Heterogeneous analysis of free trade agreement between Pakistan and China: a policy guideline for CPEC

Abstract

Purpose

Economic ties and formation of trade blocks escalates the movement of goods among the participants and bring different economic and structural changes. Therefore, the current research emphasises on the distribution of market structure and industrial value added among the participant countries of China–Pakistan economic corridor project while focussing on pre and post FTA status.

Design/methodology/approach

This study utilises the footloose capital model for analysing whether China or Pakistan is more suitable for attracting factors of production to increase their share of industrial value added. For econometric analyses the current research utilises data from 1995 to 2018 and maximum likelihood effect method to assess factors that affect regional value-added distribution.

Findings

Results show that both countries owe different level of economic developments. Effect of capital is, comparatively, similar for both countries while Pakistan supports trade openness which points towards the fact of positive utilisation of abundant labour resources in Pakistan by establishing industrial structure either through domestic capital formation or foreign investment. Whereas, share of labour and trade openness of China positively affect value added production of China.

Originality/value

This is one of the unique studies that studies the regional economic treaties usefulness for any developing country across Asia. Where this study uses the footloose capital model and maximum likelihood method for its analysis which is not previously done, while for detailed analyses the study further divides the timeframe into two parts as pre-FTA ranges from 1995 to 2006, post-FTA from 2007 to 2018 while overall results consist of whole-time frame.

Citation

Imran, M., Sattar, A. and Alam, M.S. (2024), "Heterogeneous analysis of free trade agreement between Pakistan and China: a policy guideline for CPEC", Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 76-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-02-2022-0051