ANASE: Mesure de la distorsion de commerce.

摘要

The continuous surge of free trade agreements around the world makes global economic liberalization an important contemporary issue. As a result, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area was established in 1992. Has this economic agreement been advantageous to the economy of the area or instead has it created a trade diversion effect?;Since 1992, the ASEAN has been trying to establish a free trade area in its borders, which in itself was initially very difficult to develop. After eight years, having failed to create a free trade zone, these countries allowed the creation of a list of products no longer benefiting from a reduction in customs. This led to the Declaration of ASEAN concord II in 2003: for the first time countries of ASEAN decided to integrate the political, economic and socio-cultural realms. The economic integration of ASEAN in 2010 led to the creation of the largest free trade area on the planet 1, since the ASEAN-6 and China removed customs taxes on 99.11% of their products.;Nevertheless, the economic integration of ASEAN has its limitations as ASEAN countries imposed rules of origin when the free trade zone was established. The latter aims to promote the exchange of goods produced in ASEAN thus promoting strong regional protectionism. These political economy decisions taken by the ASEAN countries took place while the area was experiencing exceptional economic growth. During the 2000s, the annual growth of the ASEAN countries was above 12%, which was largely due to foreign trade being greater than 100% of the GDP in the region. Nevertheless, significant disparities exist between these countries. Singapore is a developed country, while Laos and Myanmar are still among the poorest in the world. Very open countries like Singapore and Malaysia, alongside less open countries, such as Indonesia and Myanmar. These differences represent a risk for countries in the area.;Member countries agreed to accelerate economic integration within the area in 12 sectors, 9 of which were goods, namely: automotive, wood-based products, rubberbased products, E-ASEAN, electronics, agricultural products, fisheries, health and textiles. These sectors will therefore be discussed in more detail to understand the consequences of the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on ASEAN economy from 2004.;The gravity model is able measure the impact of economic policies on foreign trade of the member countries. Currently, researchers disagree on the implications of trade liberalization. Some saw ASEAN as a creative and open trade area, while others observed a trade diversion effect.;Analysis of ASEAN exports showed that the richest countries had an external trade zone that was relatively more substantial than that of the poorest countries. Nevertheless, it is precisely these poorer countries that experienced the largest growth in exports. Furthermore, trade appeared to develop predominantly with the most distant countries of the region, namely the United States and the European Union. The establishment of the AEC had important consequences on global trade of the ASEAN. First trade homogenization occurred: it was not only the richest countries that exported. Second, while customs rates were not an impediment to exports before 2004, they were, and markedly so following the creation of the AEC, thus bringing out a relatively large trade diversion on exports. Conversely, differences in wealth between the ASEAN countries were less affected by imports. Furthermore, member countries did not experience trade diversion on imports.;Sectorial analysis showed large differences amongst the varying sectors. High-tech sectors such as health and E-ASEAN, were strongly dominated by Singapore, the only industrialized country in the area. At the same time, increased development in the other ASEAN countries created a serious trade diversion in the E-ASEAN sector: Singapore exports a lot to other ASEAN members. Conversely, the health sector had not yet developed in the other countries. So, there was no trade diversion.;The medium-technology sectors such as automotive and electronics industries were dominated by the richest developing countries, i.e. Malaysia and Thailand. In Thailand, the automotive sector is undergoing a very serious trade diversion. This country seems to supply much of the other member countries. Conversely, production of electronics was more homogeneous and exports were mainly to countries outside the area, so there was no trade diversion in this sector.;Sectors of wood, rubber and textiles are low technology, and are therefore dominated by poorer countries 2. Countries with a large area are the leading exporters of wood products and rubber products. All ASEAN countries have significant access to wood, thus wood-based products are mainly exported outside ASEAN. As a result, trade in this sector was very open, but following the establishment of the AEC, this openness decreased. Instead, the rubber industry had serious trade diversion. Finally, Vietnam dominates the textile industry, which also experienced serious trade diversion.;Lastly, the sectors of agricultural products and fisheries had no trade diversion. With the exception of Singapore, all countries are relatively present. Furthermore, the establishment of the AEC and the free trade area had no impact on their trade.;Thus, according to the sectors studied, the impact of lower rates had varying consequences. Except for food, there was a tendency to trade diversion after the establishment of the AEC: depending on the sector, trade diversion increased, or the opening of trade declined.;1. It is the largest free trade area in terms of population. 2. However, they are not dominated by the poorest countries.