Table 1 Summary of CGE studies on TPP (Including US)  

Gilbert et al. (2016)

GTAP 9a data, 27 Regions × 32 Commodities

Modification in the GTAP Elasticities for Japan, Steady State Closure

Simulation result shows the largest gains in absolute value are accrue to Japan. When measured relative to economic size, the largest gains are consistently estimated to accrue to Vietnam and Malaysia. The pattern can be attributed to initial tariff levels (maintained and faced), the importance of trade in GDP and strength of initial trade ties with TPP members

Areerat et al. (2012)

GTAP 7 data, 17 Regions × 15 sectors

GTAP with focus on Agricultural products

Inclusion of Japan is very important to US gain, plus there were some significant shifts in production of agriculture. Overall gain from TPP is around $14 billion

Cabinet Secretariat (2015)

GTAP 9 data, 12 regions × 27 sectors

Modified GTAP. Elastic supply of labor

2.6% increase in Japan’s GPD, while labor supply increases by 1.3% and capital stock increases by 2.9%

Ciuriak and Xiao (2014)

GTAP 8 data, 18 regions × 57 commodities

Recursive dynamic with Services and FDI. Baseline path to 2035

$74–$166 billion total welfare gains are mostly driven by liberalization of services and reductions in NBT

Disdier et al. (2016)

GTAP 8.1 data, 24 regions × 31 commodities

MIRAGE Recursive dynamic model

Expansion of US agri-food at the expense of other countries. Little interaction between TPP and TTIP, small welfare gains, and TTIP outcomes somewhat sensitive to NBT assumption in TPP

Ganesh-Kumar and Chatterjee (2016)

GTAP 8.1 Data, 13 regions × 10 commodities

GTAP, Povcal used to assess poverty impacts on India

Changes in trade effects small (more in TTIP than TPP) and poverty and inequality worsens, while India is hurt by all agreements, especially the ones that include changes in textile trade

Kagatsume (2012)

Japanese 2005, I-O Table 8 Japanese

Monash-MRF model

Agricultural production falls from 2% by between 0.3 and 2.2%, with varying impacts across different regions of Japan

Li and Yao (2014)

2011 base year, 13 regions × 2 sectors

Armington model with Money and Generalized trade costs

US and china trade imbalance with TPP slightly improves. Small welfare gains from TPP tariff reforms (with most benefits to China) that are substantially larger and more evenly distributed across members in relative terms when NTBs considered

Li and Whalley (2014)

GTAP 9, 24 regions × 18 sectors

Employed an Armington-type model, but introduce money and generalized trade costs to the modeling framework

Modest welfare gains from tariff elimination (highest 0.2% of GDP for Australia/New Zealand). If NTBs cut or eliminated (up to 4% of GDP for ASEAN member of TPP)

Rahman and Ara (2015)

GTAP 8, 17 regions x 10 commodities

Standard GTAP model

Welfare losses to South Asian economies, driven by agriculture and textiles

Strutt et al. (2015)

GTAP 8.1, 21 regions × 31 commodities

GTAP Dynamic, Baseline to 2030

$371 million (tariffs only) to $1.8 billion (tariffs plus NTBs) welfare gains to NZ. 0.4 and 2.2% growth in exports. Due to limited liberalization, smaller expansion of dairy despite strong comparative advantage

Takamasu (2012)

GTAP 7, 13 regions × 14 commodities

Standard GTAP

0.3–0.4% increase in Japan’s GDP. Devastating effects on the agricultural sector in Japan (rice production, for example, falls by 64.5–83.7%.)

USITC (2016)

19 regions × 56 sectors

GTAP, Elastic response of the total labor supply to real wages

$57 billion real income gains to USA by 2032 (0.23% of GDP. Merchandise trade component larger then services. 1% expansion of total exports (approx. 19% to new partners). Small expansion in overall employment and expansions in output of agriculture and services, while contractions in manufacturing

Nguyen et al. (2015)

GTAP 9, 23 regions × 22 sectors, with focus on livestock products

GSIM focused on Livestock and Adjustment made for NTB in services

In terms of gains to Vietnam, TPP is superior to RCEP. Largest proportional welfare gains to Vietnam ($5.6 to 7.4 billion) from TPP. Large gains in investment. Significant expansion in export of apparel, textiles leather and footwear to TPP, while contraction of the livestock sector

Petri et al. (2012)

GTAP 8, 24 regions × 18 sectors

Recursive dynamic CGE with firm heterogeneity

$ 30 billion of Welfare (EV) gains (including Korea) with largest gains to Japan (absolute) and Vietnam (relative). From completing move to FTAAP, there are larger gains, with about $300 billion rise in exports, while significant reduction in benefits if sensitive products are excluded