Post RSS Feed 
Podcast Feed
Opinion: Why bilateral trade agreements are worthwhile for New Zealand
November 3rd, 2009
By Infometrics economist Gareth Kiernan
This week’s signing of a free-trade agreement with Malaysia has pushed our economy a little further down the path of being an “Asian nation”, to borrow the description that Jim Bolger infamously applied to New Zealand back in 1993. And the path to “Asiafication” has a lot of miles left in it yet.
A multilateral free-trade agreement (FTA) with the ASEAN nations is still waiting to be ratified, there has been preliminary work done towards bilateral agreements with South Korea and India, and our government has also been in dialogue with its Japanese counterpart to strengthen the two countries’ trade relationship.
Obtaining Malaysia’s signature means that New Zealand now has FTAs with four of the ten countries in the ASEAN grouping, with agreements also in place with Australia, China, and Chile. Our table shows that the importance of China and Australia dwarf any of the other countries we’ve signed an agreement with.
New Zealand’s focus on largely bilateral trade agreements over the last decade has come as progress in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations has been almost non-existent over the last decade. Bilateral agreements are a second-best solution, with the scope for freeing up trade much lower than the global reach of the WTO. But the international recession of the last two years has highlighted that protectionist tendencies remain common in the US and Europe, the biggest global players, when economic conditions get difficult.
Signing an FTA is, of course, no guarantee of export success. Chile is a prime example – the value of our exports to that country has actually shrunk since the FTA came into force in 2006. That said, New Zealand has little to lose by entering into FTAs with other countries given that our import tariffs are already low by world standards. New Zealand’s unilateral reduction of tariff protection over the last 20 years has sent clear signals to businesses about what sort of products are economic to produce domestically.
The changes have been detrimental to our manufacturing sector, but have ultimately enhanced the living standards of New Zealanders by improving our access to a wider range of goods from overseas. At the same time, our productive capabilities have been focused on goods that we actually have some comparative advantage in creating.
In other words, despite the time and effort required to nail down bilateral trade agreements, they are worthwhile. FTAs have the potential to improve export incomes, as overseas consumers pay a lower retail price for our products while returns to our exporters actually increase as the overseas government no longer takes a share of the pie along the way. If New Zealand products attract lower import tariffs overseas, export volumes can also be boosted as our products gain market share.
There are still some good-sized fish left to catch in the East Asia pond. India and Japan made the third and fourth biggest contributions to world growth over the last decade, South Korea was ninth, and Indonesia 17th. Medium-term growth prospects across Asia remain strong given that much of the continent is still firmly in “development” mode, and China’s advancement shapes as being a powerful driver of the region’s progress over the next 20 years.
Events over the last two years have been a significant step towards China becoming the pre-eminent world economy. Just as the UK was usurped by the US last century, in terms of both economic and political power, China looks set to dominate the global landscape in 30 or 50 years’ time. So the greater the number of trade strands leading into China, either directly or indirectly, that New Zealand can tap into, the better placed that New Zealand firms will be to ride along in the Chinese economy’s slipstream over the medium-term.
More trade will also boost social and cultural interaction with Asian countries. This interaction represents a change from our traditional cultural ties with Europe, and should be enriching for New Zealanders above and beyond the wealth gains achieved from increased trade. Although negotiating bilateral trade agreements can be resource-intensive and slow, this limited pace of change may actually mean that our integration with Asia is more ordered and less prone to xenophobic backlash.
________________
* Infometrics is an economic information and forecasting company based in Wellington. To find out more, see its website here. This piece first appeared in the Dominion Post.
Tags: ASEAN, China, Exports, FTA, Gareth Kiernan, Imports, Infometrics, Malaysia, Trade agreements, WTO
You may also like to read:
Loading ...
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Indeed, but at a cost to our current account deficit. Those increases in living standards have come from our borrowing against future production.
In theory, and perhaps. I am not sure the export numbers support the contention – certainly not in our biggest export, dairy products. Instead such agreements may simply have supported rising internal costs.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The sooner, that NZ economists start getting paid the same as economists in China, the better.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“The changes have been detrimental to our manufacturing sector, but have ultimately enhanced the living standards of New Zealanders by improving our access to a wider range of goods from overseas.”
It isn’t exactly the nirvana we have been told for so long now, is it…?
“More efficiently produced goods…” ahem… cheap crap built with slave labour which falls apart after a few months!
In the meantime, we have lost many capabilities to sustain ourselves without imports on too many fronts. What that really means will not dawn on people until it’s too late or too expensive to afford by most.
PS: Andy Rodgers, I couldn’t agree more!
November 4th, 2009 at 6:32 am
To condone slavery is to invite it:
http://www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=128
The only winners in free trade agreements are the nations within which the privately owned central banking network reside, who have the power to create credit/money out of freshair then use it in a predatory fashion. Even then the trade advantage does not benefit all in those societies, only the three odd percent within the banking/corporate oligarchy.
http://www.citizen.org/trade/issues/mai/
“Epitomized by MAI, the primary objective of the corporate “investment” agenda is to ensure the ability of speculators and multinational corporations to move capital in and out of countries without governmental involvement or public interests rules. We have seen the negative impacts of this model on the macroeconomic stability of nations, the sovereignty of governments, the well-being of workers and farmers, and the survival of small, independent businesses. In this system, worker rights, environmental protection, and necessary government regulation of the economy take a back seat to the interests of private capital.”
November 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I try to argue here that we may need to rethink New Zealand’s position with regard to bilateral v’s multilateral trade agreements. Bilateral agreements do have problems.