Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries:
Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis
Brock R. Williams
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
June 10, 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) among 12
countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, 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. Japan is the most recent
country to seek entry into the TPP. The Administration gave Congress notice of its intent to
negotiate with Japan in the TPP on April 24, 2013.
The TPP negotiations have been 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 nearly 60% of global GDP, and includes some of the fastest-
growing economies in the world. Including Canada, Mexico, and Japan, TPP negotiating partners
made up 40% of U.S. goods trade in 2012, and the Asia-Pacific economies as a whole made up
over 62%. 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 2012, non-
U.S. TPP partners collectively had a GDP of $11.9 trillion, just over 75% of the U.S. level, and a
population of 478 million, about 50% larger than the U.S. population. Japan’s entry (pop. 128
million and GDP $6 trillion) increases the significance of the agreement on both these metrics.
Unlike most previous U.S. FTA negotiations, the TPP involves countries with which the United
States already has an FTA. The United States has FTAs in place with Australia, Canada, Chile,
Mexico, Peru, and Singapore, which together account for over 80% of U.S. goods trade with TPP
countries. Japan is by far the largest U.S. trade partner among TPP members without an existing
U.S. FTA.



Congressional Research Service

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

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
New and Potential TPP Participants .......................................................................................... 6
Existing Trade and Economic Agreements ...................................................................................... 8
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) ............................................................................ 8
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) ................................................................... 8
Free Trade Agreements .............................................................................................................. 9
U.S. FTAs and TPP ........................................................................................................... 10
Bilateral Investment Treaties ................................................................................................... 12
Trade, Investment, and Tariff Patterns ........................................................................................... 12
U.S.-TPP Trade ........................................................................................................................ 12
Merchandise Trade ............................................................................................................ 12
Services Trade ................................................................................................................... 17
Aggregate TPP Trade ............................................................................................................... 21
Investment Patterns ................................................................................................................. 22
Tariff Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Figures
Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. U.S. Goods and Services Trade Balance with TPP Countries .......................................... 6
Figure 3. 2011 U.S. Goods and Services Trade, Shares of Total ..................................................... 7
Figure 4. Existing Trade Agreements Among TPP Members ........................................................ 10
Figure 5. Top Existing and Potential U.S. FTAs by Goods Trade, 2012 ....................................... 11
Figure 6. Top Existing and Potential U.S. FTAs by Services Trade, 2011 .................................... 11
Figure 7. U.S. Merchandise Trade with TPP Countries ................................................................. 13
Figure 8. U.S. Goods Exports to TPP Countries excluding Canada, Japan, and Mexico .............. 14
Figure 9. U.S. Goods Imports from TPP Countries excluding Canada, Japan, and Mexico ......... 15
Figure 10. Cross-Border U.S.-TPP Services Trade ........................................................................ 18
Figure 11. U.S.-TPP Services Trade, by Category ......................................................................... 19
Figure 12. U.S. Services Supplied to TPP Countries through MOFAs .......................................... 20
Figure 13. TPP Country Services Supplied to the United States through MOUSAs ..................... 20
Figure 14. Trade Among TPP Partners and with Other Regions ................................................... 21
Figure 15. U.S. FDI with TPP Countries (Stock) .......................................................................... 22
Figure 16. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita ..................................................................... 24
Figure 17. Trade-to-GDP Ratios .................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Research Service

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis


Tables
Table 1. APEC Members and Economic Statistics, 2012 ................................................................ 3
Table 2. Bilateral Investment Treaties in TPP Countries ............................................................... 12
Table 3. U.S. Merchandise Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries .............. 13
Table 4. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories ....................................................................................... 16
Table 5. U.S. Service Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries ....................... 18
Table 6. U.S. FDI with TPP Countries ........................................................................................... 23
Table 7. Highest Tariffs by Product Category ................................................................................ 25
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries ............................................................................ 27
Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade ...................................................................................... 31

Appendixes
Appendix. ....................................................................................................................................... 27

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 11 other countries. Current participants include
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the
United States, and Vietnam. In November 2011, Canada, Mexico, and Japan all expressed interest
in the possibility of joining the TPP talks, and proceeded with consultations among the existing
partners toward that end. Canada and Mexico joined the agreement in late 2012, and while
Japan’s entry process was somewhat more protracted, Japan is expected to begin participating in
the TPP negotiations beginning in July 2013. 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.2 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;3 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.4
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 This report covers economic aspects of TPP countries and does not address U.S. foreign policy interests.
3 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.
4 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 12 of the current TPP participants (Table
1). It is home to 40% of the world’s population and nearly 60% of global GDP.5 Moreover, the
region’s economies are growing quickly. In 2012, nine of these 21 economies had GDP growth
above 5%, while GDP growth in the United States was 2.2%.6 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 2011.7 The region is significant not just as
a burgeoning market, but also as an integral part of global value 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 foreign direct investment (FDI) into and out of 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 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 opening markets and expanding U.S. economic engagement abroad.11

5 Analysis by CRS. Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Economic Outlook, April 2013.
6 Analysis by CRS. Data from the IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2013.
7 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.
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 Members and Economic Statistics, 2012
GDP
GDP/Capita
(in billions of
Population
(in U.S. dollars
Real GDP
Member
U.S. dollars)
(in millions)
at PPP)
Growth (%)
TPP Countries
Australia
$1,542
22.8
$42,640
3.58
Brunei $17
0.4
$54,389
1.30
Canada
$1,819
34.8
$42,734
1.84
Chile $268
17.4
$18,419
5.47
Japan $5,964
127.6
$36,266
2.00
Malaysia
$304
29.5
$16,922
5.61
Mexico
$1,177
114.9
$15,312
3.95
New
Zealand
$170
4.4
$29,730
2.54
Peru $199
30.5
$10,719
6.28
Singapore
$277
5.4
$60,410
1.32
Vietnam
$138
90.4
$3,548
5.02

Non-U.S. TPP Total
$11,874 478.0


United
States
$15,685
314.2
$49,922
2.21

Total
$27,558 792.2


Other APEC
China
$8,227
1,354.0
$9,162
7.80
Hong
Kong
$263
7.2
$51,494
1.44
Indonesia
$878
244.5
$4,977
6.23

Papua New Guinea
$16
6.8
$2,797
9.09
Philippines
$250
95.8
$4,430
6.59
Russia $2,022
141.9
$17,709
3.40
South
Korea
$1,156
50.0
$32,272
2.02
Taiwan
$474
23.3
$38,749
1.26
Thailand
$366
64.4
$10,126
6.44

Total
$13,652
1,987.9


APEC Total
$41,210
2,780.2


Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook, April 2013.
Notes: GDP/Capita figures are in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). 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. dol ar 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. dol ars do not take account
of these price differences across countries. Hence, Vietnam’s GDP/capita at purchasing power parity ($3,547) is
more than twice its nominal GDP/capita in U.S. dol ars ($1,527), according to the April 2013 edition of the IMF’s
World Economic Outlook.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

TPP Countries
The 12 countries that constitute the current group of TPP participants are economically and
demographically diverse. As shown in Figure 1, the United States is more than twice as large as
any other TPP country in terms of its economy and population. Japan, the newest and next largest
TPP country, has a GDP and population that are 38% and 41% of the U.S. level, respectively.
GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP), a rough measure of a country’s level of
economic development, ranges from just over $3,500 in Vietnam to over $60,000 in Singapore,
more than $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 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. Non-U.S. TPP partners collectively
represent a potential market with a population about 50% larger than the United States and
several TPP economies have been growing rapidly over the past decade (e.g., average GDP
growth for 2002-2012 was 7.0% in Vietnam, 6.4% in Peru, 5.9% in Singapore, and 5.1% in
Malaysia). U.S. trade and FDI flows with these countries have increased significantly. U.S.
exports to TPP countries increased by more than 75% during this period, exceeding $159 billion
in services in 2011 and $689 billion in goods in 2012.13 U.S. imports from TPP countries
increased by more than 50% since 2002 with services imports of nearly $82 billion in 2011 and
goods imports of $843 billion in 2012. 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 $83 billion in 2011 with inward FDI at $61 billion. The stock of both U.S. FDI in
TPP countries and inward FDI from TPP countries has doubled since 2002 ($355 billion to $843
billion and $270 billion to $596 billion).
The United States has consistently run a goods trade deficit with TPP countries and a services
trade surplus (Figure 2). 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. In services, the U.S.
trade surplus has increased from $33 billion in 2002 to $78 billion in 2011. In goods, the U.S.
trade deficit in 2012 of $155 billion was slightly less than the deficit in 2002 of $167 billion, and
significantly less than the peak deficit in 2007 of $247 billion. 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. Excluding trade in crude oil, the United States actually had an overall trade
surplus (goods and services) with TPP countries in 2011.

12 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.
13 Services trade data not available for Brunei, Peru, or Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Figure 1. Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries

Source: Analysis by CRS. FTA data from the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Population and GDP
data from IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2013. Trade data from the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC).
Note: Does not include trade in services.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Figure 2. 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
-150
-150
-200
-200
Goods excl. crude
-250
-250
Goods
-300
-300
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
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 2011 and is not available for Brunei, Peru, or Vietnam.
New and Potential 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.” 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 became official participants in late 2012, and Japan is expected
to join the negotiations in July 2013. Thailand has also reportedly expressed interest in joining the
negotiations, as have non-APEC countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia.14
The recent participation of Canada, Japan, and Mexico greatly expanded the size of the TPP in
terms of U.S. trade. 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, increased further to 36% with the addition of Japan, 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% (Figure 3).

14 White House, “Joint Press Statement between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra,”
press release, November 18, 2012; http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/may/joint-statement-
trans-pacific-partnership-ministers-meLucien O. Chauvin, “Canada Makes Strong Pitch to Join TPP; Colombia, Costa
Rica Also Express Interest,” International Trade Daily, April 7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Japan’s entry into the agreement is particularly significant. Japan is the third-largest economy in
the world, the fourth-largest U.S. trading partner, and not party to an existing U.S. FTA, as
opposed to Canada and Mexico, which are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Japan is now the second-largest country participating in TPP, both in terms of
population (128 million) and GDP ($6 trillion). Some analysts argue that a TPP agreement with
Japan will attract other potential Asia-Pacific countries and achieve the goal of membership
expansion. Others contend that Japan’s entry may 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, in part, 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
Figure 3. 2011 U.S. Goods and Services Trade, Shares of Total
World, 100%
APEC, 56%
TPP-12, 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. TPP-12 refers to the TPP-11 plus Japan.
Services data is not available individually 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.

15 Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

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 6 TPP
participants (Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore). In total, there are more than
180 preferential trade agreements among Asia-Pacific countries, most of which do not include the
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 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.18 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.19 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.20 APEC’s 21 members include the three largest economies in the world and the four
largest U.S. trading partners.21
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

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. See also Emergency Committee for American Trade, ECAT 2011 Agenda, June 14, 2011.
18 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.
19 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.
20 Carlos Kuriyama, The Mutual Usefulness between APEC and TPP, APEC Policy Support Unit, October 2011, p. 9.
21 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.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

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.22
According to the group’s economic community blueprint, ASEAN members intend to promote
further economic integration and freer flow of goods, services, investment, capital, and labor
throughout their membership in the future.23
The association has also established FTAs collectively with non-ASEAN countries, including
Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Talks have also begun on a
potential single trade agreement that would encompass ASEAN and its six FTA partners, known
as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).24 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. 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 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.26
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.27 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, nine of the twelve TPP countries have agreements in place or are in
negotiations with China, the largest economy in the region not currently participating in the TPP
negotiations. Nine TPP countries, including the United States, also have agreements or are
negotiating with the European Union. TPP countries are also well connected to one another
through their existing trade agreements. Figure 4 shows that the number of agreements in force
among TPP countries range from Canada with only four existing FTAs among the TPP countries,

22 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Economic Community Factbook, February 2011, p. 3.
23 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015, April 2009, p. 22.
24 “RCEP Partners Complete First Session of Talks; Set Next Session for September,” World Trade Online, May 16,
2013.
25 “U.S. seeks to lead huge new Asia-Pacific trade bloc,” Oxford Analytica, October 17, 2011.
26 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.
27 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.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

to Chile with 10 FTAs in place covering the entire TPP membership except Vietnam with whom it
is currently negotiating a bilateral FTA. 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. 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.
Figure 4. Existing Trade Agreements Among TPP Members
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
In Force
Awaiting Implementation or in Negotiation

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from individual TPP government websites.
U.S. FTAs and TPP
The United States currently has FTAs in force with 20 countries. Figures 5 and 6 place the
potential TPP agreement in context with these existing U.S. FTAs. Now that the members of
NAFTA are part of the TPP negotiations, this potential FTA would be the largest U.S. FTA in
terms of both goods and services trade. U.S. trade with TPP partners was larger than the level of
U.S. trade with South Korea, the largest of the recent U.S. FTA partners, by a factor of fifteen in
goods trade in 2012 and a factor of nine in services trade in 2011. However, as noted above, much
of this U.S.-TPP trade is already covered by existing trade agreements. U.S. trade with FTA
partners accounted for 81% of U.S.-TPP goods trade in 2012 and 68% of U.S.-TPP services trade
in 2011. Japan is the largest U.S. trading partner in the negotiations without an existing FTA.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Figure 5. Top Existing and Potential U.S. FTAs by Goods Trade, 2012
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
900
900
800
800
Exports
Imports
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
Australia Colombia Singapore CAFTA-DR
South
NAFTA
Proposed
Korea
TPP

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from ITC.
Notes: CAFTA-DR: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
Figure 6. Top Existing and Potential U.S. FTAs by Services Trade, 2011
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
180
180
160
160
Exports
Imports
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
Chile
Israel
Singapore Australia
South
NAFTA
Proposed
Korea
TPP

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: CAFTA-DR: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
Bilateral U.S. services trade data is not available for Brunei, Peru, and Vietnam.
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 FTAs.28 The United States typically includes investment
provisions in its FTAs, as with each of the six existing FTAs between the United States and TPP
participants. Currently, no U.S. BITs are in place with the other five 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 2).
Table 2. Bilateral Investment Treaties in TPP Countries
Aust. Brunei Canada Chile Japan Malaysia Mexico N.Z. Peru Sing. U.S. Viet.
21 3 26 39 15 49 28 2 30 35
41
42
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Note: Only includes agreements that were in force as of June 2012.
Trade, Investment, and Tariff Patterns
This section examines trade and investment flows into and out of TPP countries as well as their
tariff rates. 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 as well as opportunities 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.
U.S.-TPP Trade
Merchandise Trade29
Trade between the United States and other TPP countries represents about 40% of overall U.S.
goods trade. Including the recently joined countries of Canada, Mexico, and Japan, the United
States had a deficit in merchandise trade with TPP countries in 2012 (Table 3). Energy imports,
particularly crude oil from Canada and Mexico, and imports of vehicles and parts from Japan

28 CRS Report R43052, U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and
Martin A. Weiss
29 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

accounted for most of this deficit. Canada, Mexico, and Japan are the first, third, and fourth-
largest U.S. trade partners overall. The majority of U.S.-TPP trade is concentrated with these
three newest members. Figure 7 below shows that U.S. bilateral trade each with Canada, Japan,
and Mexico is greater than U.S. trade with all other TPP countries combined. In 2012, U.S.
merchandise trade with these three countries accounted for nearly 87% of U.S. trade with TPP
negotiating partners.
Figure 7. U.S. Merchandise Trade with TPP Countries
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2012)
350
300
250
200
Exports
150
Imports
100
50
0
Canada
Japan
Mexico
Other TPP

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Note: “Other TPP Countries” includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam.
Table 3. U.S. Merchandise Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2012)

Exports Imports Balance
Australia 31,208
9,536
21,672
Brunei 157
86
71
Canada 291,758
324,246
-32,488
Chile 18,886
9,381
9,505
Japan 70,046
146,388
-76,342
Malaysia 12,854
25,934
-13,080
Mexico 216,331
277,653
-61,322
New Zealand
3,223
3,439
-216
Peru 9,357
6,426
2,931
Singapore 30,561
20,224
10,337
Vietnam 4,623
20,266
-15,643
Total 689,004
843,579
-154,575
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Among the other eight 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 2012,
of the $111 billion in U.S. goods exports to these other TPP countries, over half went to Australia
and Singapore, while almost 70% of the $95 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 8 and Figure 9). For example,
U.S. trade with Peru and Chile has quadrupled, and U.S. trade with Vietnam has increased more
than 8-fold. Figure 9 below highlights Vietnam’s rapid rise in supplying goods to the United
States, moving from the seventh- to second-biggest supplier of U.S. imports among these eight
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.30
In the past four years the U.S. trade balance with these eight TPP countries has switched from
deficit to surplus. This surplus 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 2012, the U.S. merchandise trade surplus
with these eight TPP countries was over $15 billion, double the 2010 surplus of $7.5 billion. The
major contributors to this rising trade balance between the United States and these eight smaller
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.
Figure 8. U.S. Goods Exports to TPP Countries excluding Canada, Japan, and Mexico
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
35
35
30
30
25
25
2002
20
20
2007
15
15
2012
10
10
5
5
0
0
Brunei
New
Vietnam
Peru
Malaysia
Chile
Singapore Australia
Zealand

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.

30 For more information on U.S.-Vietnam economic relations, please see CRS Report R41550, U.S.-Vietnam Economic
and Trade Relations: Issues for the 113th Congress, by Michael F. Martin.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Figure 9. U.S. Goods Imports from TPP Countries excluding
Canada, Japan, and Mexico
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
35
35
30
30
25
25
2002
20
20
2007
15
15
2012
10
10
5
5
0
0
Brunei
New
Peru
Chile
Australia Singapore Vietnam
Malaysia
Zealand

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
At the aggregate level, oil and gas, primarily crude oil, are the largest category of U.S. imports
from TPP countries. The other major import categories are motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts,
nonferrous metal, and computer and communications equipment. The top export categories are
motor vehicle parts, petroleum and coal products, motor vehicles, computer equipment,
agriculture and construction machinery, semiconductors and electronic components, and aircraft.
Similarities in these product categories among 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. Other major supply chains include motor
vehicle and electronic equipment production.
Considering bilateral flows, U.S. exports are largely in the same top product categories across
countries and include those listed above. However, U.S. imports from TPP countries vary greatly.
Table 4 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. Top U.S. exports
including motor vehicles and aircraft highlight 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 computers, semiconductors and electronic components, and
chemicals. From Canada and Mexico the United States imports both raw materials, such as crude
oil, and manufactured goods such as motor vehicles and parts. Vietnam, the TPP country with the
lowest per capita GDP, specializes in the labor-intensive apparel and footwear industries, which
represents 46% of its exports to the United States.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Table 4. Top U.S.-TPP Trade Categories
(in millions of U.S. dollars and percentage, 2012)
Percent
Percent
Country
Top U.S. Imports
Value
of Total
Top U.S. Exports
Value
of Total
Australia
(1) Meat
$1,574
17%
(1) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$5,692
18%

(2) Nonferrous Metal
$1,035
11%
(2) Aircraft & Parts
$2,206
7%

(3) Metal Ores
$676
7%
(3) Motor Vehicles
$1,664
5%
Brunei
(1) Oil & Gas
$75
87%
(1) Aircraft & Parts
$31
20%

(2) Apparel
$4
5%
(2) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$20
13%

(3) Chemicals
$3
3%
(3) Misc. Metal Products
$15
10%
Canada
(1) Oil & Gas
$82,257
25%
(1) Motor Vehicle Parts
$26,286
9%

(2) Motor Vehicles
$46,499
14%
(2) Motor Vehicles
$24,826
9%

(3) Petroleum & Coal Products
$18,782
6%
(3) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$13,109
4%
Chile
(1) Nonferrous Metal
$3,627
39%
(1) Petroleum & Coal Products
$5,634
30%

(2) Fruits and Nuts
$1,229
13%
(2) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$2,040
11%

(3) Farmed Fish
$564
6%
(3) Aircraft & Parts
$1,380
7%
Japan
(1) Motor Vehicles
$38,259
26%
(1) Aircraft & Parts
$8,468
12%

(2) Motor Vehicle Parts
$15,229
10%
(2) Oilseeds & Grains
$5,269
8%

(3) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$6,268
4%
(3) Pharmaceuticals & Medicines
$4,360
6%
Malaysia
(1) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$7,439
29%
(1) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$4,771
37%

(2) Communications Equip.
$4,888
19%
(2) Aircraft & Parts
$1,215
9%

(3) Computer Equip.
$2,109
8%
(3) Navigation & Electro-Medical
$625
5%
Mexico
(1) Oil & Gas
$37,328
13%
(1) Aircraft & Parts
$20,755
10%

(2) Motor Vehicles
$35,347
13%
(2) Motor Vehicle Parts
$19,577
9%

(3) Motor Vehicle Parts
$33,334
12%
(3) Computer Equip.
$14,457
7%
New Zealand
(1) Meat
$1,104
32%
(1) Aircraft & Parts
$511
16%

(2) Dairy Products
$619
18%
(2) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$184
6%

(3) Beverages
$264
8%
(3) Motor Vehicles
$166
5%
Peru
(1) Nonferrous Metal
$2,281
35%
(1) Petroleum & Coal Products
$2,278
24%

(2) Petroleum & Coal Products
$1,098
17%
(2) Ag. & Constr. Machinery
$973
10%

(3) Apparel
$599
9%
(3) Computer Equip.
$698
7%
Singapore
(1) Pharmaceuticals & Medicines
$4,202
21%
(1) Petroleum & Coal Products
$4,405
14%

(2) Computer Equip.
$3,087
15%
(2) Aircraft & Parts
$4,025
13%

(3) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$2,020
10%
(3) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$2,452
8%
Vietnam
(1) Apparel
$6,946
34%
(1) Semicon. & Elec. Components
$559
12%

(2) Footwear
$2,404
12%
(2) Oilseeds & Grains
$380
8%

(3) Furniture
$1,995
10%
(3) Meat
$300
6%
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from the ITC.
Notes: 4-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories. Excludes “special
classification” categories 9900 and 9800.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Services Trade31
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.32 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, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, and Singapore. Elsewhere in this document, if not specified, trade simply
refers to merchandise (goods) trade.
Cross-Border Trade in Services33
U.S. services trade with the eight 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 2011, the
United States had a collective services trade surplus of more than $78 billion with these eight TPP
countries. As with goods trade, Canada, Japan, and Mexico are the largest U.S. services trade
partners among TPP members (Figure 10). However, during the past decade U.S. services trade
with other TPP countries, particularly Australia, have increased at a faster rate than those from
Mexico, such that U.S. services trade with the other TPP countries, collectively, now exceeds
U.S. trade with Mexico. While services exports from the United States to these eight TPP
countries collectively have nearly 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 individual data are available, except for
New Zealand, with which it had a nearly balanced services trade (Table 5).

31 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.
32 Ibid.
33 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. Cross-Border U.S.-TPP Services Trade
(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
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Canada
Japan
Mexico
Other TPP Countries

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: “Other TPP Countries” includes Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Table 5. U.S. Service Exports to, Imports from, and Balance with TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Country Exports Imports Balance
Australia 16,088
6,315
9,773
Canada 56,076
28,028
28,048
Chile 3,016
1,233
1,783
Japan 44,393
24,772
19,621
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
Total 159,917
81,710
78,207
Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from ITC.
The composition of U.S. services exports to the eight TPP countries differs somewhat from the
composition of U.S. services imports. Figure 11 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 shows a large U.S. surplus—roughly 3 times as
great as U.S. imports. In the categories of education, financial services, 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.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Figure 11. U.S.-TPP Services Trade, by Category
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
70
70
60
60
50
50
Exports
40
40
Imports
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
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.
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-owned34 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 2010, more than $1 trillion in
services were provided to foreign residents through foreign affiliates of U.S. companies,
compared to $538 billion supplied through cross-border trade. At a smaller scale, the same pattern
holds true for U.S. services provided to the eight 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 in most TPP countries, growing by nearly 80% in
TPP countries as a whole. 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 (32%) and Japan
(21%) (Figure 12).

34 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

Figure 12. U.S. Services Supplied to TPP Countries through MOFAs
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Canada
Japan
Other TPP

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: “Other TPP” includes Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
In 2010, 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 evident among all TPP countries except
Japan: the value of services supplied to the United States through TPP MOUSAs, excluding
Japan, are about half of those supplied to TPP countries from U.S. MOFAs. Conversely Japan’s
services supplied to the United States through its MOUSAs are one-third larger than the U.S.
services supplied through MOFAs in Japan. This likely reflects the fact that Japan’s investment in
the United States has exceeded U.S. investment in Japan (see investment discussion below).
Among TPP countries, Japan (51%) and Canada (37%) account for the vast majority of services
supplied through MOUSAs (Figure 13).
Figure 13. TPP Country Services Supplied to the United States through MOUSAs
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Canada
Japan
Other TPP

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: “Other TPP” includes Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Aggregate TPP Trade
Who trades with TPP countries? Figure 14 shows TPP countries’ aggregate goods trade with each
other and the rest of the world.
Goods trade among TPP partners was more than $2 trillion in 2012. As the largest country in the
TPP, both in terms of population and GDP, U.S. trade with TPP partners accounts for much of the
trade among TPP countries. Specifically, trade among the NAFTA countries, Canada, Mexico,
and the United States, was nearly $1.2 trillion in 2012—over half of all intra-TPP trade. U.S.
trade with Japan, the third largest bilateral trade partnership in the TPP, accounted for another
$210 billion of total intra-TPP trade. See Table A-2 in the Appendix for intra-TPP trade data for
each TPP country.
Even larger than intra-TPP trade, however, is TPP country trade with the other APEC members
not currently party to the TPP negotiations. This goods trade amounted to over $2.7 trillion in
2012. Trade between China and the TPP countries, at over $1.4 trillion, made up over half of all
TPP country trade with the other APEC members. In terms of goods trade, expansion of the TPP
to include China and the other APEC members would encompass more TPP country trade than
expanding the agreement in any other region including the European Union ($1.2 trillion) and
Latin America ($499 billion).
Figure 14. Trade Among TPP Partners and with Other Regions
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2012)

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from IMF DOTS.
Notes: Regional groupings based on categories from the DOTS. These regional groupings are not an exhaustive
list of all TPP trade partners. Data only include goods trade data.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

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.
Nearly all of the top U.S. investment partners in the TPP are covered by an existing FTA and the
stock (accumulated value) of U.S. investment in these countries exceeds their investments in the
United States (Figure 15). Japan, however, does not have an existing U.S. FTA, and uniquely
among TPP countries, Japanese investment in the United States is nearly twice the level of U.S.
investment in Japan. As discussed above, this pattern can also be seen in U.S.-Japanese services
trade through affiliates.
TPP-U.S. FDI flows in 2011 show that Canada was by far the largest U.S. investment partner
accounting for nearly 40% of total inward and outward U.S. FDI. Australia (22%), Japan (16%),
Mexico (7%), and Singapore (7%) were the other top U.S. investment partners among TPP
countries (Table )]. Flows of FDI can vary significantly from year to year. From 2010 to 2011
outward U.S. direct investment in TPP countries increased slightly from $71 billion to $83
billion, while inward U.S. FDI from TPP countries more than doubled from $28 billion to $61
billion.
Figure 15. U.S. FDI with TPP Countries (Stock)
(in billions of U.S. dol ars, 2011)
350
350
Existing U.S. FTA Partners
No Existing U.S. FTA
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
Canada
Australia
Singapore
Mexico
Chile
Peru
Japan
Other TPP
U.S. Investment Abroad
FDI in the U.S.

Source: Analysis by CRS. Data from BEA.
Notes: “Other TPP” includes Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Table 6. U.S. FDI with TPP Countries
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
U.S. Direct
U.S. Direct
Country
Investment
FDI into the U.S.
FDI into the U.S.
(Flow)
Investment
(Stock)
Abroad (Flow)
Abroad (Stock)
Australia $13,684 $17,446 $136,249 $55,862
Brunei $-1
$-1
$55 $-3
Canada $40,410 $18,661
$318,964 $210,864
Chile $4,274 $-20
$34,187 $362
Japan $5,062
$18,598
$116,533
$289,490
Malaysia $1,940 $214 $13,903
$646
Mexico $8,310 $2,491
$91,402 $13,763
New Zealand
$409
$1,165
$6,741
$1,660
Peru $1,464 $16
$7,753 $234
Singapore $7,571 $2,546 $116,616 $23,528
Vietnam $108 $-39 $747 $20
Source: Analysis by CRS. U.S. FDI data from BEA. World FDI data from the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Notes: Flows represent the annual value of investment, while stocks represent the accumulated value of
investment. For detailed definitions of investment variables see http://www.bea.gov/about/
overview_international.htm.
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.35 The MFN concept is a WTO principle that requires member
countries to non-discriminately apply their tariff rates to other members.36 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.37 Often, applied rates are well below bound rates. For

35 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.
36 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.
37 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

example, Chile’s average MFN applied rate is 6% compared to an average bound rate of 25%.
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.38 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 16 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 7 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 16. Average Applied Tariffs and GDP/Capita
(tariffs in percent (left axis-2011), GDP/Capita in U.S. dollars (right axis-2012))
12
$70,000
$60,000
10
$50,000
8
$40,000
6
$30,000
4
$20,000
2
$10,000
0
$0
Avg MFN Applied Tariff (Left Axis)
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).

38 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
24

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Table 7. 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
Japan Dairy
Products
178.5
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 17. Trade-to-GDP Ratios
nation’s economy. Trade-to-GDP ratios,
(in percent, 2009-2011)
shown in Figure 17 provide one such
measure. The figure shows a great range in
United States
29
trade-to-GDP ratios among TPP countries.
Singapore’s trade-to-GDP ratio of over 400%
Japan
30
implies that the country’s imports and exports
Australia
44
are four times larger than its total domestic
Peru
49
production of goods and services. Such a high
figure likely reflects Singapore’s importance
New Zealand
57
as a regional shipping hub, re-exporting
Mexico
61
products that merely pass through its borders,
as well as its importance in international
Canada
62
supply chains, perhaps domestically
Chile
69
producing only a portion of the components in
the manufactured goods it exports. Given this
Brunei
110
significant reliance on international trade, it is
Vietnam
158
less surprising that Singapore would have
such a low average applied tariff level. The
Malaysia
167
United States, the TPP country with the
Singapore
416
largest population and economy, and, hence,
0
100
200
300
400
500
the largest domestic market, has a trade-to-

GDP ratio of less than 30%, indicating the
Source: WTO Trade Profiles 2012.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

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 FTA for the United States and
could eventually become the platform for a broader Asia-Pacific free trade area, an area that
encompasses 40% of the world’s people and over half of global production. TPP would be the
largest U.S. FTA based on trade flows, and with the entry of Japan, a significant share of U.S.-
TPP trade is not currently covered by an FTA. 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 and Japan as the next largest partners in most categories. 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
26

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Appendix.
Table A-1. Trade Agreements in TPP Countries
Agreements in Negotiation or
Country or Group
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
Australia ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand China

Chile
Gulf Cooperation Councila

Malaysia
India

New Zealand
Indonesia

Singapore Japan

Thailand
PACERb

United States
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

Panama
Japan

Peru Morocco

Singapore

South Korea

TPPd


Ukraine
Chile
Australia
India

Canada
Pacific Alliancel

Chile-Central Americam Thailand

China
TPPd

Colombia
Vietnam

Ecuadorn


EFTAg


European Unionj


Japan


Malaysia


Mexico


P-4f


Panama

Congressional Research Service
27

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Agreements in Negotiation or
Country or Group
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation

Peru


South Korea


Turkey


United States

Japan
ASEAN - Japan
Australia

Brunei Canada

Chile
China-Japan-South Korea
India Columbia

Indonesia
Gulf Cooperation Councila

Malaysia
Mongolia

Mexico
RCEPc

Peru
TPPd
Philippines


Singapore
Switzerland

Thailand


Vietnam
Malaysia* AFTAe D-8o

Australia
European Unionj

Chile RCEPc

India
TPS-OICp

Japan
Turkey

New Zealand TPPd

Pakistan

Mexico Central
Americaq
Pacific Alliancel

Chile
Singapore

Colombia
South Korea

EFTAg TPPd

European Unionj


Israel


Japan


NAFTAk


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

Congressional Research Service
28

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Agreements in Negotiation or
Country or Group
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation
Peru Andean
Communityi Costa
Rica

Canada
El Salvador

Chile
Guatemala

China
Honduras

EFTAg Pacific
Alliancel
European
Unionj TPPd

Japan

Mexico
Panama


Singapore


South Korea


Thailand


United States

Singapore* AFTAe
Canada

Australia
Costa Rica

China
European Unionj

EFTAg
Gulf Cooperation Councila

India
Mexico

Japan
Pakistan

Jordan
RCEPc

New Zealand
Taiwan

P-4f TPPd

Panama
Ukraine

Peru


South Korea


United States

United States
Australia
European Union

Bahrain
TPPd

CAFTA-DRr


Chile


Colombia


Israel


Jordan


Morocco


NAFTAk


Oman


Panama


Peru


Singapore


South Korea

Vietnam* AFTAe
Chile

Japan
EFTA
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Agreements in Negotiation or
Country or Group
Existing Trade Agreements
Awaiting Implementation

European Union

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. There are additional partial scope economic agreements with TPP countries not included here.
a. Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.
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.
Pacific Al iance: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru.
m. Chile-Central America: Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
n. Pacific Al iance: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru.
o. Developing Eight (D-8): Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey.
p. Trade Preferential System-Organization of Islamic Conference (TPS-OIC): 57 Islamic Countries.
q. Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
r. Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Table A-2. Intra-TPP Merchandise Trade
(in millions of U.S. dollars, 2011)
Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Australia
Japan 49,797.00
United
States
32,395.30
United
States
9,724.86
Japan 21,708.00
New
Zealand
7,674.43
Singapore
16,513.50
Singapore 7,404.74
Malaysia
10,985.10
Malaysia 5,252.97
New
Zealand
8,282.99
Vietnam 1,849.60
Vietnam 3,587.94
Canada 1,718.83
Canada 2,619.11
Mexico
912.14
Mexico 2,250.67
Chile
447.57
Chile 1,357.04
Peru
145.92
Brunei 1,193.87
Brunei
36.56
Peru
114.03
Brunei
Japan 5,447.67
Singapore
1,700.44
Australia 1,085.34
Malaysia 763.16
New
Zealand
786.15
Japan
206.38
Vietnam
179.30
United
States
172.92
Singapore 118.54
Australia 40.21
United
States 80.91
Vietnam 17.62
Malaysia
47.80
New
Zealand
4.88
Canada
6.74
Canada
4.75
Mexico*
0.01
Mexico*
4.50
Chile
0.01
Chile
0.00
Peru
0.00
Peru
0.00
Canada
United States
339,021.00
United States
257,405.00
Japan
10,378.30
Mexico 28,093.40
Mexico 5,396.34
Japan 16,546.50
Australia 2,037.46
Peru
4,056.97
Singapore 908.75
Malaysia 2,451.10
Chile
789.20
Australia 2,286.87
Malaysia
783.06
Chile 1,848.91
Peru
537.45
Vietnam 1,779.86
New
Zealand
385.95
Singapore
1,570.49
Vietnam
370.26
New
Zealand
587.78
Brunei
4.31
Brunei
7.41
Chile
United States
9,585.65
United States
17,390.80
Japan
8,355.56
Japan 2,615.14
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Peru
1,798.79
Mexico 2,608.74
Mexico 1,349.82
Peru
2,069.52
Canada 1,267.93
Canada 1,036.51
Australia 1,224.51
Australia 474.58
Vietnam
371.20
Malaysia 208.52
Malaysia
207.77
Vietnam 205.45
Singapore
60.52
Singapore 82.55

New Zealand
39.58
New Zealand
65.65
Brunei
0.00
Brunei
0.01
Japan
United States
142,053.00
United States
78,230.60

Singapore 23,289.70
Australia 56,509.00

Australia 18,418.60
Malaysia 32,872.60

Malaysia 17,701.20
Vietnam
15,099.60

Vietnam 10,729.10
Canada 12,697.80

Mexico 10,571.70
Chile 9,332.01

Canada 10,265.00
Singapore
8,763.28

Chile 1,993.44
Brunei
5,992.44

New Zealand
1,956.90
Mexico
4,400.98

Peru 1,037.89
New
Zealand
3,031.64

Brunei 187.61
Peru
2,795.94
Malaysia
Singapore 30,944.40
Singapore
26,081.10
Japan
26,878.60
Japan 20,217.70

United States
19,739.00
United States
15,904.40
Australia 9,437.31
Vietnam 5,213.96
Vietnam 3,827.05
Australia 4,732.35
Mexico 1,481.94
Canada 931.38

New Zealand
1,172.06
New Zealand
784.35
Canada
947.79
Mexico 282.46
Brunei
693.78
Chile
208.45
Chile
136.47
Brunei
52.58
Peru
114.41
Peru
25.40
Mexico
United States
287,824.00
United States
203,621.00
Canada 10,938.40
Japan 19,420.70
Japan
2,613.17
Canada 10,878.80
Chile
2,251.56
Malaysia 5,209.17
Peru
1,527.75
Chile 1,652.87
Australia 1,086.42
Singapore
1,508.26
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Singapore 724.49
Australia 1,027.90
Malaysia
202.84
Peru
483.97

New Zealand
102.43
New Zealand
368.55
*Vietnam
84.10
*Vietnam
1,153.99

*Brunei
4.50
*Brunei
0.01
New Zealand
Australia 7,856.79
Australia
5,837.80

United States
3,443.69
United States
3,578.58
Japan
2,608.57
Japan 2,476.20
Malaysia
717.63
Singapore
1,823.69
Singapore 683.37
Malaysia 1,412.57
Canada
459.77
Brunei
864.77
Vietnam
368.42
Canada 470.07
Mexico
229.26
Vietnam 263.40
Peru
108.98
Mexico 205.50
Chile
60.56
Chile
51.17
Brunei
4.43
Peru
34.74
Peru
United States
6,072.64
United States
10,293.10
Canada 3,688.15
Chile 1,978.67
Japan
2,541.77
Mexico 1,680.52
Chile
1,881.39
Japan 1,141.67
Mexico
439.97
Canada 591.20
Australia 103.66
Australia 160.51
Vietnam
85.19
Malaysia 125.85

New Zealand
31.58
New Zealand
119.88
Malaysia
23.09
Singapore 46.38
Singapore
12.38
Vietnam* 113.30
Brunei
0.00
Brunei
0.00
Singapore
Malaysia 50,431.50
Malaysia
40,418.40

United States
22,709.40
United States
38,818.10
Japan
18,825.70
Japan 23,639.40
Australia 17,140.40
Australia 4,912.52
Vietnam 10,382.90
Vietnam 2,249.43
New
Zealand
2,108.33
Mexico 1,684.34
Brunei
1,545.85
Canada 1,243.33
Mexico 1,193.29
New
Zealand
699.09
Canada 1,192.61
Chile
139.05
Chile
58.38
Brunei
130.39
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis

Country
Exports to
Value
Imports from
Value
Peru
42.17
Peru
13.62
United States
Canada 291,758.00
Canada
328,719.00
Mexico 216,331.00
Mexico
280,025.00
Japan
70,046.50
Japan 150,401.00
Australia 31,208.30
Malaysia
26,652.00
Singapore 30,560.70
Vietnam
21,369.60
Chile
18,885.80
Singapore
20,455.10
Malaysia 12,854.30
Chile 10,096.50
Peru
9,357.40
Australia 9,851.60
Vietnam 4,623.40
Peru
6,679.90

New Zealand
3,223.30
New Zealand
3,623.50
Brunei
157.20
Brunei
89.00
Vietnam
United States
19,426.90
Japan
11,802.10
Japan
13,726.90
Singapore
11,421.20
Malaysia 4,739.96
United
States
5,085.74
Australia 3,261.76
Malaysia 4,209.76
Singapore 2,044.94
Australia 2,034.56
Canada 1,618.06
Chile
408.32
New
Zealand
239.45
Canada 407.29
*Mexico 1,153.99
New
Zealand
405.27
Chile
186.78
Brunei
197.23
*Peru
113.30
Peru
93.71
Brunei
16.01
*Mexico 84.10
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.

Author Contact Information

Brock R. Williams

Analyst in International Trade and Finance
bwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-1157


Congressional Research Service
34

---