Blog Post

What does China’s ‘belt and road initiative’ mean for EU trade?

Much has been written about the Belt and Road initiative since Xi Jinping made it Beijing’s flagship initiative in September 2013. There are many interpretations of the initiative’s ultimate objectives, but one objective is clear. The belt and road scheme will bring huge improvements in regional and international connectivity through infrastructure upgrades and trade facilitation across a massive geographic area.

By: and Date: September 20, 2016 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

Indeed, the regional potentially affected covers as many as 63 countries (even if vaguely defined), sixty percent of the world’s population and thirty percent of global GDP.

This massive project is centered in two main routes, along which connectivity is to be fostered: land and sea. On land the focus is on transportation infrastructure and energy. For the sea, investment in ports and new trade routes are the main pillars. Both routes will have a major impact on Europe. In fact, the land route ends up in Europe, while the sea route is currently the most heavily used for trade between Europe and China. Undoubtedly, the belt and road initiative will affect Europe and the European Union (EU).

More specifically, the huge investments in infrastructure have the potential to ease bottlenecks in cross-border transportation. Among the many benefits of improved connectivity, trade stands out. The idea that improved transport infrastructure should generally foster trade is of course very intuitive. However, it is less sure that such benefits can be spread across countries and, more specifically, which countries stand to win/lose the most depending on their proximity to/distance from the improved infrastructure, among other considerations.  In a working paper recently published by Bruegel, we addressed exactly this question by assessing empirically how the belt and road initiative, through a substantial reduction in transportation costs, may foster trade. Beyond the relevance of trade for Europe, our results show that a reduction in transportation cost can indeed increase international trade. A 10 percent reduction in railway, air and maritime costs would increases trade by 2 percent, 5.5 percent and 1.1 percent respectively (see on this scenario and others below).

While the current belt and road initiative is centered on building infrastructure, there are other ways in which it may evolve. One obvious objective, as far as trade is concerned, is dismantling trade barriers. In fact, Chinese authorities have started considering free trade agreements (FTA) with the belt and road countries[1]. Because most of the EU countries are not directly included in the initiative, and it is only possible for China to jointly strike an FTA with all EU countries, the chance for the EU to benefit from an FTA is slim. The previously mentioned Bruegel working paper also develops this scenario by focusing on the impact on EU trade of China-centered free trade bloc among belt and road countries. As one could imagine, a scenario where the belt and road initiative focuses on trade barriers is much less appealing than the previous one in which only transport infrastructure is built. In fact, the EU would no longer benefit from a free lunch (we are assuming that China and the belt and road countries will finance the infrastructure and not the EU – indeed, this is the case so far) and would be excluded from a very large free trade area just outside its borders.

Finally, the paper develops a third scenario in which both transport infrastructure is improved and a FTA is agreed among belt and road countries. This scenario is relatively neutral for the EU as a whole, although there are clear winners and losers within EU.

Our analysis has special policy implications for the EU. China has been advocating for the EU’s involvement in the project since 2013. We believe it is in the EU’s interest to actively take part in the initiative and push for more emphasis on cooperation in transportation and infrastructure. This makes sense, as it stands at the other end of the road from China and there are clear gains to be made. In a nutshell, if we focus on trade, the belt and road is very good news for Europe under the current set up, namely one in which the EU benefits from the infrastructure without a financial cost attached to it, because it is so far being financed by China and other belt and road countries.

It is, thus, quite striking that the discussion on the impact of the belt and road on Europe is still very embryonic. It goes without saying that more research is needed on the topic, as trade is only one of the many channels through which the belt and road initiative may affect Europe. Financial channels, such as FDI and portfolio flows are also very relevant and should also be analysed.

Some more details on our three scenarios

Scenario I: Simulating the impact on EU trade of a reduction in transportation costs with the belt and road

 From a regional perspective, the EU is the largest winner from the belt and road initiative, with trade rising by more than 6%. Trade in the Asian region is also positively affected by the reduction in transportation costs, with trade increasing 3%, but this is only half as much as for the EU. In fact, Asian countries are found to be neither the top winners nor losers. This is probably explained by the fact that the estimated reduction in maritime transportation costs is quite moderate. Conversely, the cost of railway transportation is halved, which is behind the large gains for rail transit to Europe — in particular for landlocked countries. The rest of the world suffers from the deviation of trade towards the belt and road area but only with a very slight reduction in trade (0.04%). As a whole, our results point to the belt and road being a win-win in terms of trade creation, as the gains in the EU and Asia clearly outweigh the loss in the rest of the world.

Scenario II: Simulating the impact on EU trade of an FTA within the belt and road area

If China established a FTA zone in the belt and road area, the EU, which would be the biggest winner from the reduction in transportation costs, now suffers slightly. This result is intuitive, because we assume that EU members are left out of this trade deal and that no bilateral trade agreement with China is signed either. The rationale for such negative impact is that EU trade with China and other belt and road countries would be substituted by enhanced integration among them. This is true even for countries within the EU which are formally included in the belt and road initiative, such as Hungary and Poland, because they will not be able to enter any belt and road FTA without the rest of the EU joining. The Asian region thus becomes the biggest winner, followed by non-EU European countries since they can also benefit from the elimination of trade tariffs. If we consider countries one by one, the top winners are all from Middle Eastern and Central and East Asian countries, who would see their trade increasing by more than 15%. This compares favorably with the trade gains of 3% stemming from a reduction in transportation costs previously estimated for this group of economies.

Scenario III: Simulating trade gains for both transportation improvement and FTA

Lastly, we consider a combined policy package including both transportation improvement and establishment of an FTA within the belt and road region. Most Asian countries now become the biggest winners since they benefit from both the reduction in transportation costs and the elimination of trade tariffs. Some EU countries also benefit quite significantly but less than Asian ones. This is specially the case for some landlocked countries, such as Slovenia and Hungary. Also Germany benefits slightly more than France or Spain. This is actually very intuitive because these EU countries benefit from the transportation cost reduction but not from the FTA as they are not part of it. Also, as is in the previous two scenarios, there are always some slight losses for countries far from the belt and road project. The biggest loser is Japan, while the impact on the USA and Canada is close to zero.

[1] Ministry of Commerce of China, http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/article/fzdongtai/201601/30116_1.html.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Mythbusters: debunking economic myths

Economics seems to be full of myths that are hard to debunk. Will robots take our jobs? Are trade deficits bad? Is China such a big economy simply because of the size of its population? This week, Nicholas Barrett, Maria Demertzis, Marta Domínguez-Jímenez and Niclas Poitiers put on the detective cap and become Bruegel's own economic mythbusters.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

What the EU should do and not do on trade in medical equipment

The European Union has introduced export controls on some medical supplies. This was a mistake. It should announce that it is withdrawing the measure, and call on other countries to do the same.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 25, 2020
Read article Download PDF
 

External Publication

Analysis of developments in EU capital flows in the global context

This report presents an overview of the recent trends of capital flows, focused especially on the past year. It provides a detailed analysis at the global level and at the European Union level.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis, Marta Domínguez-Jiménez, Konstantinos Efstathiou and Tanja Linta Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

The effect of digitalization in the energy consumption of passenger transport: An analysis of future scenarios for Europe

The paper evaluates the effects on energy consumption of digitalization in transport. Digitalization needs a tailored policy support to avoid higher energy consumption.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Michel Noussan Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 16, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

CANCELLED: India-EU Partnership: New Vistas for the Next Decade

Policymakers, academics and private sector actors from the EU and India come together to work on common issues and explore further areas of cooperation.

Speakers: Yamini Aiyar, Suman Bery, Navroz K Dubash, Alicia García-Herrero, Rajat Kathuria, Partha Mukhopadhyay, Ananth Padmanabhan, Georgios Petropoulos, André Sapir, Shyam Saran, Simone Tagliapietra and Marc Vanheukelen Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: India International Centre, Lodhi Gardens, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi, Delhi, India Date: March 12, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Uncoordinated policies behind market collapse

Underlying issues, and not just the coronavirus panic, fed the recent meltdown

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 10, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Gerard Masllorens headshot

The cost of coronavirus in terms of interrupted global value chains

The coronavirus is slowly morphing itself into an important shock. While the extent and cost of this pandemic are unknown, we do know that global supply chains that link Europe to China will be seriously disturbed. We take a look at the numbers based on input-output models. The industry that will be the most affected is Computers and Electronics, followed by textiles.

By: Maria Demertzis and Gerard Masllorens Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 9, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

What can the EU learn from the China-Switzerland free trade agreement?

The US-China trade war has placed EU trade relations with China under the microscope. Should the EU challenge China’s trade practices and employ trade defence measures? Or should they be diplomatic and embark on negotiations, perhaps paving the way to a Free Trade Agreement? Close examination of the 2013 agreement between China and Switzerland suggests much will have to change for trade negotiations between China and the EU to succeed.

By: Uri Dadush and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Companies must move supply chains further from China

Virus shows Southeast Asian factories too dependent on imported production inputs

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 28, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Why the US Trade Agreement will slow China’s economy

The response of the global financial markets to the trade agreement reached between the United States and China has been very positive, probably excessively so given the relatively limited size of the agreement reached.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 20, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The EU’s poverty reduction efforts should not aim at the wrong target

The EU cannot meet its ‘poverty’ targets, because the main indicator used to measure poverty actually measures income inequality. The use of the wrong indicator could lead to a failure to monitor those who are really poor in Europe, and a risk they could be forgotten.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 18, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Epidemic tests China’s supply chain dominance

Much has been written on the Wuhan coronavirus that causes the respiratory disease Covid-19, but very little is known yet about its impact on the global economy and, in particular, the global value chain. Still, one thing is clear: The shock is bigger than that caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), for the simple reason that China is much more important for the global economy than it was then.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 17, 2020
Load more posts