Navigating Complexities in Sino-US trade relations: An in-depth analysis of RCA, TCI, and ESI in SITC commodities
Zeeshan Iqbal
School of International Trade and Economics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China
Shahzad Ahmad
Department of Customs Administration, School of Government, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China
Imad Ahmad
Department of Customs Administration, School of Government, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/ff.v3i1.9167
Keywords: SITC; RCA; TCI; ESI; Sino-U.S.; trade
Abstract
This paper presents a thorough examination of Sino–U.S. trade dynamics from 2008 to 2022, utilizing the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) for commodity categorization. It employs essential trade indices, including the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA), the Trade Complementarity Index (TCI), and the Export Similarity Index (ESI), to assess trade competitiveness and complementarity. The RCA findings reveal China's persistent comparative advantage in sectors such as machinery and transport equipment (C7), with values predominantly exceeding 1. At the same time, the United States demonstrates significant advantages in chemicals (C5) and crude materials (C2), also with RCA values above 1. TCI analysis shows China's stability in C0 but declining complementarity in C2, whereas the US demonstrates increasing complementarity in C2, C5, C7, and C8. ESI results reveal high structural similarity in C7 and partial alignment in C8, suggesting potential for bilateral cooperation. The study recommends that both countries strategically leverage their respective strengths and pursue collaboration in areas with high complementarity to optimize trade outcomes in a shifting global economic landscape.
References
1.B. Balassa, “Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage1,” The Manchester School, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 99–123, 1965, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x.
2.A. J. Yeats, “On the Accuracy of Economic Observations: Do Sub-Saharan Trade Statistics Mean Anything?,” World Bank Econ Rev, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 135–156, 1990, doi: 10.1093/wber/4.2.135.
3.J. M. Finger and M. E. Kreinin, “A Measure of `Export Similarity’ and Its Possible Uses,” The Economic Journal, vol. 89, no. 356, p. 905, 1979, doi: 10.2307/2231506.
4.Md. A. Rahman, “David Ricardo’s Principle of Comparative Cost Advantage inspires International Trade,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4519038.
5.F. Zhang, “Competitiveness or complementarity: Analysis of agricultural trade between China and Brazil,” Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 258–269, 2021, doi: 10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.21.
6.H. Arisoy, “Impact of agricultural supports on competitiveness of agricultural products,” Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 286–295, 2020, doi: 10.17221/416/2019-agricecon.
7.Y. Long, “Export competitiveness of agricultural products and agricultural sustainability in China,” Regional Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 203–210, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2021.09.001.
8.L. Feng, H. Xu, G. Wu, Y. Zhao, and J. Xu, “Exploring the structure and influence factors of trade competitive advantage network along the Belt and Road,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 559, p. 125057, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2020.125057.
9.C. SHUAI and X. WANG, “Comparative advantages and complementarity of Sino-US agricultural trade: An empirical analysis,” Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 118–131, 2011, doi: 10.17221/46/2010-agricecon.
10.B. A. Blonigen and W. W. Wilson, “The growth and patterns of international trade,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 618–635, 2013, doi: 10.1080/03088839.2013.851454.
11.R. ; F. Dornbusch S.; Samuelson P. A., “Comparative advantage, trade, and payments in a Ricardian model with a continuum of goods,” Am Econ Rev, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 823–839, 1977.
12.J. Eaton and S. Kortum, “Technology, Geography, and Trade,” Econometrica, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1741–1779, 2002, doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00352.
13.A. B. Bernard, J. Eaton, J. B. Jensen, and S. Kortum, “Plants and Productivity in International Trade,” American Economic Review, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 1268–1290, 2003, doi: 10.1257/000282803769206296.
14.J. Shi, “Sino-US Trade Imbalance and Sino-US Economic Gap,” Gazdaság és Társadalom, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5–18, 2020, doi: 10.21637/gt.2020.1.01.
15.L. D. Qiu and X. Wei, “China–US trade: implications on conflicts,” China Economic J, vol. 12, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.1080/17538963.2019.1598014.
16.W. E. N. LI CHENG, M. LIU, and X. YANG, “A Ricardian Model with Endogenous Comparative Advantage and Endogenous Trade Policy Regimes,” Economic Record, vol. 76, no. 233, pp. 172–182, 2000, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2000.tb00015.x.
17.Guo, Z., & Luo, H. (2018, July). Analysis of Competitiveness and Complementarity of China-Vietnam Agricultural Product Trade under the Background of" the Belt and Road". In 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2018) (pp. 974-982). Atlantis Press.
18.Peng, H., & Yang, F. (2024). Research on the Competitiveness and Complementarity of Agricultural Trade between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Sustainability, 16(16), 7046.
19.Zong Jianliang, Xiong Hao (2007): Empirical study of SinoUS trade complementarity (in Chinese).Forum on World Economy and Politics, 3: 40–46.