Defining potentials and barriers to trade in the Malaysia–Chile partnership

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potentials and barriers to trade in the Malaysia–Chile partnership. Design/methodology/approach This paper estimates two-way export potentials from an augmented three-dimensional panel gravity model of bilateral trade between Malaysia and the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region, spanning the 1990–2014 period. Utilizing interviews with government officials and industry experts in Malaysia and Chile, this paper also provides insights into market access issues. Findings The empirical findings of this study suggest that Malaysia has trade potential in Chile, but Chile is “overtrading” with Malaysia. By major products traded, both countries are found to be “overtrading,” as the export basket remains concentrated in this partnership. Through the interviews, fewer restrictions are reported by the various stakeholders, as the extent of trade engagement remains somewhat low. The main challenge identified within specific sectors in both the countries relates mainly to procedures established to secure compliance with labeling regulations for food products. Research limitations/implications The sectoral findings reveal that there is indeed scope for expanding exports beyond the current major products traded, particularly in base metal and scientific and measuring equipment from the Malaysia and Chile perspectives, respectively. Thus, product diversification matters to intensify trade cooperation between the two countries. Non-tariff measures need to be streamlined by both parties to ensure further product diversification to food trade, particularly for Chile. Originality/value The limited literature on cross-regional trade within the broader framework of Southeast Asia and LAC only support the fact that potentials do exist but do not appear to provide much research evidence. Empirically, this paper will add to the existing literature on the potentials that hold in the Malaysia–Chile partnership. Further, a lack of adequate information remains on market access and other barriers in both the nations to facilitate decisions on trade opportunities. The findings of the study fill that vacuum of information pertaining to market access and trade facilitation through interviews with various stakeholders in Malaysia and Chile.

Assessing the Efficiency and Potential of China’s Apple Exports

“…Tis result is statistically signifcant at a 5% level (p � 0.010), and it also suggests that due to lower trade costs, China is more likely to export apples to countries with seaports. Several studies have also confrmed that trade costs can impact a country's competitive advantage in exports [62][63][64]. Landlocked countries, compared to non-landlocked countries, face disadvantages in trade due to their geographic location [50,57,65].…”

Chile potencia alimentaria: ¿Éxito o fracaso de una política?

“…Estando atentos para acometer la tarea de aprovechar las oportunidades que presenta la agricultura chilena (Ternicier, 2016). Tratando de obtener un mejor aprovechamiento de los tratados de libre comercio vigentes y con una defensa en la mantención de los mercados (Alarco, 2017;Devadason et al, 2018). (CORFO) y el Desarrollo de la infraestructura vial (VIALIDAD), portuaria y de comunicaciones (Ternicier, 2016) 1.5.…”

Does political risk lower bilateral trade flow? A gravity panel framework for Thailand vis-à-vis her trading partners

“…The gravity framework has become so popular that it has been leading the trade flow literature for a long time under concepts of “static” gravity in the past and “dynamic” gravity in recent time (Koo et al 1994; Anderson and Marcouiller, 2002; Rose, 2005; Hattari and Rajon, 2009; Kabir and Salim, 2010; Yu, 2010). This third kind of literature uses an augmented gravity equation with trade-facilitating factors as well as a trade-obstructing factor in the same equation (Srivastava and Green, 1986; Cyrus, 2002; Dixon and Moon, 1993; Marrow and Tabares, 1998; Groot et al , 2004; Linders et al , 2005; Levchenko, 2007; Martin et al 2008; Fratianni, 2009; Gourdon, 2009; Dutt and Traca, 2010; Musila and Sigue, 2010; Horsewood and Voicu, 2012; Zelekha and Sharabi, 2012; Ali and Mdhillat, 2015; Galkin et al 2018; Devadason et al 2018; Mnasri and Nechi, 2019; Wu et al , 2016; Baier et al 2017; Aziz et al 2018; Hasiner and Yu, 2019; Saputra, 2019).…”