Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries:
Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
January 29, 2013
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, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, 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. Canada and
Mexico are the most recent countries to join the negotiations and Japan has participated in
consultations with the partner countries about the possibility of joining.
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. With the addition of Canada and Mexico, TPP negotiating
partners made up 31% of U.S. goods and services trade in 2011, and the Asia-Pacific economies
as a whole made up over 56%. The TPP would be the largest U.S. FTA to date by trade value.
The United States is the largest TPP market in terms of both GDP and population. In 2011, non-
U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $5.7 trillion, 37% of the U.S. level, and a population
of 346 million, slightly larger than the U.S. population. Japan’s entry would increase the
economic significance of the agreement on both of these metrics.
Unlike most previous U.S. FTA negotiations, the TPP involves countries with which the United
States already has an FTA. The U.S. has FTAs in place with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico,
Peru, and Singapore, which together account for nearly 85% of U.S. goods trade with TPP
countries. Malaysia and Vietnam are the largest U.S. trade partners among TPP members without
an existing U.S. FTA.
Other TPP partners also have extensive existing FTA networks. The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are members, and
its collective FTAs with other countries, accounts for the bulk of this 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
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 ........................................................................................... 12
U.S.-TPP Trade ........................................................................................................................ 12
Merchandise Trade ............................................................................................................ 12
Services Trade ................................................................................................................... 17
Intra-TPP Trade ....................................................................................................................... 20
World-TPP Trade ..................................................................................................................... 22
Investment Patterns ................................................................................................................. 24
Tariff Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Figures
Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. U.S. and TPP Average GDP Growth Rates ....................................................................... 6
Figure 3. U.S. Goods and Services Trade Balance with TPP Countries .......................................... 6
Figure 4. U.S. Goods and Services Trade, Shares of Total .............................................................. 8
Figure 5. Existing Trade Agreements among TPP Members ......................................................... 10
Figure 6. Top U.S. FTAs by Goods Trade ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 7. Top U.S. FTAs by Services Trade .................................................................................. 11
Figure 8. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada, Mexico, and other TPP Countries ..................... 13
Figure 9. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Exports to TPP Countries excluding Canada and
Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 10. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Imports from TPP Countries excluding Canada and
Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 11. Total U.S.-TPP Services Trade ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 12. U.S.-TPP Services Trade, by Category ......................................................................... 18
Figure 13. U.S. Services Supplied to TPP Countries through MOFAs .......................................... 19
Figure 14. TPP Country Services Supplied to the United States through MOUSAs ..................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 15. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships ............................................................. 21
Figure 16. Merchandise Imports into Australia ............................................................................. 22
Figure 17. Source of Merchandise Imports into non-U.S. TPP Countries ..................................... 23
Figure 18. Destination of Merchandise Exports from non-U.S. TPP Countries ............................ 23
Figure 19. Destination of U.S. FDI outflows to TPP Countries .................................................... 24
Figure 20. Sources of U.S. FDI inflows from TPP Countries ........................................................ 24
Figure 21. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita ..................................................................... 26
Figure 22. Trade-to-GDP Ratios .................................................................................................... 27
Tables
Table 1. APEC Members and Economic Statistics, 2011 ................................................................ 3
Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries .............. 15
Table 3. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories ....................................................................................... 16
Table 4. U.S. Service Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries ....................... 18
Table 5. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Flows for TPP Countries ............................................ 25
Table 6. Highest Tariffs by Product Category ................................................................................ 27
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries ............................................................................ 29
Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade ...................................................................................... 33
Appendixes
Appendix. ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 37
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 ten other countries. Current negotiating partners
include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, 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, Mexico, and Japan all
expressed interest in November 2011 in the possibility of joining the TPP talks, and proceeded
with consultations among the existing partners toward that end. Canada and Mexico officially
joined in October 2012, while Japan’s prospects for joining the agreement remain unknown. 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 may come to embody.
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 R42694, The Trans-Pacific
Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.
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.
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 eleven of the current TPP participants
(Table 1). 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 2011, all but three of the economies in
the Asia-Pacific had GDP growth above the 1.8% level reached in the United States, and more
than half enjoyed growth above the world average of 3.8%.7 Along with increasing economic
influence these economies account for a growing share of world trade. For example, Asia’s share
of world imports grew from 18.5% in 1983 to 30.9% in 2011.8 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.9
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 foreign direct investment (FDI) into and out of the United States.10 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.11 The proposed TPP, 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.12
6 Analysis by CRS. Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Economic Outlook, October 2012.
7 Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012.
8 World Trade Organization, International Trade Statistics 2012, 2012, p. 35. APEC does not include India, which is
included in the WTO’s definition of Asia, but does include some Latin American countries not included in this statistic.
9 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.
10 Analysis by CRS. Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA).
11 Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Trade and Investment Policy, Independent Task Force Report No. 67, 2011, p. 3.
12 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 Members and Economic Statistics, 2011
GDP (in
GDP/Capita
Real GDP
billions of U.S.
Population (in
(in U.S. dollars
Growth (in %)
Member
dollars)
millions)
at PPP)
TPP Countries
Australia
$1,487
22.4
$40,847
2.14
Brunei
$16
0.4
$49,536
2.21
Canada
$1,739
34.4
$40,519
2.41
Chile $248
17.2
$17,361
5.92
Malaysia
$288
28.6
$16,240
5.08
Mexico
$1,154
113.7
$14,653
3.94
New
Zealand
$159
4.4
$28,012
1.35
Peru $177
30.0
$10,062
6.91
Singapore
$260
5.3
$59,710
4.89
Vietnam
$123
89.3
$3,359
5.89
Non-U.S. TPP Total
$5,651 345.8
United
States $15,076 311.9 $48,328 1.81
Total
$20,727
657.8
Near-Term Potential
TPP Countries
Japan
$5,867
127.9
$34,748
-0.76
Other APEC
China
$7,298
1,347.4
$8,387
9.24
Hong
Kong
$244
7.1
$49,417
5.03
Indonesia
$846
241.0
$4,666
6.46
South
Korea
$13
6.7
$2,532
8.91
Papua New Guinea
$225
95.9
$4,080
3.91
Philippines
$1,850
142.4
$16,736
4.30
Russia
$1,116
49.8
$31,220
3.63
Taiwan
$466
23.2
$37,716
4.03
Thailand
$346
64.1
$9,398
0.05
Total
$12,404 1,977.5
APEC Total
$38,998
2,763.2
Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook, October 2012.
Notes: 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 13).
Congressional Research Service
3
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
TPP Countries
The 11 countries that constitute the current group of TPP participants are 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 three times as many people as Mexico and more than
eight times the GDP of Canada. 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 nearly $60,000 in Singapore, more than $10,000 higher than that of the United States.13 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 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. U.S. TPP partners collectively
represent a potential market with a population slightly larger than the United States and they have
been growing rapidly relative to the United States over the past 10 years (Figure 2). In 2010, as
the United States was emerging from recession, the TPP countries’ average GDP growth was
more than 2 percentage points higher than the U.S. rate. Over the past decade, U.S. trade and FDI
flows with these countries have increased significantly. U.S. exports to TPP countries nearly
doubled during this period, exceeding $115 billion in services and $580 billion in goods in
2011.14 U.S. imports from TPP countries increased by more than 50% since 2001 with services
imports of nearly $57 billion and goods imports of $670 billion in 2011. The annual flow of both
inbound and outward foreign direct investment (FDI) between the United States and TPP
countries was much higher in 2011 than 2001, although it has fluctuated throughout the decade.
The flow of U.S. FDI abroad to TPP countries was $78 billion in 2011 with inward FDI just
above $42 billion. The stock of both U.S. FDI in TPP countries and inward FDI from TPP
countries has doubled since 2001 ($299 to $727 billion and $120 to $307 billion).
In 2011, the U.S. had a goods trade deficit with TPP countries and a services trade surplus
resulting in an overall trade deficit of $28 billion (Figure 3). The U.S. services trade surplus with
TPP countries has steadily increased over the past decade while the U.S. goods trade deficit fell
(became less negative) sharply during the recession and has yet to reach its pre-recession levels.
Crude oil, a major U.S. import from both Canada and Mexico, is a large and growing contributor
to the overall trade deficit with TPP countries. In 2011, the trade deficit in crude oil exceeded the
overall U.S. trade deficit, and hence the U.S. actually had a surplus in non-oil goods trade with
TPP countries. In services, the U.S. trade surplus has increased from $19 billion in 2001 to $59
billion in 2011. In goods, the U.S. trade deficit in 2011 of $87 billion was slightly less than the
deficit in 2001 of $91 billion, and significantly less than the deficit in 2006 of $159 billion.
13 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. Hence, Vietnam’s GDP/capita at purchasing power parity ($3,359) is more
than twice its nominal GDP/capita in U.S. dollars ($1,374), according to the October 2012 edition of the IMF’s World
Economic Outlook
14 Services trade data only available for Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Congressional Research Service
4
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries
(2011)
Source: Analysis by CRS. FTA data from the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Population and GDP data
from IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2012. Trade data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
Congressional Research Service
5
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 2. U.S. and TPP Average GDP Growth Rates
(in percent)
6
6
5
5
TPP Avg
4
4
3
3
2
2
U.S.
1
1
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
United States
TPP, Weighted Average (excluding U.S.)
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2012.
Notes: The value for non-U.S. TPP countries was computed by taking the weighted average of non-U.S. TPP
GDP growth rates, using nominal GDP values as the weights.
Figure 3. U.S. Goods and Services Trade Balance with TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
100
100
Services
50
50
0
0
-50
-50
-100
-100
Goods excl. crude
-150
-150
Goods
-200
-200
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Services Balance
Goods Balance
Goods Balance, excluding crude
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Notes: Services trade data is only available through 2010, and only for Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand,
and Singapore.
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. In May 2011, the TPP trade ministers agreed “to
consider the membership of any APEC members if and when they are ready to meet the high
standards of the agreement."15 In November 2011, Canada, Japan, and Mexico announced their
intent to seek consultations with existing participants on the possibility of joining the
negotiations. Canada and Mexico have since become official negotiating partners, but it is unclear
if or when Japan may join the negotiations. A consensus among the then-nine negotiating partners
was required for Canada and Mexico’s entry.16 Thailand has also reportedly expressed interest in
joining the negotiations, as have non-APEC countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia.17
Canada and Mexico have greatly expanded the size of the TPP in terms of U.S. trade and Japan
would make the agreement even more significant for the United States. Using trade figures from
2011, the share of U.S. goods and services trade encompassed by TPP partners increased from 5%
to 31% with the addition of Canada and Mexico (Figure 4). Adding Japan to the TPP would
increase its share of U.S. trade further to 36%, and though unlikely in the near future, expansion
of the potential agreement to all of APEC would increase its share of U.S. trade to 56%.
Japan18
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
($5.9 trillion). Japan’s entry would double the collective GDP of non-U.S. TPP partners and
increase their population by more than 35%. 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 contend that Japan’s entry could complicate the negotiation
process, adding a significant economic counterweight to the United States and perhaps slowing
the overall speed of the negotiations. 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.19 In
addition to the country’s expressed interest in joining the ongoing TPP negotiations, Japan has
also announced plans to begin FTA talks with South Korea and China in the near future, though
the current political environment in Japan may delay that process.20
15 USTR, "Joint Statement from Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers Meeting on Margins of APEC in Big Sky,
Montana," press release, May 2011, http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/may/joint-
statement-trans-pacific-partnership-ministers-me.
16 Ibid.
17 White House, "Joint Press Statement between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra,"
press release, November 18, 2012; Lucien O. Chauvin, "Canada Makes Strong Pitch to Join TPP; Colombia, Costa
Rica Also Express Interest," International Trade Daily, April 7, 2012.
18 Additional information on Japan and the TPP can be found in CRS Report R42676, Japan’s Possible Entry Into the
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Its Implications, by William H. Cooper and Mark E. Manyin.
19 Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
20 "China Plans Talks with Japan, Korea on Free-Trade Area," Bloomberg News, May 13, 2012; Mitsuru Obe, "Hopes
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 4. U.S. Goods and Services Trade, Shares of Total
(2011)
World, 100%
APEC, 56%
TPP-11 + Japan, 36%
TPP-11, 31%
TPP-9, 5%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from U.S. ITC and BEA.
Notes: TPP-9 refers to Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the
United States. TPP-11 refers to the TPP-9 plus Canada and Mexico. Services data is not available individual y for
smaller U.S. trading partners, including some TPP members. Therefore, the total share of trade encompassed by
TPP partners may be slightly larger than that shown above.
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 a number of
bilateral and regional FTAs in effect, of varying degrees, some of which include other TPP
negotiating partners. The United States, for example, has FTAs with 20 countries including six
TPP participants (Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore). In total, there are more
(...continued)
Fade for Start of Japan-China-Korea Trade Talks," The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
than 180 preferential trade agreements among Asia-Pacific countries, most of which do not
include the United States.21 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.22 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.23 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.24 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.25 APEC’s 21 members include the three largest economies in the world and the four
largest U.S. trading partners.26
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
ASEAN is another 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.27 According to the group’s economic community blueprint, ASEAN members
21 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.
22 Ibid. See also Emergency Committee for American Trade, ECAT 2011 Agenda, June 14, 2011.
23 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.
24 For more information on the most recent APEC meetings, see CRS Report R42842, The Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Meetings in Vladivostok, Russia: Postscript, by Michael F. Martin.
25 Carlos Kuriyama, The Mutual Usefulness between APEC and TPP, APEC Policy Support Unit, October 2011, p. 9.
26 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.
27 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.28
The association has also established FTAs collectively with non-ASEAN countries, including
Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Officials recently announced the
start of negotiations on a single trade agreement that would encompass ASEAN and its six FTA
partners, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This agreement
may present an alternative to the TPP in achieving freer trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region,
though it may be less comprehensive in its trade liberalization ambitions than the TPP. 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.29 However, at least one study has
shown that while there may be benefits to whichever country or country-group has more
influence in setting the trade rules for the region, there would remain significant economic
benefits for the two largest economies in RCEP and TPP, China and the United States, to merge
the two separate efforts into one region-wide FTA.30
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.
Figure 5. Existing Trade Agreements among
TPP participants have multiple FTAs in
TPP Members
place throughout the Asia-Pacific and the
world. As shown in Table A-1, TPP
10
10
countries have several agreements with
9
9
China and Japan, the second- and third-
8
8
7
7
largest economies in the region (and the
6
6
world), behind the United States. TPP
5
5
countries are also well connected to one
4
4
3
3
another through their existing trade
2
2
agreements. Figure 5 shows that only
1
1
Canada and Mexico have agreements in
0
0
force with fewer than five of the other
TPP members. Chile has agreements in
place with the entire TPP membership
In Force
Awaiting Implementation or in Negotiation
except Vietnam with whom it is currently
negotiating a bilateral FTA. The FTA
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from individual TPP
government websites.
28 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015, April 2009, p. 22.
29 “U.S. seeks to lead huge new Asia-Pacific trade bloc,” Oxford Analytica, October 17, 2011.
30 Peter A. Petri, Michael G. Plummer, and Fan Zhai, The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A
Quantitative Assessment, East-West Center, Working Paper No. 119, October 24, 2011, p. 42,
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/econwp119_2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
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. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), joins three TPP partners,
Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and encompasses over 50% of all TPP goods trade. 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 those
achieved in their existing agreements.
U.S. FTAs and TPP
The United States currently has FTAs in force
Figure 6. Top U.S. FTAs by Goods Trade
with 20 countries. Figure 6 and Figure 7
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
place the potential TPP agreement in context
with these existing U.S. FTAs. Now that the
900
800
members of NAFTA are part of the TPP
700
negotiations, this potential FTA would be by
Imports
Exports
600
far the largest U.S. FTA in terms of both
500
goods and services trade. In 2011, U.S. trade
400
with TPP partners was larger than the level of
300
U.S. trade with South Korea, the largest of the
200
100
recent U.S. FTA partners, by a factor of
0
fifteen in goods trade and a factor of seven in
services trade. However, as noted above,
much of this U.S.-TPP trade is already
covered by existing trade agreements. In total,
trade with TPP countries accounted for 34%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from ITC.
of U.S. goods trade in 2011 and 18% of
Notes: CAFTA-DR: Costa Rica, El Salvador,
services trade, but U.S. trade with the six
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican
existing U.S. FTA partners in TPP accounted
Republic.
for 32% of goods trade and 17% of services
trade—the top U.S. trade partners in TPP,
Figure 7. Top U.S. FTAs by Services Trade Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico and
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
Singapore are all existing U.S. FTA partners.
If Japan were to join the negotiations, TPP
180
160
trade would encompass nearly 40% of goods
140
trade and 25% of services trade. As a top U.S.
Imports
Exports
120
trade partner and with no existing bilateral
100
U.S. FTA, Japanese entry into the TPP
80
agreement would increase the economic
60
significance of the agreement considerably.
40
20
0
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: CAFTA-DR see above.
Congressional Research Service
11
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
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 six TPP participants. Currently, no U.S. BITs are in place with the other four TPP countries.
Among TPP participants, Malaysia has been the most proactive in negotiating BITS, according to
the latest United Nations data on international investment treaties. As of June 2012, Malaysia had
49 BITs in force, while Brunei and New Zealand had the lowest number of investment treaties
with 3 and 2, respectively. The United States had 41 BITs in force as of June 2012 (Table 5).
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 their openness to trade 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 Trade31
Trade in goods between the United States and other TPP countries represents about 34% of
overall U.S. trade. Including the recently joined countries of Canada and Mexico, the United
States had a deficit in merchandise trade with TPP countries in 2011, however, energy imports,
particularly crude oil from Canada and Mexico accounted for the bulk of this deficit. Canada and
Mexico, U.S. partners in NAFTA, are major energy suppliers to the United States the first and
third largest U.S. trade partners overall. The majority of U.S.-TPP trade is concentrated with these
two newest members. Figure 8 below shows that U.S. bilateral trade each with Canada and
Mexico is greater than U.S. trade with all other TPP countries combined. In 2011, U.S.
31 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.
Congressional Research Service
12
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
merchandise trade with its NAFTA partners accounted for nearly 85% of U.S. trade with TPP
negotiating partners.
Figure 8. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada, Mexico, and other TPP Countries
(2011, in billions of U.S. dol ars)
350
300
250
200
Exports
150
Imports
100
50
0
Canada
Mexico
Other TPP Countries
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Notes: “Other TPP Countries” includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam.
Among the other eight, non-NAFTA, TPP countries, Australia and Singapore are the major export
markets for the United States, while Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are the major import
markets. In 2011, of the $105 billion in U.S. goods exports to the region, over half went to
Australia and Singapore, while almost 70% of the $91 billion in U.S. imports came from
Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam. Over the past decade, substantial increases in trade between
the United States and some of the smaller economies have occurred (Figure 9 and Figure 10).
For example, U.S. trade with Peru and Chile has nearly quadrupled, and U.S. trade with Vietnam
has increased more than ten-fold. Figure 10 below highlights Vietnam’s rapid rise in supplying
goods to the United States, moving from the seventh- to third-biggest supplier of U.S. imports
among non-NAFTA TPP countries, gaining more ground in the U.S. market than even recent FTA
partners such as Peru and Chile. 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) status in 2001 and then permanent NTR (PNTR) status
in 2006 when Vietnam acceded to the WTO.32
In the past three years the U.S. trade balance with the non-NAFTA TPP countries has switched
from deficit to surplus. This U.S. trade surplus with these eight countries is due to both a decrease
in imports and an increase in exports. Only in 2011 did U.S. imports from the region surpass their
2006 peak, while exports increased by more than $35 billion during the same period. In 2011, the
U.S. merchandise trade surplus with these eight TPP countries was over $14 billion, almost
double the 2010 surplus of $7.5 billion. The major contributors to this rising trade balance
32 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
between the United States and the non-NAFTA TPP countries have been falling U.S. imports
from Malaysia, and rapidly increasing exports to Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore, who like
Canada and Mexico, are current U.S. FTA partners. The United States has a goods trade surplus
with six of its ten TPP partners (Table 2).
Figure 9. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Exports to TPP Countries excluding Canada
and Mexico
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Australia
Brunei
Chile
Malaysia
New Zealand
Peru
Singapore
Vietnam
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Figure 10. Bilateral U.S. Merchandise Imports from TPP Countries excluding Canada
and Mexico
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
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
Table 2. U.S. Merchandise Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Exports Imports Balance
Australia 27,516
10,240
17,276
Brunei 184
23
161
Canada 280,764
316,511
-35,747
Chile 15,873
9,069
6,804
Malaysia 14,218
25,772
-11,554
Mexico 197,544
263,106
-65,562
New Zealand
3,571
3,160
411
Peru 8,319
6,236
2,083
Singapore 31,393
19,111
12,282
Vietnam 4,341
17,485
-13,144
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
At the aggregate level, mineral fuels, primarily crude oil, are the largest category of U.S. imports
from TPP countries. The other major import categories are vehicles, electrical machinery, and
machinery. These four categories are also the largest export categories from the United States to
TPP countries, with machinery being the top export, followed by electrical machinery and
vehicles. Mineral fuels are the fourth largest export category, largely representing U.S. exports of
refined petroleum products. The fact that these four product categories are the top U.S. imports
and exports may reflect the supply chains and production linkages that exist between the United
States and Asia-Pacific countries. Even in petroleum products, for example, raw crude is the
primary U.S. import, while refined petroleum products are the primary U.S. export.
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 3 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’s exports to the United States consist primarily
of manufactured products, such as machinery, chemicals, and electrical machinery. From Canada
and Mexico the United States imports both raw materials, such as crude oil, and manufactured
goods such as vehicles, machinery, and electrical machinery. Vietnam, the TPP country with the
lowest per capita GDP, specializes in the labor-intensive apparel industry with nearly 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 3. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories
(in millions of U.S. dollars and percentage, 2011)
Percent
Percent
Country
Top U.S. Imports
Value
of Total
Top U.S. Exports
Value
of Total
Australia
(1) Precious Stones & Metals
$1,254
12 %
(1) Machinery
$6,167
22 %
(2) Meat
$1,243
12 %
(2) Vehicles & Parts
$3,959
14 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$804
8 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$2,215 8
%
Instruments
Instruments
Brunei
(1) Precious Stones & Metals
$9
39 %
(1) Machinery
$77
42 %
(2) Organic Chemicals
$8
35 %
(2) Aircraft
$27
15 %
(3) Knitted Apparel
$3
13 %
(3) Optical, Medical
$16 9
%
Instruments
Canada
(1) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$103,365
33 %
(1) Vehicles & Parts
$46,657
32 %
(2) Vehicles & Parts
$49,793
16 %
(2) Machinery
$44,000
30 %
(3) Machinery
$19,686
6 %
(3) Electrical Machinery
$26,874
18 %
Chile
(1) Copper
$3,269
36 %
(1) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$4,929
31 %
(2) Fruits and Nuts
$1,510
17 %
(2) Machinery
$2,997
19 %
(3) Seafood
$866
10 %
(3) Vehicles & Parts
$1,577
10 %
Malaysia
(1) Electrical Machinery
$12,469
48 %
(1) Electrical Machinery
$6,759
48 %
(2) Machinery
$4,022
16 %
(2) Machinery
$1,630
12 %
(3) Animal/Vegetable Fats/Oils
$1,679
7 %
(3) Aircraft
$1,029
7 %
Mexico
(1) Electrical Machinery
$54,308
17 %
(1) Electrical Machinery
$32,297
22 %
(2) Vehicles & Parts
$45,800
14 %
(2) Machinery
$31,206
21 %
(3) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$44,120
14 %
(3) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$23,366
16 %
New Zealand (1) Meat
$906
29 %
(1) Aircraft
$1,067
30 %
(2) Albuminoidal Substances,
$312
10 %
(2) Machinery
$391
11 %
Starches, Glues, etc.
(3) Dairy, Eggs, & Honey
$286
9 %
(3) Vehicles & Parts
$219
6 %
Peru
(1) Mineral Fuel, Oil, etc.
$1,595
26 %
(1) Machinery
$2,020
24 %
(2) Knitted Apparel
$681
11 %
(2) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$1,630
20 %
(3) Precious Stones & Metals
$678
11 %
(3) Electrical Machinery
$739
9 %
Singapore
(1) Machinery
$5,174
27 %
(1) Machinery
$5,868
19 %
(2) Organic Chemicals
$4,457
23 %
(2) Electrical Machinery
$5,110
16 %
(3) Electrical Machinery
$2,948
15 %
(3) Mineral Fuels, Oil, etc.
$4,451
14 %
Vietnam
(1) Knitted Apparel
$3,782
22 %
(1) Machinery
$541
12 %
(2) Woven Apparel
$2,774
16 %
(2) Electrical Machinery
$372
9 %
(3) Footwear
$2,046
12 %
(3) Cotton, including
$371 9
%
Yarns/Fabrics
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Notes: 2-digit Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) categories. Excludes “special classification” category, HTS 98.
Congressional Research Service
16
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Services Trade33
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.34 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, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico,
New Zealand, and Singapore. Elsewhere in this document, if not specified, trade simply refers to
merchandise (goods) trade.
Cross-Border Trade in Services35
U.S. services trade with the
Figure 11. Total U.S.-TPP Services Trade
seven TPP countries for which
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
data are available, presents the
same pattern of competitiveness
90
seen in U.S. services trade with
80
the rest of the world. In 2011,
70
the United States had a
60
collective services trade surplus
50
of more than $58 billion with
40
these seven TPP countries. As
30
with goods trade, Canada and
20
Mexico are the largest U.S.
10
services trade partners among
0
TPP members. However, during
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
the past decade U.S. services
Canada
Mexico
Other TPP Countries
trade with other TPP countries,
particularly Australia, have
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
increased at a faster rate than
Notes: “Other TPP Countries” includes Australia, Chile, Malaysia,
those from Mexico, such that
New Zealand, and SIngapore.
U.S. services trade with the
other TPP countries,
collectively, now exceeds U.S. trade with Mexico (Figure 11). While services exports from the
United States to these seven TPP countries collectively have more than doubled over the past
decade, services exports to Australia have more than tripled from $4.8 billion to $16 billion. In
2011, the United States had a significant services trade surplus with all TPP countries for which
33 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.
34 Ibid.
35 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
individual data are available, except for New Zealand, with which it had a nearly balanced
services trade (Table 4).
Table 4. U.S. Service Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Exports
Imports
Balance
Australia 16,088
6,315
9,773
Canada 56,076
28,028
28,048
Chile 3,016
1,233
1,783
Malaysia 2,571
1,361
1,210
Mexico 25,207
13,745
11,462
New Zealand
2,115
1,814
301
Singapore 10,451
4,442
6,009
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from ITC.
The composition of U.S. services exports to the seven TPP countries differs considerably from the
composition of U.S. services imports. Figure 12 below shows that while the United States has a
trade surplus in each of the six categories listed, some categories have relatively more balanced
trade than others. For example, U.S.-TPP trade in the royalties’ category including industrial
processes and film and television distribution consists almost entirely of U.S. exports—roughly
ten times as great as U.S. imports. In the categories of education, financial services, and
insurance, telecoms, and other private services, U.S. exports are also more than double U.S.
imports. However, for business services trade, which includes services such as computer and data
processing, management, and research and development, U.S. exports and imports are relatively
balanced.
Figure 12. U.S.-TPP Services Trade, by Category
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
50
45
40
35
30
25
Exports
20
15
Imports
10
5
0
Travel and
Royalties
Business
Insurance,
Education
Financial
Transport
Services
Telecoms,
Services
and Other
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: Services trade data not available for Brunei, Peru, and Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
18
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Services Supplied through Foreign Affiliates
In addition to trading services across
Figure 13. U.S. Services Supplied to TPP Countries
international borders, countries also
through MOFAs
provide services to foreign residents by
establishing a commercial presence in
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
local markets. The BEA collects data on
140
services supplied to foreign residents by
120
majority-owned36 foreign affiliates
100
(MOFAs) of U.S. multi-national
corporations (MNCs) (i.e., U.S.
80
companies with operations in foreign
60
countries). Typically, the value of U.S.
40
services supplied through MOFAs is
20
considerably larger than the cross-
0
border trade in services discussed
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
above. For instance, in 2010, more than
Australia
Canada
Mexico
Singapore
Other TPP
$1 trillion in services were provided to
foreign residents through foreign
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
affiliates of U.S. companies, compared
Notes: Services trade data not available for Brunei, Peru, and
to $538 billion supplied through cross-
Vietnam.
border trade. At a smaller scale, the same pattern holds true for U.S. services provided to the
seven TPP countries for which services data are available. During 2004-2010, the latest period for
which consistent data are available, services supplied through U.S. MOFAs grew rapidly,
particularly in the seven TPP countries, nearly doubling by 2010. As with U.S.-TPP cross-border
trade in services, in 2010, the majority of services supplied to TPP countries through U.S.
MOFAs went to Canada (46%). Mexico accounted for 13%, Australia 18%, Singapore 16%, and
other TPP countries 7% (Figure 13).
Figure 14. TPP Country Services Supplied to the
In 2010, the value of services supplied
United States through MOUSAs
to U.S. residents through majority-
owned U.S. affiliates (MOUSAs) of
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
foreign MNCs (i.e., foreign companies
80
that have established a commercial
70
presence in the United States) was only
60
about 60% of the value of services
50
supplied abroad through MOFAs of U.S.
40
MNCs. This same pattern is evident
30
among the seven TPP countries: services
20
supplied to the United States through
10
TPP MOUSAs are less than half of
0
those supplied to TPP countries from
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
U.S. MOFAs. Among TPP countries
Australia
Canada
Mexico
Singapore
Other TPP
Canada is by far the largest supplier of
services through MOUSAs (75%)
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
(Figure 14).
Notes: Services trade data not available for Brunei, Peru, and
Vietnam.
36 A majority-owned U.S./foreign affiliate is one in which the combined direct and indirect ownership interests of all
foreign/U.S. parents of the U.S./foreign affiliate exceed 50%.
Congressional Research Service
19
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 15 provides an illustration of each TPP country’s relative
trading relationship with the other TPP members.
Figure 15 is intended to show at a glance for each country the relative strength of its trade
relationships (exports and imports) with each of its ten TPP trading partners. For instance,
consider Australia’s trade represented in segment (a) of Figure 15. 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 (k), 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 (e) and Singapore (i) are each other’s largest TPP trading partner. On the other hand, for
unequally sized neighbors Australia (a) and New Zealand (g), Australia, with an economy nearly
10 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 15, 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 in a more comprehensive, high standard agreement, such as
the proposed TPP, because much of their trade is already covered under existing trade
agreements. The two most significant bilateral trading relationships not covered under current
FTAs are U.S.-Malaysia and U.S.-Vietnam (see segments e, j, and k).
Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships: Interpreting Figure 15
•
Eleven segments (a-k) depict trade between the eleven TPP countries, and their ten 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 general y indicate 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 15 can be seen in Table A-2.
Congressional Research Service
20
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 15. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trading Relationships
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF Direction of Trade Statistics.
Note: See text box on previous page for details on interpreting Figure 15. See Table A-2 in the appendix for
trade 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
21
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
World-TPP Trade
Who trades with TPP countries? Figure 17 and Figure 18 on the following page compare shares
of non-U.S. TPP trade in 2000 and 2011. 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.37
In 2000, the United States accounted for 45% of all goods exported to other TPP countries. By
2011, the United States’ share had fallen to 28%. During the same period, China’s share of goods
exported to non-U.S. TPP countries increased from 4% to 14%. This pattern holds true for trade
in both directions. In 2000, the United States was also the top importer from other TPP countries,
receiving 56% of all exports from non-U.S. TPP countries, but by 2011 this share dropped to
35%. Again, China’s share increased from 2% to 11% over the same time period.
Other APEC economies also increased their shares of non-U.S. TPP trade, and to a lesser extent
trade among TPP countries also grew. Relatively speaking, since 2000, TPP countries are trading
less with Japan and the United States and more with each other, the other APEC economies,
especially China, and the rest of the world.
China’s rapid economic rise in the region can
Figure 16. Merchandise Imports into
also be seen at the individual country level.
Australia
For example, the same pattern emerges if one
(top countries of origin, in billions of U.S. dollars)
examines Australia’s top import partners
(Figure 16). In Australia, China’s growth in
60
60
exports has been even more significant than
50
50
elsewhere in the TPP region. Since 2000,
40
40
Australia’s imports from China have grown
30
30
from less than $10 billion to nearly $50
20
20
billion. In 2006, China replaced the United
10
10
States as the chief supplier of Australian
imports.
0
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
While China’s rise as a trading partner with
China
US
Japan
Singapore
TPP countries has been rapid and significant,
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF’s
it is representative of China’s trade patterns
Direction of Trade Statistics.
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 Table A-1.
37 Prior to Canada and Mexico joining the TPP negotiations, the United States accounted for a significantly smaller
share of total TPP trade in both 2000 and 2011 (16% (2000) to 11% (2011) for exports, and 16% (2000) to 7% (2011)
for imports).
Congressional Research Service
22
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Figure 17. Source of Merchandise Imports into non-U.S. TPP Countries
(share of total, 2000 and 2011)
2000
2011
China
4%
China
Japan
Other
14%
9%
Other
21%
26%
Japan
6%
Other
APEC
10%
Other
United
United
Non-U.S.
APEC
States
States
Non-
TPP 11%
14%
28%
45%
U.S.
TPP
12%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.
Figure 18. Destination of Merchandise Exports from non-U.S. TPP Countries
(share of total, 2000 and 2011)
2000 China
2011
2%
China
Japan
Other
7%
Other
11%
15%
21%
Japan
7%
Other
APEC
10%
Other
Non-U.S.
United
APEC
United
TPP 10%
States
15%
States
56%
Non-
35%
U.S.
TPP
11%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
23
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Investment Patterns
The proposed TPP FTA, like previous U.S. FTAs, is expected to include provisions on
investment. As mentioned above, the FTAs the United States already has in place with six of the
TPP countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore) include investment
provisions. However, no other bilateral investment treaties (BITs) exist between the United States
and the remaining TPP countries
The six existing U.S. FTAs with TPP countries already cover the countries responsible for the
majority of TPP-U.S. FDI flows. Figure 19 and Figure 20 highlight that TPP FDI flows both into
and out of the United States are primarily with Canada, which accounted for 52% of U.S.-TPP
FDI outflows in 2011 and 44% of inflows. The other major destinations of U.S. FDI were
Australia, Mexico, and Singapore, which when combined with Canada, accounted for $70 billion
in U.S. FDI flows abroad. U.S. FDI inflows from TPP countries are much less diversified with
Canada and Australia alone accounting for $41 billion in 2011 or 85% of total U.S. FDI inflows
from TPP countries.
Considering worldwide FDI flows, in 2011, the United States was the largest recipient and source
of FDI among TPP participants in absolute terms (Table 5). However, scaling FDI by GDP levels
reveals that relative to the size of their economies, FDI flows in and out of Singapore were
considerably higher than those in the United States. Singapore and most TPP countries, except the
United States, Canada, and Malaysia, were net recipients of FDI in 2011. 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 is also influenced by
current macroeconomic conditions (i.e., exchange rates, interest rates, and economic stability).
Figure 19. Destination of U.S. FDI
Figure 20. Sources of U.S. FDI inflows
outflows to TPP Countries
from TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
Other TPP
Other TPP
3%
Singapore
10%
Mexico 6%
Singapore
6%
10%
Canada
44%
Mexico
Canada
11%
52%
Australia
Australia
41%
17%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the BEA.
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the BEA.
Congressional Research Service
24
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Table 5. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Flows for TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Total Investment
Number of
Total Direct Investment
(inward and outward)
Country
Agreements
Total FDI (inward)
Abroad (outward)
to GDP Ratio
Australia 21
$41,317
$19,999
.04
Brunei 3
$1,208 $10 .07
Canada 26
$40,932
$49,569
.05
Chile 39
$17,299
$11,822 .12
Malaysia 49
$11,966
$15,258
.09
Mexico 28
$19,554
$8,946
.02
New Zealand
2
$3,369
$2,856
.04
Peru 30
$8,233
$113 .05
Singapore 35
$64,003 $25,227
.34
United States
41
$226,937
$396,656
.04
Vietnam 42
$7,430 $950
.07
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.
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.38 The MFN concept is a WTO principle that requires member
countries to non-discriminately apply their tariff rates to other members.39 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.40 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%.
38 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.
39 An exception to this rule is allowed 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.
40 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
25
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
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.41 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 21 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 applied
MFN tariff rate on Canadian dairy products is 247%, even though the overall Canadian average
applied MFN tariff rate is only 4.5%. Table 6 below provides the product category with the
highest tariff rate for each TPP country. These include dairy, clothing, beverages/tobacco, sugar,
and electrical machinery.
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
one product group.
Figure 21. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita
(tariffs in percent (left axis), GDP/Capita in U.S. dol ars (right axis), 2011)
12
$60,000
10
$50,000
8
$40,000
6
$30,000
4
$20,000
2
$10,000
0
$0
Avg MFN Tariff, Applied
GDP/Capita (Right Axis)
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook and WTO Tariff Profiles 2012.
Notes: (*) Indicates tariff data is from 2010. GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP).
41 Great variation also exists for bound rates among TPP countries, ranging from 36% in Mexico to 3.5% in the United
States.
Congressional Research Service
26
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Table 6. Highest Tariffs by Product Category
(tariffs in percent, 2011)
Country
Product
Avg. Applied MFN Tariff (%)
Australia Clothing
8.9
Brunei Electrical
machinery
13.9
Canada Dairy
Products
246.8
Chile Most
Products
6.0
Malaysia
Beverages and tobacco
119.7
Mexico
Sugars and confectionery
59.3
New Zealand
Clothing
9.6
Peru Clothing
13.0
Singapore
Beverages and tobacco
2.4
United States
Dairy
19.1
Vietnam
Beverages and tobacco
43.6
Source: WTO Tariff Profiles 2012.
Notes: Product category average tariffs based on both ad-valorem tariffs (percentage of overall value) and non-
ad valorem tariff equivalents (other types of tariffs converted to percentage). These category-specific averages
are at the 4-digit HTS level, and do not necessarily represent the highest tariffs on a specific product (e.g.,
although the overall average U.S. clothing tariff is lower than the 19.1% average U.S. dairy tariff, tariffs on some
specific clothing articles are higher).
When considering tariff rates, it is useful to
consider the overall importance of trade in a
Figure 22. Trade-to-GDP Ratios
nation’s economy. Trade-to-GDP ratios, shown
(in percent, 2009-2011)
in Figure 22 provide one such measure. The
figure shows a great range in trade-to-GDP ratios
United States
among TPP countries. Singapore’s trade-to-GDP
28.4
ratio of over 400% implies that the country’s
Australia
44.4
imports and exports are four times larger than its
Peru
49.8
total domestic production of goods and services.
Such a high figure likely reflects Singapore’s
New
58.4
Zealand*
importance as a regional shipping hub, re-
Canada
61.1
exporting products that merely pass through its
borders, as well as its importance in international
Mexico
61.2
supply chains, perhaps domestically producing
Chile
68.8
only a portion of the components in the
manufactured goods it exports. Given this
Brunei*
109
significant reliance on international trade, it is
Vietnam
157.8
less surprising that Singapore would have such a
low average applied tariff level. The United
Malaysia
173.5
States, the TPP country with the largest
Singapore
415.8
population and economy, and, hence, the largest
domestic market, has a trade-to-GDP ratio of less
0
100
200
300
400
500
than 30%, indicating the lowest reliance on trade
among any of the TPP countries. The United
Source: WTO Trade Profiles 2012.
States, however, has one of the lowest average
Notes: (*) Indicates ratios are from 2008-2010.
Congressional Research Service
27
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
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 FTA 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
largest U.S. FTA based on trade flows, although U.S. FTAs are already in place with several of
the largest members. 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.
In goods, services, and investment flows Canada is the top U.S. partner among TPP countries
with Mexico second in all categories except investment flows. Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore
are the other top U.S. partners in merchandise trade among TPP countries, and Australia and
Singapore are also 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, Mexico, Chile, and Peru also represent growing economies that have populations above
20 million. Chile, Peru, and Mexico’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
28
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Appendix.
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries
Agreements in Negotiation or
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
Australia ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand China
Chile
Gulf Cooperation Councila
New Zealand
India
Singapore
Indonesia
Thailand
Japan
United States
Malaysia
PACERb
RCEPc
South Korea
TPPd
Brunei* AFTAe RCEPc
Japan
TPPd
P-4f
Canada
Chile
Andean Communityg
Colombia
Caribbean Communityh
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
EFTAi
El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua
Israel
European Unionj
Jordan
Honduras
NAFTAk
India
Peru
Japan
Morocco
Panama
Singapore
South Korea
TPPd
Ukraine
Chile Argentinal India
Australia
Nicaragua
Bolivial Pacific
Alliancem
Congressional Research Service
29
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Agreements in Negotiation or
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
Canada
Thailand
Chile-Central American TPPd
China
Vietnam
Colombia
Cubao
Ecuadorp
EFTAi
European Unionj
Indiao
Japan
Malaysia
Mercosuro
Mexico
P-4f
Panama
Peru
South Korea
Turkey
United States
Venezuelal
Malaysia* AFTAe
Australia
Chile
D-8q
India
European Unionj
Japan
RCEPc
New Zealand
TPS-OICr
Pakistan
Turkey
TPPd
Mexico
Chile
Central Americas
Colombia
Pacific Alliancem
Costa Rica
Singapore
EFTAi South
Korea
European Unionj TPPd
Israel
NAFTAk
Congressional Research Service
30
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Agreements in Negotiation or
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
Nicaragua
Northern Trianglet
Peru
Uruguay
New Zealand
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand
Gulf Cooperation Councila
Australia
India
China
RCEPc
Hong Kong
Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan
Malaysia
South Korea
P-4f TPPd
Singapore
Thailand
Peru Andean
Communityi Costa
Rica
Canada
El Salvador
Chile
European Unionj
China
Guatemala
Cuba on Honduras
EFTAi Pacific
Alliancem
Japan
Panama
Mercosuro,l TPPd
Mexico
Singapore
South Korea
Thailand
United States
Singapore* AFTAe
Canada
Australia
Costa Rica
China
European Unionj
EFTAi
Gulf Cooperation Councila
India
Mexico
Japan
Pakistan
Jordan
RCEPc
New Zealand
Ukraine
Congressional Research Service
31
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Agreements in Negotiation or
Country
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
P-4f TPPd
Panama
Peru
South Korea
United States
United States
Australia
TPPd
Bahrain
CAFTA-DR uu
Chile
Colombia
Israel
Jordan
Morocco
NAFTAk
Oman
Panama
Peru
Singapore
South Korea
Vietnam AFTAe
Chile
Japan
RCEPc
South Korea
TPPd
ASEAN (Association of Southeast
Australia and New Zealand
European Unionj
Asian Nations)
China
RCEPc
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.
Congressional Research Service
32
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
b. Pacific Agreement on Closer Relations (PACER): Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia,
Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshal Islands, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
c. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP): ASEAN members, Australia, China, India, Japan,
New Zealand, South Korea.
d. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, United States, Vietnam.
e. ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA): Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.
f.
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P-4): Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore.
g. European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland.
h. Caribbean Community (CARICOM): Antigua & Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica,
Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,
Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago. Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos
Islands are Associate Members.
i.
Andean Community: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru.
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. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Canada, Mexico, United States.
l.
Economic Complementarity Agreement.
m. Pacific Al iance: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru.
n. Chile-Central America: Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
o. Mercosur: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay.
p. Pacific Al iance: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru.
q. Developing Eight (D-8): Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey.
r. Trade Preferential System-Organization of Islamic Conference (TPS-OIC): 57 Islamic Countries.
s. Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
t.
Northern Triangle: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras.
u. Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).
Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Australia
United States
10,133.7 United States
29,504.4
New
Zealand
7,919.4
Singapore
16,120.7
Singapore 6,588.1
Malaysia 9,722.5
Malaysia 4,645.2
New
Zealand
8,619.1
Vietnam 2,115.2
Vietnam 3,217.4
Canada 1,521.1
Mexico 2,020.6
Mexico 1,179.4
Canada 2,007.1
Chile
497.4
Brunei 1,439.5
Congressional Research Service
33
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Peru
115.4
Chile
1,063.1
Brunei
38.0
Peru
118.2
Brunei
Australia 1,308.6
Singapore
1,752.8
New
Zealand
392.2
Malaysia 598.5
Singapore 182.1
United
States
202.8
Vietnam
172.0
Australia 41.8
Malaysia
44.5
Vietnam
16.9
United
States 23.5
Canada
4.1
Canada
8.2
New
Zealand 4.0
Chile
0.0
Mexico*
0.5
Peru
0.0
Chile
0.0
Mexico*
0.0
Peru
0.0
Canada
United States
333,272.2 United States
245,628.4
Mexico 5,530.6
Mexico 27,320.7
Australia 1,918.1
Peru
4,896.3
Chile
824.4
Malaysia 2,376.9
Singapore 812.8
Chile
2,128.2
Malaysia
773.7
Australia 1,965.0
Peru
521.7
Singapore
1,725.1
New
Zealand
384.9
Vietnam 1,479.0
Vietnam
337.6
New
Zealand
613.3
Brunei
3.7
Brunei
9.1
Chile
United States
9,047.6 United States
15,092.5
Peru
2,017.0
Mexico 2,526.6
Mexico 1,827.4
Peru
2,058.2
Canada 1,475.8
Canada 912.6
Australia 924.8
Australia 520.8
Vietnam
334.3
Malaysia 165.8
Malaysia
210.2
Vietnam 164.5
Singapore
81.5
Singapore 69.6
New Zealand
61.6 New Zealand
53.2
Brunei
0.0
Brunei
0.0
Malaysia
Singapore 28,841.0
Singapore
24,120.5
United States
18,897.9 United States
18,144.7
Australia 8,398.3
Australia 4,188.2
Vietnam 3,827.4
Vietnam 3,382.7
Mexico 1,754.5
Canada 921.0
Congressional Research Service
34
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
New Zealand
987.5 New Zealand
789.8
Canada
910.5
Mexico 286.6
Brunei
544.1
Chile
261.9
Chile
124.3
Brunei
48.9
Peru
117.0
Peru
7.8
Mexico
United States
274,698.2 United States
191,791.6
Canada 10,676.6
Canada 10,610.0
Chile
2,072.0
Malaysia 6,170.9
Peru
1,286.4
Chile
2,311.5
Australia 894.6
Singapore
1,303.4
Singapore 592.3
Australia 1,082.6
Malaysia
124.3
Vietnam* 973.3
New
Zealand 91.9
Peru
640.6
Vietnam*
64.1
New
Zealand
478.2
Brunei*
0.5
Brunei*
0.0
New Zealand
Australia 8,308.0
Australia
5,853.0
United States
3,172.0 United States
3,803.0
Malaysia
703.3
Singapore
1,704.7
Singapore 635.9
Malaysia 1,151.8
Canada
466.5
Canada 503.5
Vietnam
351.9
Brunei
431.4
Mexico
350.6
Vietnam 204.8
Peru
61.9
Mexico 176.3
Chile
49.1
Chile
56.8
Brunei
3.6
Peru
29.0
Peru
United States
5,942.4 United States
9,151.1
Canada 4,451.2
Chile
2,218.7
Chile
1,871.1
Mexico 1,415.0
Mexico
582.4
Canada 573.8
Australia 107.4
Malaysia 128.7
Vietnam
81.7
Australia 126.9
Singapore
30.9
Vietnam* 102.3
New Zealand
26.4 New Zealand
68.1
Malaysia
7.1
Singapore 40.6
Brunei
0.0
Brunei
0.0
Singapore
Malaysia 50,019.0
United
States
39,535.6
United
States
22,362.4
Malaysia 39,131.5
Congressional Research Service
35
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Australia 16,092.1
Australia 3,739.9
Vietnam 10,231.5
Mexico 1,801.5
Mexico 2,446.6
Vietnam 1,659.3
New
Zealand
2,123.4
Canada 1,170.9
Brunei
1,593.5
New
Zealand
1,001.5
Canada 1,405.5
Chile
310.4
Chile
72.7
Brunei
200.4
Peru
36.9
Peru
34.0
United States
Canada 280,764.3
Canada
320,693.0
Mexico 197,543.8
Mexico
265,392.6
Singapore 31,393.0
Malaysia 26,485.3
Australia 27,516.2
Singapore
19,362.9
Chile
15,873.5
Vietnam 18,454.2
Malaysia 14,218.0
Australia
10,559.9
Peru
8,319.2
Chile
9,728.2
Vietnam 4,340.7
Peru
6,536.6
New Zealand
3,571.3 New Zealand
3,345.0
Brunei
184.4
Brunei
25.9
Vietnam
United States
16,927.8 Singapore
6,390.6
Malaysia 2,832.4
United
States
4,529.2
Australia 2,519.1
Malaysia 3,919.7
Singapore 2,285.7
Australia 2,123.3
Canada
969.4
New
Zealand
384.0
Mexico
589.8
Canada 342.1
New
Zealand
151.4
Chile
335.7
Chile
137.5
Brunei
189.2
Peru*
102.3
Mexico
91.4
Brunei
15.4
Peru
89.9
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics.
Notes: (*) Indicates data was not available through the IMF and was sourced from World Trade Atlas.
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.
Congressional Research Service
36
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Author Contact Information
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
bwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-1157
Congressional Research Service
37