows represents exports and imports.
•
FTA partners are highlighted in blue.
•
Arrows are scaled to denote the magnitude of trade between each country and its TPP trading partners.
•
For each trade partner, the relative widths of the export and import lines generally indicates whether there is a
trade surplus or deficit.
•
Nothing on this chart indicates the relative total trade volumes of the various countries, see Figure 1 for this
information.
•
The data used to derive Figure 17 can be seen in Table A-2 in the appendix.
Congressional Research Service
21
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 17. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships
2010
Brunei
Chile
il
Brunei
a
b
M
c
M
Ch
a
a
ih
la
l
il
a
a
le
y
e
s
y
y
si
s
ia
is
Vietnam
a
Vietnam
Vietna
Vietn
Australia
a
Australia
Austral
Austra
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
nd
d
m
m
ited
es
ysia
ala
ited
ysia
ited
at
Australia
i
na
e
na
alan
la
na
la
Brune
Brun i
e
i
Chile
e
Un
St
a
iet
Z
iet
Z
M
V
w
V
w
Ne
e
Ne
N
SiSngn
U
U
ga
n
n
p
a
S
i
p
t
S
i
po
t
t
e
t
o
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
a
r
t
Peru
Per
Pe
d
re
t
Peru
e
e
t
Peru
Per
Pe
P
s
e
s
s
Peru
Pe
New Zealand
New Zealan
New Zeala
New Zea
Singapore
Singapore
Brunei
Br
B unei
un
Brunei
d
e
f
Ch
C
C
ihl
h
h
le
i
e
le
i
e
le
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
m
and
na
New
Ne
ysia
ysia
na
Mal
Ma a
l ys
y i
s a
eal
nam
nam
eal
Peru
Pe
iet
et
Zeal
Ze and
iet
al
iet
Z
ala
et
ala
ala
V
Z
V
w
Vi
w
M
Vi
M
e
N
Un
U
S
int
n
t
e
t
S
i
e
t
S
a e
t
a
d
t
e
d
a
t
t
d
t
Peru
a
Peru
Per
d
a
e
Peru
d
te
Peru
Per
Pe
P
t
s
s
e
s
s
e
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
New Zealand
United
New Zealan
United
New Zeala
United
New Zea
United
Brunei
Br
B unei
un
Brunei
g
h
i
Ch
C
C
ih
h
h
il
h
le
i
e
le
i
e
le
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
Australia
Austral
Austra
Austr
m
m
d
ysia
na
Unit
Uni ed
ysia
ysia
es
ysia
na
Si
S ngapor
nga
e
na
ite
pore
por
at
Vietna
Vi
m
etna
iet
ala
Stat
Sta es
ala
iet
ala
ala
V
Un
St
V
M
V
M
M
Si
S
ni
in
S
g
g
t
S
a
a
ta
p
p
t
a e
o
o
es
re
r
e
e
s
Peru
Pe
New Zealand
United
New Zealan
United
New Zeala
United
New Zea
United
Peru
New Zealand
New Zealan
New Zeala
New Zea
Peru
New Zealand
New Zealan
New Zeala
New Zea
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF Direction of Trade Statistics.
Notes: See text box on previous page for details on interpreting Figure 17. See Table A-2 in the appendix for
trade data. A missing arrow denotes either no trade or missing data. Direction of Trade Statistics data consider
trade flows from each individual country’s perspective, whenever possible. Countries can differ in their
classification methods, particularly classification of trade flows that pass through a third-party before reaching
their final destination. Hence, Country A’s reported imports from Country B may not equal Country B’s
reported exports to Country A.
Congressional Research Service
22
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
World-TPP Trade
Figure 18 and Figure 19 below compare shares of non-U.S. TPP trade in 2000 and 2010. Trade
between TPP countries and the rest of the world over the past decade highlights a rapidly growing
Chinese presence in the economies of the Asia-Pacific region.
In 2000, the United States accounted for 16% of all goods exported to non-U.S. TPP countries.
By 2010, the United States’ share had fallen to 11%. During the same period, China’s share of
goods exported to non-U.S. TPP countries increased from 6% to 15%. This pattern holds true for
trade in both directions. In 2000, the United States was also the top importer from other TPP
countries, receiving 16% of all exports from non-U.S. TPP countries, but by 2010 this share
dropped to 8%. Again, China’s share increased from 4% to 15%, over the same time period.
Other APEC economies also increased their share of non-U.S. TPP trade, while relative trade
among TPP countries fell slightly. Relatively speaking, since 2000, TPP countries are trading less
with Japan, the United States, and each other, and more with the other APEC economies,
especially China.
China’s rapid economic rise in the region can also be seen at the individual country level. For
example, the same pattern emerges if one examines exports to Australia and Singapore, the top
two destinations for U.S. exports among TPP countries. Figure 20 shows the top four exporting
countries to Singapore over the past decade, while Figure 21 shows the same for Australia. In
Singapore, China has narrowed the gap between its own exports and those of Malaysia and the
United States, overtaking Japan as the third largest supplier of goods to the country. In Australia,
China’s growth in exports has been even more significant. In 2006, China replaced the United
States as the chief supplier of Australian imports.
While China’s rise as a trading partner with TPP countries has been rapid and significant, it is
representative of China’s trade patterns with the rest of the world. During the same time period
referenced above, the share of U.S. imports coming from China increased from 8% to 19%, some
of which may be the result of a shift in lower-cost production to China from other Asia-Pacific
countries. China has also been active in negotiating trade agreements with TPP countries. The
United States is the only TPP country that has neither a completed FTA nor ongoing trade
agreement negotiations with China.
Congressional Research Service
23
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 18. Source of Merchandise Imports for non-U.S. TPP Countries
(share of total, 2000 and 2010)
2000
2010
Chi
Ch na
n
6%
Chi
Ch na
6%
n
Othe
Oth r
e
Japa
Jap n
15%
an
Othe
h r
e
26%
16%
28%
28
Japan
Ja
9%
Un
U i
n ted
Un
U i
n ted
Stat
a es
Stat
a es
Othe
Oth r
e
Non
No -
n
16%
16
Othe
Oth r
e
Non
No -
n
11%
APEC
U.S.
S
APEC
U.S.
S
19%
TPP
23%
TPP
TP
17%
14%
14
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.
Figure 19. Destination of Merchandise Exports for non-U.S. TPP Countries
(share of total, 2000 and 2010)
2000
2010
Chin
Ch a
in
4%
Chi
Ch na
4%
n
Japan
Othe
Oth r
e
Othe
h r
e
15%
12%
26%
26%
26
Japa
Jap n
a
Uni
Un ted
e
d
10%
St
S ates
Uni
Un ted
e
d
16%
St
S ates
Othe
h r
e
Non
No -
n
Othe
h r
e
Non
No -
n
8%
APEC
AP
U.S.
S
APEC
APE
U.S.
S
23%
23
TPP
TP
26%
26
TPP
19%
19
15%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
24
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 20. Merchandise Imports into
Figure 21. Merchandise Imports into
Singapore
Australia
(top countries of origin, in billions of U.S. dollars)
(top countries of origin, in billions of U.S. dollars)
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
China
United States
Japan
Malaysia
China
United States
Japan
Thailand
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF’s
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF’s
Direction of Trade Statistics.
Direction of Trade Statistics.
Investment Patterns
The proposed TPP FTA, like previous U.S. FTAs, is expected to include provisions on
investment. As mentioned above, the four FTAs the United States has in place with TPP countries
(Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore) include investment provisions. However, no other
bilateral investment treaties (BITs) exist between the United States and the remaining TPP
countries.
The four existing U.S. FTAs with TPP countries already cover the countries responsible for the
majority of TPP-U.S. direct investment flows. Figure 22 highlights that TPP investment in the
United States in 2010 was provided almost exclusively by Australia and Singapore, with a
combined $10 billion in FDI in the United States, compared with $86 million in FDI from all
other TPP countries. However, Figure 23 shows that U.S. direct investment abroad into TPP
countries is more diversified. While Australia and Singapore are still important, Malaysia, Chile,
and Peru also received a significant level of U.S. direct investment abroad.
In 2010, the United States was the largest recipient and source of international direct investment
among TPP participants in absolute terms (see Table 3). However, scaling total investment by
GDP levels reveals that relative to the size of their economies, investment flows in and out of
Singapore were considerably higher than those in the United States. Singapore and most TPP
countries, except the United States and Malaysia, were net recipients of FDI in 2010. This was
particularly true in Vietnam and Peru. As the least developed TPP economies, as measured by
GDP/capita and, hence, with relatively scarce domestic capital, one would expect these nations to
be primarily recipients of FDI. However, the direction of investment flows are also influenced by
current macroeconomic conditions (i.e., exchange rates, interest rates, and economic stability).
Congressional Research Service
25
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 22. Sources of U.S. FDI from TPP
Figure 23. Destination of U.S. Direct
Countries
Investment Abroad to TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2010)
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2010)
Other TPP
Other TPP
Peru 0.8
Singapore 0.1
2.2
1.2
Malaysia
3.8
Chile
Australia
4.5
19.1
Singapore
Australia
13.7
8.8
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the BEA.
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the BEA.
Table 3. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Flows for TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2010)
Total Investment
Number of
Total Direct Investment
(inward and outward)
Country
Agreements
Total FDI (inward)
Abroad (outward)
to GDP Ratio
Australia 21
$32,472 $26,431
.05
Brunei 3
$496 $6 .04
Chile 38
$15,095
$8,744 .12
Malaysia 49
$9,103 $13,329
.09
New Zealand
49
$561
$589
.01
Peru 31
$7,328 $215 .05
Singapore 35
$38,638 $19,740
.26
United States
40
$228,249
$328,905
.04
Vietnam 40
$8,173
$853
.09
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD).
Notes: The number of agreements include only those in force.
Congressional Research Service
26
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Tariff Patterns
TPP negotiating partners are striving for a high standard and comprehensive FTA that addresses
trade barriers beyond tariffs. Traditional tariff barriers, however, still exist among TPP members
and can be an impediment to expanded trade. While tariffs are only one form of potential trade
barrier, they are relatively easy to compare and can provide a general picture of a country’s
openness to trade.
As all TPP members are members of the WTO, one relevant tariff to consider is the applied most-
favored nation (MFN) tariff.32 The MFN concept is a WTO principle that requires member
countries to non-discriminately apply their tariff rates to other members.33 The average applied
MFN tariff then is simply the average, among all products, of the tariff rates actually applied to
other countries, as opposed to bound rates which are essentially caps, or the maximum level that
may be imposed under WTO commitments.34 Hence, a reduction in the applied rate is a reduction
in the current tariff level, while a reduction in the bound rate is a prevention against a future
increase in the tariff level. Often, applied rates are well below bound rates. For example,
Malaysia’s average MFN applied rate is 8% compared to an average bound rate of 23%. Both
levels are important and the proposed TPP FTA aims to eventually reduce and eliminate tariffs at
both the applied and bound level.
The average applied MFN tariffs vary greatly among TPP countries.35 Vietnam has an average
rate of almost 10%, while Singapore charges tariffs on so few items that it has an average rate of
0%. Figure 24 below shows the average MFN tariffs for TPP participants as reported in the most
recent WTO tariff profiles. Per capita GDP, a rough measure of economic development, is
graphed on the right axis, revealing that, in general, the more highly developed TPP countries
tend to be those with the lower tariff levels. Hence, movement towards zero tariff rates will
require a greater reduction in applied tariffs among the less developed members.
Although average tariff rates among all products are below 10% for TPP countries, some
industrial and agricultural sectors have relatively high tariffs. For example, the average U.S. tariff
rate on dairy products is 20% even though the overall U.S. average is only 3.5%. As seen in
Table 4 below, in six of the nine TPP countries, either clothing or beverages/tobacco is the
product category with the highest average applied tariff rate.
Uniquely among the TPP members, Chile and Singapore, have little variation in tariffs at the
industry level. Singapore has an average tariff of 0% in every category except beverages and
tobacco. Chile has a higher but still uniform tariff structure, with an average tariff of 6% in all but
two product groups.
32 Tariff rate data are also available by trade-weighted averages. In their construction, these averages weight tariffs by
the percentage of a country’s overall trade in that particular tariff line. Tariffs, by their nature, can discourage trade in
the particular products to which they apply. Hence, trade-weighted tariff averages tend to be lower than simple tariff
averages, which weight all tariff lines equally.
33 An obvious exception to this rule exists in the case of FTAs, like the proposed TPP. The WTO allows FTA partners
to provide preferential tariff treatment to one another below the MFN rates. For more information see, CRS Report
RL31356, Free Trade Agreements: Impact on U.S. Trade and Implications for U.S. Trade Policy, by William H.
Cooper.
34 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm.
35 Great variation also exists for bound rates among TPP countries, ranging from 29% in Peru to 3.5% in the United
States.
Congressional Research Service
27
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 24. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita
(tariffs in percent (left axis), GDP/Capita in U.S. dollars (right axis))
12
60,000
10
50,000
8
40,000
6
30,000
4
20,000
2
10,000
0
0
Vietnam Malaysia
Chile
Peru
United Australia Brunei
New
Singapore
States
Zealand
Avg MFN Tariff, Applied
GDP/Capita (Right Axis)
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook and WTO Tariff Profiles 2011.
Notes: GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP).
Table 4. Highest Tariffs by Product Category
(tariffs in percent, 2010)
Avg. Applied
Country Product
MFN Tariff (%)
Australia Clothing
8.9
Brunei Electrical
machinery 14.2
Chile Animal
products
6.1
Malaysia
Beverages and tobacco
120.9
New Zealand
Clothing
9.6
Peru Clothing
17.0
Singapore
Beverages and tobacco
2.3
United States
Dairy
20.3
Vietnam
Beverages and tobacco
43.6
Source: WTO Tariff Profiles, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
28
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
When considering tariff rates, it is useful to
consider the overall importance of trade in a
Figure 25. Trade-to-GDP Ratio
nation’s economy. Trade-to-GDP ratios,
(in percent, 2007-2009)
shown in Figure 25, provide one such
measure. The figure shows a great range in
United States
trade-to-GDP ratios among TPP countries.
Singapore’s trade-to-GDP ratio of over 400%
Australia
implies that the country’s imports and exports
Peru
are four times larger than its total domestic
production of goods and services. Such a high
New Zealand
figure likely reflects Singapore’s importance
as a regional shipping hub, re-exporting
Chile
products that merely pass through its borders,
Brunei
as well as its importance in international
supply chains, perhaps domestically
Vietnam
producing only a portion of the components
Malaysia
in the manufactured goods it exports. Given
this significant reliance on international trade,
Singapore
it is less surprising that Singapore would have
such a low average applied tariff level. The
0
100
200
300
400
500
United States, the TPP country with the
largest population and economy, and, hence,
Source: WTO Trade Profiles, 2011
the largest domestic market, has a trade-to-
GDP ratio of less than 30%, indicating the lowest reliance on trade among any of the TPP
countries. The United States, however, has one of the lowest average applied tariff rates among
the TPP countries suggesting that the importance of trade in a country’s economy is not the only
determinant of its openness to trade. The variation in trade-to-GDP ratios is another indicator of
the diversity among the TPP countries, which may ultimately be reflected in their trade policy
priorities.
Conclusion
The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA would be a significant free trade agreement for the
United States and could eventually become the platform for an Asia-Pacific free trade area, an
area that encompasses 40% of the world’s people and over half of global production. It would be
the second largest U.S. free trade agreement after NAFTA, based on trade flows. Due to the great
diversity among the TPP participants, there may be challenges in achieving a comprehensive and
high standard agreement. TPP countries vary in terms of population, economic development, and
geography.
Currently, Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore are the top U.S. partners in merchandise trade
among TPP countries. Australia and Singapore are also the major U.S. partners in services trade
and investment flows among TPP countries. Vietnam, given its significant population and quickly
growing economy, may hold the greatest potential for increased economic relations with the
United States moving forward. Malaysia, Chile, and Peru also represent growing economies that
have populations above 20 million. Chile and Peru’s potential for increased U.S. economic
exchange due to the TPP, however, may be somewhat lessened given their existing FTAs with the
United States.
Congressional Research Service
29
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Appendix.
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries
Agreements In Negotiation
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
or Awaiting Implementation
Australia
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand
China
Chile
Gulf Cooperation Councila
New Zealand
India
Singapore
Indonesia
Thailand
Japan
United States
Malaysia
South Korea
PACERb
TPPc
Brunei*
AFTAd
TPPc
Japan
P-4e
Chile
Argentinaf
India
Australia
Malaysia
Boliviaf
Nicaragua
Canada
Thailand
Chile-Central Americag
Vietnam
China
TPPc
Colombia
Cubah
Ecuadorf
EFTAi
European Unionj
Indiah
Japan
Mercosurk,f
Mexico
P-4e
Panama
Peru
South Korea
Turkey
United States
Venezuelaf
Malaysia*
AFTAd
Australia
Japan
Chile
New Zealand
D-8l
Pakistan
European Unionj
TPS-OICm
Turkey
TPPc
New Zealand
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand
Gulf Cooperation Councila
Australia
India
China
Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan
Hong Kong
South Korea
Malaysia
TPPc
P-4e
Singapore
Thailand
Congressional Research Service
30
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Agreements In Negotiation
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
or Awaiting Implementation
Peru
Andean Communityn
Costa Rica
Canada
El Salvador
Chile
European Unionj
China
Guatemala
Cubah
Honduras
EFTAi
Japan
Mercosurk,f
Panama
Mexico
TPPc
Singapore
South Korea
Thailand
United States
Singapore*
AFTAd
Canada
Australia
Costa Rica
China
Gulf Cooperation Councila
EFTAi
Mexico
India
Pakistan
Japan
Ukraine
Jordan
TPPc
New Zealand
P-4e
Panama
Peru
South Korea
United States
United States
Australia
Colombia
Bahrain
Panama
CAFTA-DRo
South Korea
Chile
TPPc
Israel
Jordan
Morocco
NAFTAp
Oman
Peru
Singapore
Vietnam*
AFTAd
Chile
Japan
TPPc
ASEAN (Association of
Australia and New Zealand
European Unionj
Southeast Asian Nations)
China
India
Japan
South Korea
Source: Websites of TPP member countries; WTO online trade agreements database; and Organization of
American States, Foreign Trade Information System.
Notes: Agreements with other TPP countries are in italics. TPP countries that are also members of ASEAN are
marked with an asterisk(*). Col ective agreements, to which the individual ASEAN members are party, are listed
above.
a. Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.
b. Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER): 15 Pacific Island nations.
c. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP): Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, United States, Vietnam.
d. ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA): Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
31
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
e. Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P-4): Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore.
f.
Economic Complementarity Agreement
g. Chile-Central America: Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua
h. Partial Scope Agreement
i.
European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland.
j.
European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
k. Mercosur: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay.
l.
Developing Eight (D-8): Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey.
m. Trade Preferential System-Organization of Islamic Conference (TPS-OIC): 57 Islamic Countries.
n. Andean Community: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru.
o. Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR): Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, United States.
p. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Canada, Mexico, United States.
Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2010)
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Australia
United States
8,464
United States
23,602
New
Zealand
7,365
Singapore
10,785
Singapore 4,445
Malaysia 9,162
Malaysia 3,347
New
Zealand
7,298
Vietnam 1,404
Vietnam 3,154
Chile
257
Brunei
Darussalam
1,076
Peru
92
Chile
941
Brunei
Darussalam
31
Peru
155
Brunei
Australia 979
Singapore
1,040
New
Zealand
415
Malaysia 496
Singapore 118
United
States
137
Malaysia
44
Australia 34
United
States 12
Vietnam
16
Vietnam
9
New
Zealand 3
Peru
0
Chile
0
Chile
0
Peru
0
Chile
United States
7,008
United States
9,869
Peru
1,637
Peru
1,375
Australia 786
Australia 327
Congressional Research Service
32
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Vietnam
230
Malaysia 141
Malaysia
206
Vietnam 115
Singapore
64
Singapore 69
New Zealand
25
New Zealand
43
Brunei Darussalam
0
Brunei Darussalam
0
Malaysia
Singapore 26,597
Singapore
18,805
United States
18,989
United States
17,540
Australia 7,473
Australia 3,188
Vietnam 3,549
Vietnam 2,616
New Zealand
930
New Zealand
611
Brunei
Darussalam
451
Chile
229
Peru
86
Brunei
Darussalam
48
Chile
84
Peru
12
New Zealand
Australia 7,243
Australia
5,571
United States
2,705
United States
3,216
Singapore 596
Singapore
1,185
Malaysia
559
Malaysia 1,073
Vietnam
304
Brunei
Darussalam
457
Peru
57
Vietnam 164
Chile
45
Chile
31
Brunei
Darussalam
3
Peru
19
Peru
United States
4,870
United States
7,424
Chile
1,250
Chile
1,801
Australia 141
Australia 101
Vietnam
63
Malaysia
95
New Zealand
17
New Zealand
63
Malaysia
11
Singapore 33
Singapore
11
Brunei
Darussalam
0
Brunei
Darussalam
0
Vietnam
0
Singapore
Malaysia 41,913
Malaysia
36,358
United States
23,005
United States
35,633
Australia 12,585
Australia 3,451
Vietnam 7,387
Vietnam 1,604
New Zealand
1,717
New Zealand
574
Brunei
Darussalam
946
Chile
159
Chile
39
Brunei
Darussalam
130
Peru
30
Peru
12
Congressional Research Service
33
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
United States
Singapore 29,150
Malaysia 26,628
Australia 21,807
Singapore
17,747
Malaysia 13,982
Vietnam 15,888
Chile
10,872
Australia 8,872
Peru
6,749
Chile
7,671
Vietnam 3,710
Peru
5,357
New Zealand
2,821
New Zealand
2,941
Brunei Darussalam
124
Brunei Darussalam
13
Vietnam
United States
14,238
Singapore
4,101
Australia 2,704
United
States
3,767
Singapore 2,121
Malaysia 3,413
Malaysia 2,093
Australia 1,444
New Zealand
123
New Zealand
353
Chile
94
Chile
291
Brunei
Darussalam
14
Peru
69
Peru
0
Brunei
Darussalam
10
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics.
Notes: Direction of Trade Statistics data considers trade flows from each individual country’s perspective,
whenever possible. Countries can differ in their classification methods, particularly classification of trade flows
that pass through a third-party before reaching their final destination. Hence, Country A’s reported imports
from Country B may not equal Country B’s reported exports to Country A.
Author Contact Information
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
bwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-1157
Congressional Research Service
34