Title
Author(s)
Citation
Issue Date
Type
Japan’s Interest in the Pacific Trade Expansion :
PAFTA Re-Considered
Kojima, Kiyoshi
Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 9(1): 1-31
1968-06
Departmental Bulletin Paper
Text Version publisher
URL
http://hdl.handle.net/10086/8051
Right
Hitotsubashi University Repository
JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE
EXPANSION = PAFTA RE-CONSIDERED*
By KIYOSHI KOJIMA**
I . Introdaction
International trade policies are volatile and searching for fresh directions in the PostKennedy Round situation. A restructuring of Atlantic trade can be anticipated. In the Pacific
region, there is need to develop measures for expanding trade among advanced countries
(the United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and trade and aid with
the developing countries of Asia and Latin America, in the hope of promoting closer economic
co-operation and, perhaps, the establishment of a Pacific Free Trade Area.1
This paper examines, first, recent trends in the Pacific trade, based upon a trade matrix
by country s well as by commodity group, and the intensity of trade among the five Pacific
countries and their trade with Asian and Latin American developing countries. The analysis
suggests that trade among the five Pacific countries has tended to become more inter-dependent,
that there has been increased economic co-operation between those countries and, at the same
time, that there are som,e weaker links which should be strengthened for further trade
expans ion .
Secondly, the possible static effects of eliminating tariffs among flve Pacific countries are
estimated on the basis of 196 trade figures. The anticipated trade expansion would be extensive
and larger than the effect of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. This suggests that the
* This paper was originally presented at "The Conference on Pacific Trade and Development" held on
January 11-13, 1968 in Tokyo by the Japan Economic Research Center. The paper Is mtended to revrse
and amplify the author's former paper "A Pacific Economic Community and Asian Developing Countries,"
Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vo. 7, No. 1, June 1966, pp. 17-37.
** Professor (Kyo ju) of International Economics.
1 The devaluation of the pound sterling on November 18, 1967, and the uncertainty about the dollar
which followed sterling devaluation, were a severe shock for Pacifc countries. They warned of the precariousness of international economic and financial co-operation within the framework of the IMF and
GATT and the need for tighter international economic integration. Ten days before sterling devaluation,
an important report was published by Maxwell Stamp Associates, (The Free Trede Option, Opporiunity
for Britain, The Atlantic Trade Study. London, 1967), strongly advocating ' the formation of a North
Atlantic Free Trade Area among the United States, Canada, and Britain. The lessons of sterling de-
valuation suggest that the establishment of NAFTA will become an urgent task. Then, what course
should Japan, Australia, and New Zealaid follow in the Pacific ? The NAFTA plan treats them lightly:
they may be permitted to participate as associate members. From our point of view, this hardly seems
satisfactory. Why should the five Pacific countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and
New Zealand, not prepare for the formation of a Pacific Free Trade Area and welcome British participa-
tion ? Might not PAFTA and NAFTA be linked together through common United States-Canadian
participation ? ' ' ' '
O．一トoう、oo寸
O。oうNoり、①oり
ト．ONN．αoN
O．鶉O、㎝
卜．08．㎝
oっ．OO寸、一
O．oう8．oっ
O．話一．oo
寸．O。うO、N
oo．卜oっ寸ぜ
O．8卜．oう
一．Oトマ、寸
トめゆ。うδ
O．霞O、博
鴎．80、ぐq
oう．O
O，〇一〇う
αo．oq爲
卜．一㎝O、oo一 〇．〇一寸
oo．oqゆの．oo一 一．oう㎝oう
ゆ．OOH、① O．㎝〇一
卜．①雲
鴫．鋼O．H
O．卜曾．肖
N．一〇①、㎝
㎝．N卜αD．O
卜．写O．O
卜．O寸O、卜
頃．寸NH
可．コ①、oっ
O．ON。o．寸
お．oう
瞬．OS、N
㎝．ooト一、一
①．O寸卜
一．Ooうoう
αD．ooN
oo，0お
O．コoq
αD．蕊一
一．トお．N
寸．80、一
頃．NOO
卜．一トOゼ
N．oう8．oう
一．寅O、oう
唱
＜のP
の〇一一り自昌on︾
o頸詰山
3㊤Z
℃属醸田N
。笛
．勺
．、
自身h
．喝
の眉o山図
目e湖琶費国
＜のP ．q
o℃晋邸Q
邸躍位勘一の口ぐ
械
oっ。oq。うり、〇
一。oっ8．O
oう．800．oう
oo，oう一
①．8一
卜．お
〇．臼
一尋〇一
oD．O寸
H．寸
寸．一一
寸．爲oo
oD．Oooq
O．諾マ
寸．〇一
O、守
N．O㎝oっ
αo，〇一
一．8一
N。ゆ①寸
O，認
oう．〇一
寸．N
の．oっoo寸
O，卜8、一
O．oっ一寸
N．一
ト．αoト一
㎝．OOoq
頃．卜寸
頃．oう雲
の．①ooσっ
N．ON
卜．マoっO．一
〇。め日
N．一〇N
一．O
一．8
㊤，蕊O
〇．卜O寸
㎝．一〇
eq．寸寸
〇。OHO
寸．卜
一．Oひう寸
①、Oコ
一．巽一、oっ
マ．りH
N．8卜
O．N①
oっ．一8
一．㎝一
O．O①一、cq
O．oo卜①、N
㎝．寸O寸
0．一①︾
卜。寸Oマ
O，総一
〇う．緯
マ，σう㊦q
〇，NO
σo．NoうH
oo，O卜N
崎
ト．OO
N．頃卜
卜．NOoo
一．OON
卜．ゆ一
O．oooo卜、N
①．O寸
一．酪マ
頃．O酪．H
寸．卜
マ．寸oっ
oo．臼
卜．oo8、一
O．卜Oマ
αo．トぢ、一
oo．親oo
Qo，oう寸
O．㎝專、oD
O．雪oo
㎝．卜卜oo
。う，斜一．ゆ
卜．oう①一
O。萬一
αつ．N麟
O，cq8ぜ
oう．寸①
一．Ooq一
oD．ooN
の．OooN
O．蕊
㎝．N8㎡
、
層定一一の5＜ G邸α邸門
oo，ooO一
①．雲
卜．oo①O O。Oり○、N
卜．O。う一、寸
マ，8N、oう
①．卜oD寸、oo 一，ON一
O．ゆ尊 卜．〇一ト、一
O．§、寸 oo．oう寸
〇〇．でOoり．O oo、一ト
oo．ON寸、oう
〇．竃H
卜、○ゆト、oう ト。OooO．N
eq，㊤の一。の O．一話．N
N，oo卜O、寸 H。詰oo．一
恥
．目く屈憲日屈の＜﹄oる○
dO螺6邸山 ．N，乞［
ぺ
．一国■ρ⊇＜↑
超℃目邸O
H．○①一 〇〇、oう諾
①，①oQ一
N．OO一
ゆ．卜①
〇っ．守①
αD．おoう
寸．OoうN
oo．oDoD一
oう
O，。っ專㎡
oq．毯
O．OOoD
O，O卜αo、oq
oo，鵠N
oo．お寸
一，O寸N
O。鵠ゆ、oo
O．oooう寸
㎝，一一N、一 頃．oo㎝マ、N O。霧oD
N．蕊卜．一 〇〇．一一〇．寸 ①．eqト一、一
N．寸①H、N oo．oうト①．寸 oう．NOゆ．一
〇う。㎝寸一
αo。蕊一
O。oう①oう、oうN
O．8寸、卜㎝
O．一〇〇〇づ
O．O卜卜、O
O．08、一
鷺
．︵⋮［，＞P﹄①一一︵U Q国国 ．出。P
喫
︵窪一一毛8彊目︶6暫＜Σ目話﹄
、．
oう．︸O①、ト一
の一一〇費国
一短o↑
ゆO①H、唱gコ一〇〇﹄①㌧50一
〇〇〇①一 ．qgコ一〇り㊤一℃℃咽g
錦①一、唱g三〇〇﹄①畠αコ
oo
［June
HITOTSUBASHl JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
2
占、目2蕊＞、看薯≦↑
O．QO卜、OうトH
O．H一〇．〇一
O．OoqO．寸N
．℃㊤℃ロ℃國①㊤﹄“℃賃邸τ罵Σ〇三‘Q−目鳴邸q三Q鴎．のz酒の＜、邸も目囲ののo山梶o山67［漕のく官o山、漕のく一﹄gの℃ロ一。のz層の＜
N．08．N
O．Oト一、oo
卜。oD8
0う．一〇一
oっ．鳴Ooう
N．專oう、oう
︻90↑
ao葺国
お石O
響983
Q国国
℃9ヨ⇒
εo℃bo三図
邸Q帽おε＜
三一爵
漕のく
ご壱○
・勒
．ぺ
9軸
．、
、①﹄Oq邸bO三の．薫3邸﹄弱の6Ph謂5臥餌6Φ唱鳳息摺‘山、属層沼莞山、O㊤∈O国‘椙OZ、℃O角邸h邸矯薯・08邸Σ60昌・⇔嘱コ5自㊤餌器お属
、煽ぞ5、bo目o図bo属。＝、口邸タ届↑帽ε‘Q．口oゑ①Q．鳴ぞo﹄日而Q．燭日﹄q⇒、咽①偶aρ自、口εの箱而﹄bo旧＜8℃ヨoβ邸帽のくお壱O
O，N濡．一
〇D．㎝卜O
揺且貫一
．省著誘嘱弩眉旨邸β蓉聾5。コ8目㊤忌お＜．8陰一塗、8−器①二“言ξ、恥篭歳b巽’9書選q“8峯お
O、。うト。っ、oo
O。一〇〇マ、一㎝
O．OOO
O．oD8．oo
O§、㎝一 〇．ooでO、一寸
O。oo一㎝、ト一
O．oooう一、〇一 〇．OOO．oo
O．80．O
㎝。〇一寸、oう一
O．§、等
O。卜oっト、O
ゆ．一8．O
O．Oooマ、㎝
嶋．。うoうO、oっ
O．蕊oo
oo。8卜、一
N．一コ
O．Ooりト．〇一 〇。舘oう。のoう
oっ．卜O卜
O．8一
〇。αoO一、一
マ。一〇マ、一
り，マq
αo．O鋼
oo．頃〇一
O．oooooo、一
O．Oトマ．oり一 〇．〇一〇〇、卜
N．卜霧
oう．トマ
ト．一自
卜．O卜
ト．㎝嵩
マ雪
N．蕊
〇う。9①
寸．卜トマ、一
O．ト一で、O▽
O。忍の
oo。ト一〇う
N．O親．oo oう．OOoq、蕊
N，90．N
oう．O①①、NN
N．一8δ
マ．ooNoq、oq
oo．寸8
O。O㊤頃、〇一 〇，Oト一、oD
．一邸﹄燭m［ ￠邸唄﹄一 、邸哨の①属o℃目一
O．○OO、Nマ一
〇．ONoう、N一
oう．800、oう
〇う．寸O卜。マ一一
O。寸Ooり．ト一
嶋，NOooぜ
マ．8N
oう。oうOoD、N
一．Ooう頃
〇．一〇qoり．寸一
O．80、一
①．oっのト
ト．oうooO．oう
O，αD卜
①．O①ゆ、一
N．8で、oo
〇．肩O、①
N．Ooooo
O．OαD寸
で．08、N
㎝．qO
卜，一濡
N．①Ooつ
N．卜耳．一
㎝，錦oう
り．08．一
寸．。うOO、一
①。O禺
マ．OoっN
O．αDO。o、N
O．oっO
N．Oqっ︻
O．OoうoD、ON
卜．㎝。oO．oう
O．Oト一
O．①卜O、〇一
嶋．一“う一．一
O．耳
O．〇一〇．トマ
一．Oトマ、一
マ．OりN、N
oう．①ooO、寸
①．O呂．H
〇。O卜O、一
oo，りoう①＾ゆ一
㎝．。うOマ、一
〇〇．ゆ8．卜
O．一3、卜。う
卜，爲oっ、一
り，8αoづ
N．ooコ
①．NαD卜．寸
ハ
一．oっ①卜
O．O卜卜㎝㎝
卜。㎝Ooっ
ト．〇一〇、一
O。話寸、一
O．O。うoう、oう
頃．N8
〇．器αつ
oo．㎝田
O．N。っ一、一
oっ．マNoo
αD．Nコ
マ，O守
N．器O、N
N．N8．N
0．一誘
O．寸OO
ト．潟
一，一〇〇う
O．N專．㎝
O．。うOゆ、oう
O．卜αo
ゆ。トお．oう
軌。①
ト．嶋自
マ㎡Oマ、一
H．卜詰
の︾專．N
oD．一〇〇う
O．oo
N．一一
O．Oコ
マ．卜αD一、一
マ．卜①N、一
ゆ．一〇う寸
O．〇一
〇．マ
qの〇一．一
O．卜＝
O。㎝①
oo，苺で、寸
O．一8ぜ
一。一
O．卜卜一
〇．黛O
O．OOO
oっ．等卜．㎝
O，OH卜、oう一
〇う．H8、一
〇う．器一．一
卜．きoう
oっ．〇一〇、一
①．①專．㎝
N，O寸マ㎝
oo．トめO
〇．O甚
ハ
〇．トゆoo、一一
マ，O卜O、一
O。お一、N
①．のO卜
マ．卜Nマ
一．800、①
N．ト一ト
マ，一8．一
〇．O①一、O
O．O卜oD。oう
O．8
寸．守一
卜，NOoD
ト．αDoっ
00．ゆで
O．O卜
oう．＄。o．一
〇〇．OoうN
O。oo話
〇う．8H．N
一，鈷①
oっ。一9
一．鈷卜
αD．まN、一
O．8マ、〇一
N。卜oqO
oう．oうトO
O．OOマ
αo．卜NoO
卜．NO卜
N．oqO卜
喫
〇〇，頃頃N、一
O．諸一、oo
O．卜O㎝
O．①〇一
qD．oう蕊
O，80、oo
O，800、卜
O．3卜．O
ooり頃
器お認
2
JAPAN’S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
1968］
4
HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF EcoNOMlcS
[ June
formation of a Pacific Free Trade Area, if the five countries should so, would be effective m
expanding trade, especially when the likelihood that another round of global tariff reductions
may not be feasible in the coming ten to twenty years is taken into account. It is also shown
how the gains from the elimination of tariffs would be distributed among the five countries
and in what commodity groups the expansion of trade would be significant.
Thirdly, a proposal for a Pacific Free Trade Area seems quite premature for various
reasons. More practical alternatives are proposed for intensifying closer trade partnership
among the five Pacific countries and for increasing aid to and trade with developing countries
in Asia and Latin America.
II. Recent Trends in the Pacific Trade
1 . TI VO centres in world trade
The Pacific is one of the two major centres of world trade and ranks alongside Western
Europe. Trade among the five advanced Pacific countries, the United States, Canada, Japan,
Australia, and New Zealand, increased by 97 per cent between 1958 and 1965, from $9.16
billion to $18.02 billion, and their share in world trade rose from 7.99 per cent to 10.38 per
cent (Table l).
The intra-areal trade of the EEC was $6.86 billion in 1958, which was smaller than
PAFTA trade, and has tripled to $9-0.84 billion in 1965. The share of intra-areal trade of
the EEC in world trade has increased from 5.98 per cent in 1958 to 12.00 per cent in 1965,
more rapidly than in the PAFTA trade.
Taking the total trade among EEC, UK and other Western Europe as "European Trade,"
which has increased by 2.3 times from $22.9-3 billion in 1958 to $51.16 billion in 1965, or from
19.38 per cent to 29.45 per cent in the share of world trade, it is one of the most important
and rapidly growing centres in world trade (see Table 2).
With this, we can compare the "extended Pacific trade," which is the sum of the trade
among countries in PAFTA, other Asia (excluding Mainland China) and Latin America.
Extended Pacific area trade was $23.36 billion or 20.36 per cent of world trade in 1958, which
was somewhat larger than European trade, and has increased to $37.71 billion or 21.71 per
t de is another centre of world trade
but it has not grown so fast as has European trade, mainly due to the stagnation in exports
of primary produce from developing countries in Asia and Latin America.
The extended Pacific area could be the largest centre of world trade if there were closer
cent of world trade in 1965. Extended Pacific area ra ,
co-operation in expanding trade and development within the area, since it has greater potential
in the endowment of its population, natural resou ces, and capital awaiting development than
already well-developed Europe.
: more rapidly
t ' s has increased
Furthermore, intra-areal trade amongst the five Pacific coun ne
than their trade with outside countries. The ratio of intra-areal trade for the five Pacific
countries taken together has increased from 32.5 per cent in 1958 to 37.3 per cent in 1965. In
contrast, similar ratios for EEC were 30.1 per cent in 1958 and 43.5 per cent in 1965.
The five Pacific countries taken together have increased the share of their total exports
going to Asia and Latin America from 19.3 per cent in 1958 to 20.3 per cent in 1965, and
that to Europe as well from 26.7 per cent to 27.9 per cent respectively (Table 2). Thus, they
5
1968]
JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE ExpANSloN
have spread their expansion of trade to other areas. While the share of intra-areal trade in
total European trade has increased from 53.3 per cent in 1958 to 64.3 per cent in 1965, the
share of European trade both with the five Pacific countries and with Asia and Latin America
has decreased from 13.6 per cent to 12.4 per cent and from 11,5 per cent to 7.0 per cent
respectively. This seems to reflect the inward-looking trend of European trade, which has
required Australia and New Zealand to turn their eyes back towards the Pacific area.
These trends may be shown more exactly by the intensity of trade indices. As shown
in Table 2 (c), the intensity of intra-area trade among the five Pacific countries is fairly high,
132 in 1958 and 133 in 1965, while that of intra-European trade is much lower, 106 in 1958
TABLE 2. CONSOLIDATED TRADE MATRIX
(a) Trade Matrix (milion dollars)
(b) Distribution of Exports (%)
(,)
I t* sity of Trade
B
C
ALA
132
127
133
116
140
147
58
46
46
1 60
1 23
144
144
88
61
51
51
63
46
40
40
upper column, 1958
middle column, 1963
lower column, 1965
PAFTA: USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand
ALA :
Other Asia and Latin America
Europe: United Kingdom, EEC and Other Western Europe
C
A
B
A
PAFTA
99
45
Europe
50
106
95
96
6 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS [June
and 96 in 1965 (although that of intra-EEC trade is very high, 184 and 224 respectively-Table
3).2 The intensity of exports from PAFTA to ALA (Asia and Latin America) is high and
increasing from ll6 in 1958 to 147 in 1965, while that from Europe to ALA is low and
decreasing from 63 to 45.
In short, extended Pacific trade is one of the most important and rapidly growing centres
in the world trade and maintains a close trade relationship between the five Pacific countries
and affiliated developing countries in Asia and Latin America.
2. PAFTA trade for each member country
The ratio of intra-area trade for the five Pacific countries taken together, as mentioned
already, has increased from 32.5 per cent in 1958 to 37.3 per cent in 1965. The similar ratio for
four countries has increased; from 25.2 per cent to 31.0 per cent for the USA, from 29.2 per
cent to 36.8 per cent for Japan, from 27.5 per cent to 35.3 per cent for Australia, and from
22.8 per cent to 23,5 per cent for New Zealand; while it has decreased only for Canada from
63.0 per cent to 60.1 per cent (Table 4). The exceptional decrease in the Canadian ratio was
due to her heavy increase of cereal exports to Socialist countries.
The importance of exports to Europe has increased for the USA from 25 per cent in
1958 to 33 per cent in 1965 and for Japan from ll per cent to 13 per cent, while it has decreased
for Australia from 50 per cent to 35 per cent, for Canada from 27 per cent to 22 per cent,
and for New Zealand from 70 per cent to 65 per cent. Thus, we clearly see a growing
importance of the Pacific trade for the five countries which has provided a new outlet for
the three British Commonwealth countries.
Taking the total exports (equals imports) of PAFTA trade as 100, the composition of
intra-area trade as well as the importance of the trade with outside countries are shown in
Table 5 and summarized in Fig, l. The share of Japan's exports in PAFTA trade has shown
the most rapid rate of increase, rising from 9.2 per cent in 1958 to 17.3 per cent in 1965, and that
of Australia has also increased from 5.0 per cent to 5.8 per cent, while the similar share has
decreased for the USA from 49.2 per cent to 47.1 per cent, for Canada from 34.9 per cent
to 28,5 per cent, and for New Zealand from 1,7 per cent to 1.3 per cent. The decrease in
the American share was mainly due to the relative decrease of exports to Canada. The share
of American exports to other three countries has increased. It is clear that Japan, Australia
and the US have been the grow h centres in the expansion of PAFTA trade while Canada
2 The intensity of, say, Japan's export trade with another country is measured by the ratio of that
country's share in Japanese exports to its total share in world imports. In symbols,
Xjt / Mt xIOO,
X/ / W-M,
where Xji stands for Japanese exports to country i; Xj for total Japanese exports (= Xj*); Mt for
total imports by country i; Mj for total imports by Japan; and W for total world imports. It might be
argued that the denominator of Mi/(W-M/) should be W, instead of W-M,. However, this does not
seem valid since Japanese imports do not constitute a demand for Japanese exports meaningfully. In
the case of such an aggregated trade as the PAFTA and EEC, the formula should be
Xpt
/Mi xIOO'
Xp / W-(Mp-Mpp)
where Xp and Mp stand for the total exports and imports of the PAFTA countries and Mpp for the
intra-area imports (=exports) in the PAFTA: consequently Mp-Mpp represents the imports of the PAFTA
countries from the outside areas.
JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
7
1968]
and New Zealand have been weaker links.
These trends are shown further in Fig. 1.s The share in the total PAFTA trade of
Japanese imports and exports to each of the PAFTA countries has without exception increased.
A similar trend can be seen in American and Australian trade with PAFTA countries other
than Canada and New Zealand.
TABLE 3. INTENSITY OF TR!¥DE
upper column, 1958
middle column, 1963
lower column, 1965
3 Similar trends can be depicted by comparing over-time changes in the intensity of trade indices
in Table 3.
shown
8
HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
TABLE4．
［June
AREAL DlsTRIBuTloN oF ExPORTs（per cent）
upPer column，1958
middle column，1963
10wer column，1965
to
xports
rom
SA
一﹃﹃
α． USA
わ
α
3．74
4．74
Zealand
∫．Paci且c
Countries
14．87
7．24
2．36
13．87
4．35
5．80
14．40
9，0therAsia
h． Latin
Americ且
Kingdom
ノ。 EEC
為． Other
W．Europe
」． Total
Imports
44．07
．54
1．06
．34
．52
．90
．55
2．14
1．07
．08
．44
．39
．56
2．18
．91
．78
1．79 12．33
．88
7．34
．40
6．63
1．63
2．20
4．11
．38
．37
．86
．13
．22
．65
4．16
1．19
．41
．00
．90
．48
3．42
．63
8．11
2．38
2．85
12．56
0．99
2．14
1．17
．50
．80
．06
1．42
1．98
6．40
4．78
0．05
．32
．48
．01
．15
．12
．10
8．82
5．77
0．60
7．08
．57
．24
．20
0．61
．25
．08
．62
．78
7．33
1．04
0．61
．83
．82
．15
．00
．95
．71
7．91
0．82
．84
．93
0．50
．74
．83
0．80
11．69
2．07
2．34
．78
．79
9
ther
C．
sia
ゐ
atin
m．
0．24 25．16
．31
7．21
．46
0．98
7．73 22．75
0．87 3．49
．17
3．69
0．31 62．98
．42
9．63
．40
0．14
2．74
．67
0．74
6．73
3．66
4．31
3．39
．78
．79
．86
．08
．23
．43
．73
．82
7．57 27．50
．41
7．11
．32
5．34
0．73 29．55 18．19
．56
7．98 4．50
．98
7．62 4．44
2．46
0．17 55．63 14．15
．26
5．45 6．87
．41
8．11 5．50
1．06
22．81
8．70
3．52
0．68 32．45
．82
4．47
．85
7．26
9．01
．78
0．61
0．90
．80
．67
9．06 15．84
．47
1．63
．17
1．07
9．32 12．02
．10
3．61
．07
3．71
0．57 27．67 31．18
．58
1．39 6．53
．85
4．49 5．61
1．80 14．17 10．39
．18
．72
1．37
0．01 47．53
．12
3．97
．03
2．54
0．34
9．04
．70
．56
．06
．02
．77
9．92
4．74
6．56
．41
．01
．13
．68
．02
．93
．35
．74
．94
6．76
0．26 29．16 30．49
．80
3．92 9．67
．72
6．82 5．92
．67
．14
1．57
．E。
．87
．75
0．20
．72
．70
ther
2．80
．65
．69
2．64
4．68 13．56
．01
7．15
．81
8．15
た
．66
．89
0．75
．28
．61
EC
8．62
4．55
4．67
K
3．74 15．85
．49
3．89
．92
2．85
．86
3．84 26．11 11．09
．74
．52
2．37
．57
．26
4．30
．79
．84
ノ
2
0．16 10．19
．17
0．32
．14
0．53
2．14
0．62 21．18
．58
3．39
．56
4．15
7．31
．22
．16
．52
．91
．35
．99
．85
．63
8．26 15．40
．68
1．23
．33
0．81
一一一
z． United
5．13
7．37
．29
4．71
．Z。
一一一
8．New
5．81
1．48
0．99
2．65
／Paci丘c
θ
us・
ralia
一一一
‘1．Australia
7．92
9．78
7．66
0．45
﹃一一
24．07
6。 Japan
19．14
一一一
59．45
み． Canada
4
‘
anada apan
13．79
1．08
0．02
．70
．11
．67
．02
5．31
．85
．08
2．35
．11
．12
4．98
．74
．90
17．85
0．66
1．36
z
otal
x．
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
100．00
00．00
00．00
5．84 30．14 21．00
．26
2．43 1．18
．94
3．48 1．03
100．oo
5．62 16．79 32．35 16．74
．52
5．53 3．53 9．99
．10
4．93 1．64 1．62
100．00
7．12
100．00
．48
．99
9．21 20．05 10．74
．45
8．34 3．75
．29
8．21 4．35
00．00
00．00
00．00
00．00
00．00
00．00
3，L8α読η95840プ5初PAFZ4卿漉
In order to carry out a commodity analysis of the PAFTA trade，trade matrices of eight
commodity groups are calculated from UN，Goη〃πo漉君ッTrθ463孟o孟∫5読5for1958and1965．
The commodity groups are；
1〉1−goods：staple foods（rice，wheat，and other grains）．
9
JAPAN’S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
19681
TABLE5． IMPoRTANcE oF EAcH CouNTRY’s ExPoRTs RELATlvE To THE
ToTAL INTRA−AREAL TRADE OF FlvE PAcIFlc CouNTRIEs（per cent）
upper columa，1958
middle column，1963
10wer column，1965
to
xports
rom
α． USA
ゐ． Canada
Zealand
∫，Paci且C
Countries
11． Latin
America
ralia
一37．408
9，211
2，667
1，436
2，075 0，473
32．980 −
1，188
0，596 0，174
30，479
31，086
6．882 −
5．923 一
，039
，628
，288 ，530
，877 ，700
，696 ，213
，737 ，191
7．560 0．833
1．233 0．921
3．967 1．191
0，683 0，081
1，056 0．325
2，240
1，374
．363 0．387
．817 0．231
1．136 0、124
．158 0，093
．691 0，077
42．73138，691
．761 0、870
．287 0．780
39．233 1．263
4，683 2．253
0．073 2．008
，170 ，323
，772 ，340
，566
，748
0，168
，326
，287
12，807
1。63531，880 8，598
2．39732，584 6，098
10．622 0．862
9。Other Asla
．Z．
5，982
，172
，133
1，761
，720
，394
0，314
，350
，260
，319
，045
一一一
θ。 New
SA Canada apan
∫Paci且c
8
us−
一一一
‘！． Australia
4
‘
一一一
6， Japan
α δ
C．
49，168
ん
9
ther
atin
sia
m．
34，937
9，829
8，478
x．
orts
．E．
1，517
2，073
8，794
，930
，792
，744
，382
2，115
4，995
1，636
0，132
，927
，314
ther
9，153 26，511 13，222 195，451
，654 9，601 3，239 72，606
，835 7，599 2，175 52，039
9，574
1，937
2，155
1，743
EC
3，288
0，812
44，465
9，157
3，647
7，269
，635
，840
Total
乃
ノ
，K．
8，756
4，925
15，108
6，963
7，098
z
，013
，753
0，069
，121
，093
，324
，246
，116
，162
0，013
，018
，023
，945
，084
1，148
，150
，138
5，367
，699
，911
4，252
，052
，688
4，781
，334
，264
1，354
，448
，686
3，304
，982
，387
1，082
，133
，866
1，553
55，473
0，019
7，354
，437
，303
1，064
31，405
，700
，258
0，446
，555
，514
0，081
，045
，057
0，235
6，899
18，162
0，571
6，525
7，644
，714
，588
3，669 2，101 100，000 27，913 48，798 28，715 37，032 16，367 308，135
3，757 7，490 3，500 9，498 6，976 90，147
，504 ，384 00，000
68，404
，645 ，275 00，000 9，718 4，625 1，657 6，802 6，308
2，522 0，426
，043 ，338
，982 ，277
0，044 0，012
，083 ，078
，055 ，020
20，403
8，184
6，459
42，312
9，817
4，550
22，990
，573
，450
0，306
，474
，325
1，321 10，447
，683
，488
8，047
，465
，639
，587
，700
7，663
，628
，593
7，350 13，709
，209 4，399
，650 2，008
1，736
，799
，487
4，438
，890
，980
73，751
7，922
7，720
89，022
7，809
7，708
N2−9。。ds：・therf・・dstu仔s，includingPr・cessedg・・ds・4
〈π3−goods：agricultural raw materials，
瓦一goods：minerals，metals，and fuels．
L、一9。。ds：1ab・ur・intensiveg・・ds・flightindustryシb・thintermediateand丘nalpr・ducts・
L2−9。。ds：1ab・ur−intensive丘na19・・ds・fheavyandchemicalindustry・rigin（cameras・sewing
machines，bicycles，precision type equipment，medicine，etc．）
C、一9。。ds：capital−intensiveintemediateg・・ds・fheavyandchemicalindustry・rlgin（pig。ir・n・
4Acc。rdingt・therevisedclassi丘cati・n・fSITC，thec・verage・fc・mm・ditygr・upsisasf・Hows：
2〉1−goods：Division O4
趨一9・・ds＝Secti・nsO（1essO4）and1，and94L
焼一9・・ds：Secti・ns2（less251，266，267，27，鴉）and4・
ハな一goods：Divisions27and28，and Section3（less351）。
Lユー9。。ds二Secti・ns6（1ess66，67，68，69）and8（1ess812・821・86）・and267・665・666・667・
賜一9・・ds：541，69，733，812，821，86，951・96L
C1−9。。ds：Secti・n5（less図1）and251，266，351，66（less665・666・667）・67・68・
C2−goods： Section7（1ess733〉・
10
HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
FIG. 1.
[ June
SHARE IN THE TOTAL INTRA-AREAL TRADE OF FIVE PACIFIC COUNTRIES:
TOTAL TRADE OF EACH COUNTRY IN 1965
j'/
/ USIFI
Ja p. 1 4. O
47. 1
17.3
16.1 1.2 11.4
3.9
t, 42.4 l"
¥* 1'
.
1 .-
0.34
l¥1jt¥t 31' l
0'7 /
l.8
l t{1L
/ 25.91L¥¥k
¥
/
2.7
A
f 1'6
l .8
C
28 . 5
-----.
¥ "t'
/!o -------7.19/// _.,
1;"II"I'
32'6
/
1'5
__
tt
Il
,
/ 0'7 '
--
¥¥ ,b.. o 2 0'3
IL
¥¥llt
1
5.8
6.6
'- ¥
¥ 0'29
¥ , t L/ ' 1_Ol ;
'Lil 1'3 I
""2_' /
l) Figures in the circle show the share of each country's exports (upper figure)
to and imports (lower figure) from the Pacific countries.
2) Figures along the line show the share of each bilateral trade.
3) Solid line and circle show the increase of importance while dotted ones the
decrease of importance during the period of 1958-1965.
steel, chemical fibres, fertilizer, etc.).
C2-goods : capital intensive heavy machines and equipment.
Further, Ni- and N2-goods are aggregated as Food, N8- and N4-goods as Raw Materials
Ll
and L2-goods as Light Manufactures, and Cl
and C2-goods as Heavy Manufactures and
Chemicals, for the convenience of analysis.
The composition of PAFTA trade for each country exhibits different characteristics. In
Japanese trade with PAFTA countries in 1965, 94.8 per cent of exports were manufactures
while 71.1 per cent of imports were primary products. Japan's trade is mainly vertical type,
specializing in exports of manufactured goods. Australia and New Zealand maintain another
type of vertical trade, specializing in exports of primary products: 80.0 per cent of exports
were consisted of primary products in the case of Australia and 82,4 per cent in the case of
New Zealand, while imports were 88.2 per cent and 84,6 per cent in manufactured goods
respectively. The United States and Canada maintain a balance in the trade of manufactures
as well as primary products between exports and imports: manufactured goods occupy 70.0
per cent both in exports and imports for the US and 60.5 per cent and 79.6 per cent in exports
and imports respectivelv for Canada. It is to be expected, therefore, that the two countries
should conduct horizontal type trade with the PAFTA countries.
Relative to the growth of total PAFTA trade from 100 in 1958 to 197 in 1965, trade in
heavy manufactures and chemicals (C-goods) has grown fastest (264) and followed by the
trade in light manufactures (200) in which, however, the more sophisticated ones (L2-goods)
have grown almost as fast as C-goods (252), while the trade in food and raw materials has
grown at a slower rate than total trade (181 and 173 respectively) (see Table 6). Heavy
JAPAN'S lNTEREST IN 'rnE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
1968]
ll
TABLE 6. TRADE IN 1965 RELATIVE TO 1958
(1958 = 100)
PAFTA Trade: By Commodity
Nl
N2
N3
235 . 5
N4
163. 8
160 . 6
183. 5
186 . 3
Lz
252. 4
Cl
232. 4
C2
288. 9
F
180 . 7
R L C
L1
173 . 4
199. 6
263 . 8
manufactures and chemicals as well as sophisticated labour intensive goods have been the leading
sector in PAFTA trade, with food, raw materials and traditional light mariufactures (Ll goods)
the lagging 'sector.
Fig. 2 learly shows that the importance of bilateral trade in C-goods (the total share in
PAFTA trade was as large as 46.5 per cent in 1965) has rapidly increased in almost all
directions except.jn three unimporfant cases, i.e., Australia-the U.S., New Zealand-Australia,
and New ZealandJtCanada. The U.S. and Japan are in export surplus while Canada, Australia
and New Zea]and afe in import surplus. In L-goods (the total share was 20.6 per cent),
except in only one case (Canada-'the U.S.), the importance of bilateral trade has also increased
FIG 2. SHARE IN THE TOTAL INTRA-AREAL
TRADE OF FIVE PACIFIC COUNTRIES:
HEAVY MANUFACTURES AND
FIG 3. SHARE IN THE TOTAL INTRA-AREAL
TRADE OF FIVE PACIFIC COUNTRIES:
LIGHT MANUFACTURES (L-GOODS)
TOTAL SHARE 20.55 per cent
CHEMICALS (C-GOODS)
TOTAL SI{ARE 46.51 per cent
Jap. 0.72 U.S.
Jap. 6.81 U.S.
7.99 6.80
"'/ a'e:$
eo
s;tL1
a
2Qp
s'
Aust. "/? A). Can.
4,ll
4,Si'j0.02
¥ 19.01
b,
O 41
ce
O.90
e
.
,:,
¥.ae S ':)
N.Z.
0.11
l. 1
.
j',,l
'
F:b ,)
9c '',5' ¥
1:;
:.ih
s,.'e
' Can.
¥ *t
,
)
Au5t.
･
0.17
0.33 5.31
,
fs ?f ', h'20 a.(;'
t 0.776.27 )h 11Al e'
td)
3.
8.40
25.25
3.93
'9 (b 18.04
hF ./ ' 1p
ll 85
l.86 0.01
q
cP'Y
G:,
q:
a//
::
N.Z. )
0.ll
0.53
5 98 l'
12 I-lITO1'SUBASlll JOURNAL OF EcoNOh'nCS [June
in all directions (Fig. 3). Only Japan is in heavy export surplus while the other four countries
are in import surplus.
Raw materials are as important as L-goods in PAFTA trade, the total share being 20.5
per cent (Fig. 4). The U.S. and Japan are net importing countries while Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand net exporting countries. The most significant change during the period of
1958-1965 was the increase of importance In Australian exports to Japan, the U.S., and
Canada and the decrease in bilateral trade between the U.S. and Canada.
Food is the least irnportant commodity category (11.3 per cent) in PAFTA trade, and
oniy Japan is a net importer (Fig'. 5). The most significant change was the decrease in
importance of trade between America and Canada.
FIG. 4. SHARE IN THE TOTAL INTRA-AREAL FIG.5. SHARE IN THE TOTAL INTRA-AREAL
TRADE OF FIVE PACIFIC CoUNTRIES:
TRADE OF FIVE PACIFIC COUNTRIES:
FOOD (F-GOO_DS)
RAW MATERIALS (R-GOODS)
TOTAL SHARE 20.45 per cent
TOTAL SHARE 11.32. per cent
4;=:
_,"22.' U.s:･t
"' h-o
Jap. .
'
l 8.22
t 0.66
0.23
oTl
7
-5.47
:
¥.L
B.45
!1
¥.^(¥.
:5* s :j f, :: * a.**a'e ** e
1* ;
:; -1
' *r -
¥ 4.01
c_
¥:,¥
)
, ¥¥
,'
". q:;
2 ? 1(¥
,, t...
¥ *¥ ) ."'
2. LcL ¥
o,06/ ¥ ¥
.*
2. 43..'
Aust.
", ". c;F !-_. / . : ':¥; t_.
..
3.28
*o.os
of IA･･t.
¥,
can,;1017
',
' t, (2 /'canad
e
.$ ¥. ',
j' I ;a 3.74
o,02/.2.67.
0.53
* .'8.09
:/ ?'¥.0.28
3.ro
l 67
¥ ¥.al
't
? l
¥ ¥a '
, 0.37 .aLt:ob_ ,,f"
(b. //
"//I':.*
¥.a. Ll
.
¥
)
,z.
o.04
N.z.v/
0.61
: ¥;
0.42
:
o,rs ¥ o,17..'
The expansion of horizontal trade in manufactured goods can be regarded as the primary
acceleror of rapid growth and prosperity of the EEC's intra-bloc trade5 (Table 7). In order
to ascertain whether or not similar progress in horizontal trade between the PAFTA countries
has been taken place, the degree of horizontal trade6 is calculated (Table 8).
5 Kiyoshi Kojima, "The Pattern of International Trade Among Advanced Countries," Flitotsubashi
Journal of Econonubs. June 1964, pp. 24-26.
6 The degree of horizontal trade between two countries for a certain commodity category (denoted by
D) is calculated as follows: where country A's imports of commodity h from country B is Ah and country B's imports of the same commodity h from country A is B/ :
Ah xIOO, if Ah>B,
or D= xIOO,
if A,i}<B,t .
B,
The degree of aggregate horizontal trade (denoted by D) can also be calculated a , the weighted
average of D of several commodities by using as weights the percentage ratio of the total of Ah and B!}
in the total trade of the two countries, or it is shown as follows:
+Bh (if Ah>Bh)
D=2AhBh'A,MA+MB
Ah' Ah+Bh
+1 Bh
A+MB (if A,+<Bh) ,
where MA rel]resents country A's total imports from country B and MB, country B's total imports from
country A.
The degree of horizontal trade is always less than 100 and the closer it is to 100, the further the
horizontal trade is carried out and balanced within the same commodity category or aggregate categories.
13
JAPANPS INTEREST IN THE PAGIFIC TRADE EXPANS10N
1968］
TABLE7． DEGREE OF HORlzoNTAL TRADE IN EEC CouNTRIEs
upper column，1956−58averages
middle column，1960
10wer column，1965
610C2
2
2
3
0＝1V1
N2
32
23
‘1’63
8
59
4
8
‘1．‘4
81
59
8
56
38
23
‘1●65
55
84
（b） Tra（ie of each country
with EEC as a whole
two countries in EEC
（a） Trade between each
62●63
21
‘2D‘4
3
9
‘2．65
‘30‘4
100
33
18
25
27
46
3
22
48
6
7
5
42
79
63
61
62
89
24
18
20
58
72
35
27
47
91
90
50
11
16
61・E
‘2・E
63・E
‘4・E
65・E
21
33
13
19
39
63’65
‘ぺ‘5
50
43
40
67
72
4
22
27
33
48
24
41
24
94
65
18
13
17
48
62
68
73
98
96
90
12
12
14
95
82
71
32
45
79
46
59
96
15
15
16
96
96
32
42
36
35
27
49
50
27
48
95
93
95
59
42
43
70
66
65
48
41
64
77
21
28
72
96
70
59
50
47
99
7
19
10
22
29
15
39
49
73
62
28
32
・35
27
16
16
21
璃
58
38
70
16
19
21
28
29
39
90
95
80
20
27
34
78
59
53
18
17
64
84
41
18
39
14
L1
55
30
46
73
35
26
97
72
63
98
97
76
72
47
58
43
79
33
25
76
24
22
33
31
33
17
59
63
58
92
53
52
62
44
76
60
40
30
85
89
74
57
67
71
30
39
38
11
15
25
16
45
47
94
78
72
80
69
88
67
81
79
47
96
91
64
18
29
51
76
74
56
31
46
52
84
46
局
73
77
90
18
19
29
37
82
80
96
95
86
86
28
32
67
41
C1
41
51
59
20
52
54
34
59
87
9
『P；T
47
49
57
N
N3
53
29
28
97
12
8
71
74
82
45
41
51
56
65
65
44
50
45
54
64
62
34
67
51
94
97
90
12
62
54
44
36
50
98
14
37
26
65
81
72
73
36
39
62
56
69
71
50
55
53
17
36
55
52
94
73
81
83
55
52
76
31
50
64
99
52
68
29
41
28
37
56
43
37
47
34
49
53
50
59
53
53
49
65
55
54
63
32
31
49
36
34
47
50
55
54
46
48
58
72
74
74
43
47
66
59
59
69
43
49
54
46
29
40
15
60
32
33
35
39
30
27
43
45
60
49
60
33
31
36
43
44
48
26
16
15
58
60
62
31
69
32
30
34
63
66
63
62
75
45
24
25
L
48
32
44
56
32
44
69
59
51
47
77
81
70
68
52
55
44
83
42
35
77
35
40
64
67
59
68
46
52
66
52
71
53
43
77
82
76
55
65
67
C
48
67
70
28
49
38
29
51
47
51
58
89
86
81
81
34
42
46
48
60
72
77
89
79
51
80
63
69
58
22
31
50
58
77
47
46
62
36
47
54
48
58
62
37
43
65
46
38
50
51
61
65
69
56
49
49
66
76
73
79
27
26
50
45
53
61
47
53
52
54
56
66
74
80
77
51
L十C
57
58
67
42
53
59
C2
23
99
35
67
13
28
42
33
11
35
42
21
55
41
23
48
60
40
82
36
71
40
52
64
42
47
59
54
42
50
41
43
Note：‘1＝WestGermany，‘2＝France，‘3＝Italy，04ニBelgium and Luxemburg，‘5＝Netherland，
EニEEC．Reproduced from Kiyoshi Kojima，“The Pattem of Intemational Trade Among Advanced
Countries，” H露o‘5μδ∬h∫Jo郡η1‘zJげEヒon（㎜‘‘5，June 1964，PP．25−26，for 1956−58and 1960．
O，日 ①．oo一
O．oD αo．コ
一．㎝N 卜．額
卜，雪 一．oっH
H．q eq．コ
oo．一N 一．NH
αo．oうH 寸．雪
oう．一 〇．一
oo，雲 αっ．萬
oっ．一 〇〇．O
O．Noつ O．oうoう
頃．oうN 一．①oっ
．ON 卜．卜寸
励．①一 〇．一N
寸．〇一 〇．Neq
oq．曾 ①．oっN
O．〇一 〇．ト一
寸．ON 一．Ooつ
ゆ．O oっ．卜H
N．φう鴫 卜．Ooo
卜．oっで O，ト一
oっ．自 卜．一N
N．qoう O．卜N
O．αo寸 門譜
O．〇一 〇っ．卜
oっ，〇一 αo。寸
一．oっ ト．σう
O．㎝N O．O
一．︸N 一，ト一
oo。OO O．紹
O．頃oう N，のト
N．HN oo．器
O．O N．N
oo．H 一．O
oっ．寸マ O．等
卜．卜寸 eq．守
O．寸マ ト．ON
oっ．O寸 O．Nゆ
O。ゆ寸 O．oq寸
H．酪 oD．OO
卜．Ooう cq．蕊
O．O頃 一．Ooう
マ．卜O oq．詰
O．Ooo O。2
oD．譜 ㊦．oうO
ゆ．αDO O．oう寸
N．Ooo 寸．話
O．O卜 oう．O卜
O．OO αD，oうoっ
oo．Oの O．O寸
寸．O寸 一．Oマ
一．αっト O．Oゆ
o◎．OO ・oQ．寸寸
oq．oうoう O．①一
一．oうO 寸−ゆト
oう，OH 鴫，O
一．H卜 O。Ooo
oう．H寸 一．卜寸
O．寸αo O
oう．O ㎝．O
O O
の．曾 O，Ooo
O O
ゆ。O 寸。OH
嶋．畑 oQ．寸O
︾ O。ゆ
卜︾ oo．oo一
oう．O ㎝．O
oう．N一 αo．Ooっ
oo，卜 O．oo
＜↑愛餌”∼
oo．卜 ①．O
N．自 O．oう㎝
①．oう 一．N
O．oう O．一
oD．一 寸．O
oっ．賃 oo，〇一
cq．O O．N
αo．O 寸．卜
O．曾 oo．爵
一．O O
寸．寸 N．㎝
e“．oう ①．O
O．O ①．鴫
卜．爲 O．Ooっ
一．一 〇う．O
瞬，寸 oっ，寸O
①．灯 oo．卜
O．曾 O。oう寸
oっ．αDαo ㎝，卜O
oD．oう oo．寸
騨．eqO N．等
①．oうの 寸，等
αD．昏 O．ON
O．O卜 N．寸O
一．NH oう．卜H
O．ooO O．oD一
㎝．oo 卜．oりoつ
一．OO N，oうで
O．oooっ ①．㎝一
H．寸 寸，ゆ
O．寸一 ㎝．O
O．NH oっ．αo
．お O．扁
ゆ。oっ寸 一．ON
．唱区謹”9
O︾ ①．一
O．① 卜．Ooう
、囲田一雪＜ー、
OO．N
O．寸 マ．一
．−竃冠㊤Nきo乞”魎
ON．cq
oo．oD 寸．薯
O，〇一 〇．oo一
①．寸 H．㊦一
oう．一 〇〇．寸
一．O oo，oう
oD。一 寸，一
一。O oQ．N
卜．ON oう．Oり
寸．cq寸 N．卜αo
O︾マ O．Ooっ
O十q
、＜のP”唱
oっ．旨 嶋，爲
O．N寸 寸．Neq
、。啓で胃δ”嶋
O．oo O．oう一
寸．O頃 O．臼
心．唱
恥．卜H 卜．O寸
N．oDO O．αDO
αD．卜O N。のマ
O．O寸 oう．αD寸
卜．NO 門マoう
oD．雲 O．αつ
卜．oうO 卜。O卜
N．一〇っ 寸．oDH
．トマ O．oう寸
寸．αDO 一．卜O
卜．Oゆ 一．トマ
一。oうゆ O．OO
一．鴫O ①．αoO
N．卜寸 ①。蕊
O．OO oo．爲
卜．O寸 N．寅
O．Ooっ oう．O㎝
c“．器 卜．卜
㎝，Ooつ N．α〇一
O．① O．oっ
O．一N αD，卜
寸．ト一 ①，昏
一．OH N．oD寸
り．oう O．N
層．、
一。一 寸，O
oっ．OO O．OO
卜．oo① 璽甚
O。一 ト．O
卜．寸O
ゆ，N O．一
N．cqH O．σDH
O．oっト O．お
勺。唱
㎝．O N．O
oっ．寸卜 O，昏
σD．嶋 O．卜
．一 一．O
O．卜 頃．㎝
O．蕊 O．oうoう
卜．㎝oっ ト．oo㊤
N．寸一 〇う．oD一
、N oQ．O
寸．O O．O
一︾O oっ．Ooo
の，O H．㎝
Oめoう αD．O①
N．O ①。N
頃，卜 O，寸N
oq．O O
一．oう O．oD
O．誌 oq．O①
O．αDN O．㎝oD
9。心
O寸O．O
一．卜O N．oooう
O O
O，NO 卜，寸oつ
O O
、．唱
O．卜H O，oq一
、．心
H．oり一 一．一一
の。O O
oっ，一 〇，oう
oo，oう㎝ O
O．① 寸．一
卜．一 ︾．一
一．曽 N．〇一
O。oうH マ，自
頃，Ooo O．①N
N．ON 寸。NN
O O
O O
O O
Ooo．O
O O
O．O O．N一
O．ON 卜、自
oう。萬 oう．Oマ
O．ON O．NN
一．O ①．一
O．oo Qう．Qう
N．O 卜︾
卜．〇一 頃．N
寸．oo O．O
N．O oっ．O
O．O寸 卜．oo寸
O O
N．〇 一．寸
oう．αっN ①．oDO
O O
oD．O oっ．O
O．①N 卜．自
O O
卜．OH O．N
O O
O．①一 〇．肉
O O
勉．心
O．寸N N．寸一
O O
働・唱
O O
勉・9
N．OO oう．一寸
、．9
O．Noo り．ON
＼も
一，〇 一．O
、4
N，H N．O
、も
一。H 寸．O
、も
q O
≧
属
﹄凸q ︻
賎
ご
σ
岬
4
だQ
ぞ 渇 だ
oう
の㊤三暮80乞も邸㊤8①信8①鴛貞︵超︶
の国国﹄Z⇒OQ Q一﹄Qぐ山呂国∩＜餌﹄■＜﹄しzON一酬δ頃﹄○国国餌O国∩．oo国■oo＜↑
。DO曾．＝目三8おa5
08H．唱ε28おき〇一
＜↑臣山雨3昏一昌8看器︸o①聴自︵ρ︶
■、
［June
HITOTSUBASHl JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
14
1968] JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION 15
i. The aggregate degree of horizontal trade within PAFTA for all commodities, DT, m
1965, was high in the case of the U.S. and Canada, 54.8 and 50.3 respectively, while that of
Japan (24.1), Australia (20.4) and New Zealand (13.8) was low. In bilateral trade, Dr was
high only in the Arnerican-Canadian trade (47.2) and low in all other bilateral trading, spread-
ing from 30.5 to 5.2. The higher figures compare well with intra-areal trade in the EEC
which, however, has no lower degree even in bilateral trade.
ii. In the EEC, the degree of horizontal trade has rapidly increased in general from
1956-58 and 1965 (Table 7). In PAFTA trade, the degree has increased from 1958 to 1965
in bilateral trade among the U.S.. Canada and Japan, while it has decreased in Australia-
PAFTA, Australia-America, New Zealand-PAFTA, New Zealand-Canada, and New ZealandJapan trade.
iii. In the degree of horizontal trade by the commodity (D), the higher figures and/or
those which show the most significant increase are to be found in heavy manufactures and
chemicals (CI and C2) among the trade of the U.S., Canada and Japan; for example, in Cgoods it has increased from 22 in 1958 to 43 in 1965 in American-Canadian trade, from 22 to
54 in American-Japanese trade, and from 43 to 69 in Canadian-Japanese trade. These higher
degrees of horizontal trade in heavy manufactures and chemicals are equivalent to those in
EEC. The trade of Australia and New Zealaned in this commodity category is low and decreasing in the degree of horizontal trade with other PAFTA countries,
iv. Higher degrees of horizontal trade in raw materials (R-goods) are shown in the trade
of America-Canada, Arnerica-Australia, Canada-Australia, Canada-New Zealand, and Australia-
New Zealand. The promotion of horizontal trade in raw materials between the PAFTA
countries, except Japan, would be fruitful. In food (F-goods), horizontal trade has not
progressed except in the trade of America-Canada and Australia-New Zealand.
In short, horizontal trade between PAFTA countries, with the exception of AmericanCanadian trade, is not well developed relative to that of the EEC. This would suggest us
that th re is a plenty of room to expand PAFTA trade through the promotion of horizontal
trade, particularly in heavy manufactures and chemicals, and raw meterials as well.
4. Summary
The analysis of recent trends in the Pacific trade suggests to us, first, that trade between
the five Pacific countries (USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand) has been growing rapidly, and interdependence has intensified. This provides a foundation for moving towards
closer economic co-operation and, perhaps, integration.
Secondly, although extended Pacific trade had the same scale as European trade in 1958,
the latter has gone ahead of the former since then. This suggests a need of closer economic
co-operation in the extended Pacific region which possesses huge potential for economic
development.
Thirdly, the growth centres of the PAFTA trade have been Japan, Australia and U.S.A.,
while Canada and New Zealand have been lagging behind. Heavy manufactures and chemicals,
as well as sophisticated light manufactures, have been leading sectors in trade expansion,
while trade in primary produce and traditional light manufactures has been relatively stagnant.
Differences by commodity in the growth of trade has a close relation to the growth rate of
each country's trade.
These trends suggest the main policy targets for further expansion of the Pacific trade.
111TOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
16
[ June
III. Static Effects of PAFTA
The formation of a Pacific Free Trade Area would, 'in fact, bring about more comprehensive trade liberalization amongst participating countries, with the elimination of tariffs on a
substantial proportion on their commodity trade, and would result in a larger trade expansion
than is possible through tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round type. Complete regional
trade liberalization would appear to have considerable advantages over partial trade liberalization in world markets. This is especially true if, as is most probable, another major round
of global tariff reductions is not feasible within the next ten or twenty years. In that event,
the formation of PAFTA would seem an effective alternative for mutual trade expansion
among the five advanced Pacific countries.
1 . Effects of Tanff Elilnination in PAFTA
Here an attempt is made to estimate the impact of the elimination of tariff upon the five
Pacific countries which might constitute a Pacific Free Trade Area, on the basis of 1965 trade
figures. The method of the estimation is the same as that used in the author's former paperT
based on the 1963 trade figures.
The impact effect of Pacific tariff elimination would be to increase trade by $5,000 million.
This represents an expansion of 28 per cent on intra-areal trade, or 10.3 per cent on Pacific
country exports to, and 11.9 per cent on imports from the whole world. In other words,
there would be significant trade expansion (Table 9).s
The gains from tariff elimination would not be equally distributed amongst the five Pacific
countries involved. Japan's exports would increase by $1,740 million, or 56 per cent on her
total exports to PAFTA countries, and her imports would increase by $430 million, or 14.7
per cent on her total imports from PAFTA countries. Japan's trade balance with the Pacific,
which was roughly in equilibrium in 1965, would consequently improve by $1,310 million.
United States' exports would increase by $2,300 million, or 27.9 per cent, and imports by
$-2,280 million, or 30.1 per cent, and the favourable balance in United States' trade with the
Pacific, of about $850 million in 1965, would be preserved. On the other hand, imports
would rise more rapidly than exports for the remaining three countries. Canada's exports
would increase by $855 million but her imports would rise by $1,480 million; Australia's
exports would increase by $65 million, whereas her imports would rise by $650 million; and
New Zealand's exports would grow by $22 million, whilst her imports would rise by $140
million.
The differential pattern of gains depends principally upon whether the country's exports
are more or less heavily concentrated in manufactures, and suggests a need for fostering further
industrialization in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Indeed, the pursuit of this objective
would be facilitated through the dynamic effects of establishing a larger and completely free
7 Kiyoshi Kojima, "A Pacific Economic Community and Asian Developing Countries," Hitotsubashi
Jour'2al of F conomics, June 1966, pp. 23-26.
8 It was estimated that the increase would be $ 3,183 million or 23 per cent of the total intra-area trade
in 1963 (Kiyoshi Kojima, ibid., pp. 23-24). A greater increase in 1965 than in 1963 is due to the faster
expansion in manufactured trade than in trade of primary products during that period.
19681
JAPAN’S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION 17
TABLE9． STAT正c EFFEcTs OF THE FORMATloN oF PAFTA
（a） Value of Increase（million dollars） base year＝1965
α
USA
α．
USA
4X
一
4M
∠∫x一∠ルf
∠X
Canada
∠M
∠X一∠M
Australia
∠M
一613．1
17．2
一
75．9
一
75．9
404．4
17．2
4X
23．6
4M
一
1，457．5
1，053．1
426．3
一402．7
一55．9
一
一
一
426．3
23．6
402．7
39．5
2，301．7
10．5
2，283．2
55．9
18．5
7．2
一39．3
1，480．8
7．1
一625．4
33．0
1，743．1
169．1
29．5
1，312．4
一
33．2
39．3
176．7
7．6
216．2
一7．1
一
一208．6
3．4
33．0
一29．6
855．4
0．1
7．6
39．5
Paci6c
Countries
66．4
一
8．1
25．1
8．1
10．5
66．4
一58．7
58．7
7．2
4X
∠ルf
4X一〃レf
Paci6C
Countries
791．5
1，404．6
一1，053。1
0．1
N，Z．
613．1
4X−4ルf
イX−4ル1
θ．
一
404．4
1，457．5
8
N．Z。
0．2
4，
Japan
一
791．5
4
Austraha
3．5
4X
‘．
1，404．6
6
Japan
0．2
み．
δ
Canada
一
33．2
一25．1
一
一
∠X
430．7
64．5
650．6
一586．1
22．1
139．7
一117．6
4，986．8
X
18，021．7
（b） Rate of Increase（％）in trade due to the ElimlnatiQn of Taτiffs
ロ
USA
α． USA
ム。 Canada
6。Japan
4． Australia
4X／X
ルfノルf
∠X／X
M1ル1
4×1×
M／M
4×1X
ルfμ耀
o． N．Z．
4×1×
M1ハ4
Pacific
Countries
4X！X
わ
Canada
7．24
61．48
8．56
53．14
4
Australia
β
N．Z．
Countries
53．13
27．92
19．85
61．48
17．03
58，59
7．24
5，86
26．06
19．85
Japan
26．06
17．03
58．59
ご
35．43
35．43
0．44
0．94
20．95
0．44
50．25
5．86
29．79
29．79
1，37
1．37
61．48
6。85
54，17
8．56
20．95
0．94
54．17
7．02
Paci丘c
30，10
16。74
26．17
55．97
14．69
17．13
5．79
18．95
53，32
18。95
9．76
17．13
33．77
27．67
18 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF EcoNoMlcs [June
regional market, and through the freer movement of capital, technical know-how, and managerial skills among member countries. The most important fact to be noted, however, is
that the expansion of intra-areal trade would be larger if the five countries could effect tariff
elimination.9
As shown in Table 10, in terms of intra-areal trade in 1965, the increase of trade in
food and raw materials would be limited (4.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively) while
that of light manufactures as well as heavy manufactures and chemicals would be considerable
(40.8 per cent and 39.5 per cent respectively). This is also true for each country. These
results are as might be expected since existing tariffs and elasticities of demand are low for
primary products and high for manufactures. Thus, the elimination of tariffs would promote
trade in manufactures of the area as a whole and bilateral horizontal trade, but it would not
stimulate to the same degree trade in primary products. These differences result from a
variety of effects in each country along the lines mentioned above.
TABLE lO. STATIC EFFECTS OF PAFTA BY COMMODITY GROUPS
9 Trade diversion effects are not estimated here. If these are included, the expansion of PAFTA trade
would be much larger than our estimates show.
1968] JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION 19
How the trade balance between each pair of countries would change is also shown in
Table 9. Japan would improve her trade balance with all four countries in the area; the
United States would do the same with three countries, except Japan; Canada's trade balance
would deteriorate with the United States and Japan, while improving with Australia and New
Zealand; Australia's would deteriorate with three countries, except New Zealand; and New
Zealand s would detenorate w th all four countnes These results as mentioned already,
depend upon the degree of concentration of exports in manufactures or 'in primary products
respectively.
In view of close trade ties and greater possibilities for increasing trade through the
reduction or elimination of tariffs, a Paciffic Free Trade Area among the United States,
Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand offers a target worth studying, although it presents a number of problems which need to be solved before its establishment.
The estimation of the effects of trade liberalization makes some of these problems clear:
i. Although the establishment of PAFTA would result in a sizable expansion of intra-areal
trade as a whole, the distribution of gains between the exporting and the importing countries
of manufactured goods would be so unequal that no consensus towards the establishment of
the PAFTA would be obtainable. Before its establishment, concerted actions of the PAFTA
countries to promote export-oriented industrialization of Canada, Australia, and New Zeaiand
would be needed.
il. As shown in Table 10, heavy manufactures and chemicals would expand remarkably
due to the elimination of tariffs both in exports and imports in all the five Pacific countries,
The promotion of horizontal trade within the area in these commodities should be the primary
goal sought by the five countries whether through the establishment of PAFTA or through
alternative measures. These industries can realize the largest dynamic effects through the
enlargement of markets and through the freer movement of capital, technical and managerial
know-how beyond national frontiers. These dynamic effects would work more favourably for
the relatively small countries which have abundant natural resources. It should be noted that
the freer movement of capital in this area is much needed in order to promote horizontal
trade in heavy manufactures and chemicals.
iii. It is estimated that trade in raw materials will expand by a very small percentage
(2.0 per cent in the PAFTA as a whole), but greater potential for expansion of this trade
can be expected, particularly in the exports of mineral products from Australia and Canada.
Further expansion of heavy and chernical industries in the Pacific region would require a
rapid development of trade in raw materials and intermediate goods within the area. The
import surplus of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in heavy manufactures and chemicals
would be covered by the export surplus from them in raw materials. In agricultural raw materials, however, room for exporting should be provided to developing countries as far as they
can produce them competitively.
iv. In the trade of light manufactures, the rate of increase due to liberalization would
also be large (40.8 per cent in the PAFTA as a whole), but only Japan would enjoy a net
increase in exports. Requests for protection of these light manufacturing industries in the
U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, mainly for the purpose of maintaining full employment, are so strong at this stage that to abolish trade barriers in this sector would encounter
a number of difficulties. Moreover, all PAFTA countries ought to provide free access for
developing countries' products of this type. How to foster structural adjustment in this
20 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF EcoNoMlcs [June
sector for the five Pacific countries as a whole by taking into consideration the expansion of
trade with developing countries in Asia and Latin America would be an important but difficult
problem.
v. The elimination of tariffs in itself would not change greatly trade in foodstuffs (expected increase being limited to 4.5 per cent), since a number of non-tariff restrictions exist
either openly or covertly. Protectionism for agriculture is unreasonably strong, especially in
Japan and the United States. Should these protectionist attitudes be rationalized, however,
PAFTA trade in food offers much scope for expansion through mutual readjustment. Here,
too, attention should be paid to the interests of developing countries.
Thus, the five Pacific countries should take measures to expand production and trade of
heavy manufactures and chemicals as well as raw materials, on the one hand, and on the other,
measures to readjust production and trade of light manufactures and food. Also they have
to take into consideration readjustments for increasing trade with developing countries in Asia
and Latin America. It might be best to concentrate on the expansion of production and trade
in heavy manufactures, chemicals, and raw materials and refrain from pushing the abolition
of protectionism in light manufacturing and agriculture, as a first step towards wider Pacific
integ'ration. If the expansion of growing sectors is sufiiciently large and rapid, readjustments
in the lagging sectors will follow smoothly without so much trouble. For this reason, the
sectoral free trade approach has much to recommend it as a first step.
In order to expand harmonious production and horizontal trade in these growth sectors
within the Pacific area, the elimination of tariffs should work effectively but it alone will not
be enough, and a supplementary measures will be required. The free movement of capital and
provision of larger markets or, in other words, the dynamic effects of economic integration
should be promoted specifically.
2. Effects of Global Tanff Reductions
It is beyond our capacity for the time being, although admittedly very important, to estimate rigorously the effects of the Kennedy Round negotiations concluded in June 1967. Here
a very rough estimation is attempted in order to show that even the largest global tariff
reduction of the Kennedy Round scale would bring about a much smaller expansion of trade
for the five Pacific countries than the establishment of the PAFTA.
In making this estimate, it is assumed, first, that the elasticity of imports (and exports)
with regard to the reduction of tariff is the same as what adopted for each country's trade
with the l)AFTA. Secondly, the rate of tariff reductions was 100 per cent in the case of
PAFTA, while it is assumed here to be 25 per cent for food, 30 per cent for light manufactures, and 35 per cent both for raw materials and for heavy manufactures and chemicals,
for the Kennedy Round negotiations. Thirdly, it is assumed that all the countries in Europe,
i.e., the United Kingdom, EEC and other Western Europe, reduce tariffs.
Because of these assumptions, the estimation would result in an over-valuation of the
actual effects of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. Our estimates indicate the maximum
effect of the global tariff reductions which are likely to be realized. Results of the estimation
are shown in Table 11.
Firstly, it should be noted that the rate of increase in trade due to tariff reductions is far
larger in the case of the formation of PAFTA than in the case of the Kennedy Round. In
the former case, the total intra-areal trade of the five Pacific countries in 1965 would increase
1968]
JAPAN'S lNTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
21
TABLE 11. COMPARISON OF STATIC EFFECTS OF PAFTA
AND THE KENNEDY RoUND
(*) PAFTA
(b) Kennedy Round
by 10.3 per cent and 11.9 per cent respectively for total exports to and imports from the
world, while in the latter case by 5.5 per centlo and 7.7 per cent respectively. This suggests
to us that a complete regional trade liberalization would be better than partial free trade in
respect of the world market for the five Pacific countries as a whole and for each of them.
Secondly, balance of payments effects too would be more advantageous in the case of
lo The rate of increase in a country's exports is proportional to (a) the rate of tariff reductions and (b)
the coverage of area which reduces tariffs for the country's exports. Let rF and rG stand for the rate
of tariff reductions in the case of free trade area and of global negotiation respectively, and XF and XG
for the share in a country's total exports to the free trade area and to the countries which reduce tariffs
outside the free trade area in global negotiation respectively. Then, according as xF/(xF+xG) is greater
than, or equal to, or smaller than rGlrF, the increase of a country's exports in the case of free trade
area is greater than, or equal to, or smaller than that in the case of global tariff reductions. For the
five Pacific countries taken together, in 1965, xF=0.37, xG=0.28 and xFf(xF+xa)=0.57. This is greater
than 1-G/1'F=0.3/1, and therefore, the establishment of PAFTA would bring about a greater gain of ex.
ports than in the globa] tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round sca]e.
22 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS Uune
PAFTA than in the case of global tariff reductions. In the former case, the balance of
increments between exports and imports would be zero for the five Pacific countries taken
together, while it would be in deficit by $600 million in the latter case. For each country,
it may be better to compare in both cases the ratio of imbalance to the sum of incremental
exports and imports. The ratio would be 60.4 per cent in the case of PAFTA and 45.4 per
cent in the case of global tariff reductions for Japan, O.4 per cent and -7.2 per cent for the
U.S., -26.8 per cent and -27.6 per cent for Canada, -82.0 per cent and -85.4 per cent
for Australia, and -72.7 per cent and -73.9 per cent for New Zealand. These disadvantageous
trade balance effects in the case of global tariff reductions are due to the fact that a group
of countries (i,e., developing countries and socialist countries) does not reduce tariffs but is
allowed a "free ride" on the Pacufic countrres tanff reductions. The more favourable effects
of establishing PAFTA as compared with global tariff reductions should be closely noted by
the five Pacific countries, particularly in view of the prospect that another global negotiation
of tariff reductions as large as the Kennedy Round scale wou]d not take place in the coming
ten to twenty years.
3. The Choice for Japan
The best choice for Japan is to expand and free mutual trade with every trading region.
The present stage of her industrialization, her dual pattern of trade with developed and developing countries, and her geographical location dictate such a choice.11 However, if a further
global tariff reduction is not expected to be feasible in the near future and if, moreover, the com-
partmentalization of world trade is promoted further, it would be a serious concern for Japan
to devise measures for expanding trade on an assured basis through establishing the Pacific
Free Trade Area or some other alternative,
The establishment of PAFTA would bring the largest gain to Japan among the five
Pacific countries. Japan's exports would increase by $1,740 million or 20.6 per cent of her
total exports and her balance of trade with area would improve by $1,310 million. These
gains would be far greater than in the case of global tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round
scale which would increase Japan's exports by 8.8 per cent.
The big gains for Japan from the establishment of PAFTA derive, firstly, from the fact
that Japari's exports depend as much as 37 per cent upon the PAFTA markets. European
markets are not important (13 per cent) for Japan.
Secondly, about 95 per cent of Japan's exports to other Pacific countries are manufactures
which would enioy a greater expansion from trade liberalization, while about 71 per cent of
Japan's imports are primary products, which would not increase very much in consequence
of tariff reductions.
When the time comes for Japan to consider economic integration, it should be a Pacific
Free Trade Area. Japan is destined by geography to participate in political arrangements in
the Pacific rather than in Europe. Moreover, economic integration without the United States,
whose importance for Japan's market is as large as 30 per cent, offers lesser incentive for Japan
to join.
Thus, Japan would benefit from the establishment of PAFTA, or from some other alternative, through the cheaper import of raw materials and other primary products, the expansion
11 Kiyoshi Kojima, "Trade Arrangements among Industrial Countries: Effects on Japan," in Bela Balassa,
Studies in 'rradc Libe'-alization. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1967, p. 211.
JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE ExpANsloN
1 9 68]
23
of her exports of light manufactures, and the promotion of horizontal trade in heavy manufactures and chemicals.
The formation of PAFTA or some other alternative for economic co-operation among
the five Pacific countries is desired by Japan for another reason. Collective measures by the
group are especially desirable for assisting economic development and trade growth in Southeast Asian countries.
Asian markets are very important for Japan relative to for other Pacific advanced countries.
The share of Asia (excluding Mainland China) in Japan's total exports is as large as 26 per
cent, though it has been decreasing. Japan cannot disregard the interests of developing
countries, especially in South and Southeast Asia, and the same applies to the United States
vis- -vis Latin America. The question is often raised: should Japan rely on the rapidly increasing but competitive markets in developed countries, or on the complementary but more
slowly expanding markets in developing countries? She has, in fact, to expand trade in both
directions.
If the five Pacific countries were to establish PAFTA, they should welcome as associated
members those developing countries in Asia and Latin America who wish to join. Or, they
might provide general preferential tariffsl2 in favour of the developing countries. Moreover,
the five Pacific countries should provide assistance more efficiently and on a larger scale to
foster structural adjustment in their own industries in order to open wider markets for devel-
oping countries products. Concerted policy measures among the flve Pacific countries are
urgently required.
In this context, Japan's attitude towards Mainlaind China present a problem. Political,
military, and ideological troubles aside, however, it is obvious that main supply sources of
natural resources and profitable markets for Japan are not the Asian mainland but the extended
Pacific region,
Although it seems to be quite beneficial for Japan to establish the Pacific Free Trade
Area, there is hesitation and/or caution in Japan about stepping out in that direction. One
of the reasons for hesitation is heavy protectionism for agriculture which needs time to be
rationalized. The other is fear about the penetration and domination of American capital.
These difficulties and worries should be remedied from a wider viewpoint of economic cooperation within the extended Pacific region.
IV. Closer Pacific Trade Partnership
At this stage, the PAFTA proposal seems premature, unless there is some further unforeseen disturbance in the free world economy. It is as yet neither economically nor politically
feasible. Firstly, American interests are presently worldwide and the United States could not
participate readily either in a Pacific or a European regional grouping. For the moment, the
United States appears committed to a global non-discriminatory approach to freer trade.13
12 See. Kiyoshi Kojima, "General Preferences to Developing Countries: A Japanese Assessment," Tl,e
U,iited Mtilayan Banking Corporation Econolnic Review, forthcoming.
Is Cf. John W. Evans, U.S. Trede Policy. New Legislation for the Next Round, Council on Foreign
Relations, 1967. Alfred C. Neal, "Economic Necessities and Atlantlc Communities," Foret n Affairs,
Jul 1967. William Diebold, Jr., "Doubts about Atlantic Free Trade," The Round Thble October 1967.
Wi liam Dlebold, Jr., "Future Negotraung Issues and Polrcres m Forelgn Trade, Issues alid Objecttves
of U.S. Foreign 'rrade Policy, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States. September, 1967.
･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ,, ' ･ -
24 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS [June
Secondly, the five Pacific countries still lack the solidarity and degree of integration that
wou]d be necessary for dispensing with protective measures for the main sectors of their
economies involved in regional trade-the labour-intensive industries in some countries, the
agricultural and pastoral industries in other countries.14
Thirdly, the static gains from complete trade liberalization would differ widely from one
country to another because of the disparity in stages of industrialization within the region.
However, the realization of PAFTA might be precipitated by a shock w_hich came from
outside the area. Greater European integration between EEC and EFTA could produce an
"inward looking" Europe whereupon the United States might well find closer integration in
the Pacific desirable and necessary, Should the United Kingdom fail again to join the EEC,
she might probe the establishment of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area with the United States
and Canada.15 In the case, Japan, Australia and New Zealand might have to consider seriously
their own integration. Moreover, PAFTA and NAFTA might be linked together through
the U.S. and Canada which would belong to the two free trade areas.16
Economic integration in the Pacific should be a free trade area instead of a customs union
or political union. A free trade area arrangement would have advantages over the alternatives from several points of view: it is consistent with the rules of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade; it preserves the autonomy of members with respect to their tariff policies
vis- -vis non-participants; and it is a purely commercial arrangement, carrying no obligation
for eventual political federation or union.17
Whether or not a free trade area can ultimately be established, the five advanced Pacific
countries should now set about establishing closer and more profitable trade partnerships with
each other. To date, the United States has tended to look toward the possibility of ultimately
'going in with Europe', and has tended to neglect the Pacific region. The flow of financial
resources and direct investment from America to Pacific basin countries, including Asian and
Latin American countries, has lagged behind that going to Europe,18 The Pacific, Asian, and
14 A comment against PAFTA is presented by H.W. Arndt, "PAFTA An Australlan Assessment "
Intereconomics Hamburg, October 1967, to which there is a reply by K yoshi Kojima, "A Paclfic Free
Trade Area: econsidered," ibid., March 1968.
15 Maxwell Stamp Associates, The Free Trede Area Option, Opportunityfor B,-itain, the Atlantic Trade
Study, London, 1967. Theodore Geiger and Sperry Lea, "The Free Trade Area Concept as Applied to
the United States," Looking Aheed, National Planning Association, Washington, October 1967.
16 If NAFTA is instituted among the U.S., Canada and Britain while PAFTA is not, Japan should
join the former since otherwise she would suffer from large-scale trade diversion. It is estimated that
"the UK would capture about 10 per cent of Japanese trade (say about $ 225 mil]ion) in North American
markets, if Japan were not in NAFTA." (Maxwell Stamp Associates. The Free T1lade Area Option, ibid. ,
p. 44). Since the NAFTA proposal aims at freeing of non-agricultural trade, Australia and New Zealand
would be less interested in joining (Ibid., p. 38). Both for NAFTA and PAFTA, a crucial question is:
"Would the Americans accept the free trade area concept of a new Grand Design?" (Ibid., p. 78).
17 See, Harry G. Johnson, "Proposals for a North Atlantic Free Trade Area," an address to the European-
Atlantic Group, 6 March 1967, pp. 4-5. Canadian-American Committee, A Caneda-U.S. Free Trede
Arrangement, Survey of Possible Characteristics, October 1963. Ditto., A Possible Plan for Caneda-U.S.
Free Trede /lrea. A Staff Report, February 1965. Ditto. A New Trede Strategy for Ca'leda a'td the
United States, May 1966.
18 The financial resources flows from developed to developing countries in 1964 were $ 8.51 per capita
for Africa, while they were $ 3.92 for Latin America, $ 2.85 for South Asia, and $ 3.88 for Far East,
The last one was, however, very small if aid to South Vietnum is excluded. (OECD, Geographical
Distribution of Financlal Flows to Less Develo d Countries, 1966.)
The U.S. Direct foreign investments, amounting to $ 49,328 million at the end of 1965, have directed
mainly to Canada (30.9 per cent), EEC (12.8 per cent) and other Europe (15.6 per cent), while Oceania (3.7
per cent) and Japan (1.4 per cent) have benefited not only very limited amount but also in slower increase
relative to Europe (US Department of Commerce, Survey tf Cunient Business, September 1967).
1968] JAPAN'S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION 25
Latin American region has a huge potential for trade growth and development compared
with Europe, and it should be looked at more closely.
Studies and proposals about Pacific trade expansion have been quite limited. However,
recently a movement in this direction has been initiated. The Canada-United States Automo-
tive Agreement has taken effect from January 1965. This should be given much attention
as a pioneer of selective industrial integration,19 The Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agree-
ment began in January 1966.20 The Pacific Basin Economic Co-operation Committee was
established among business circles of the five Pacific countries in April 1967; and a number
of bilateral co-operative activities have been promoted in business circles. It should be noted
also that Mr. Takeo Miki, Japan's Foreign Minister, is keenly interested in promoting economic co-operation in the Pacific and Asian region.
Before the establishment of PAFTA, several steps towards closer Pacific economic cooperation might be practicable immediately. Five main objectives suggest themselves:
1. To increase the flow of financial resources from the United States to other Pacific
countries, as well as to Asian and Latin American developing countries.
2. ･ To stimulate horizontal trade among the five advanced Pacific countries in heavy
manufactures and chemicals and to expand production and trade of raw materials and intermediate goods more efflciently for the region as a whole.
3. To readjust production and trade in agricultural commodities among the five Pacific
countries, taking into consideration their relationship with Asian and Latin American developing countries.
4. To readjust production and trade of light manufactures, which are labour intensive,
with the aim of providing greater access for Asian and Latin American countries in advanced
country markets.
. po rcy o
5 To co-ordinate the aid l' f the five advanced Pacific countries towards Asian
and Latin American developing countries.
Practical steps towards closer Pacific economic co-operation can be taken by strengthening functional, rather than institutional integration, and thus attempting to attain the favourable benefits of a free trade area whilst avoiding the unfavourable impact effects. To realize
these objectives, I suggest the initiation of three codes of international behaviour and the
formation of two new regional institutions.
1. A code of good conduct in the field of trade policy, under which countries would relinquish the right to raise tariffs or impose other forms of trade restriction,21 and would
gradually reduce those trade barriers particularly on the import of agricultural products and
labour intensive light manufactures, should be promulgated.
2. A code of overseas investment to promote mutual investment among the five advanced
Pacific countries, most effectively from the United States, and to foster the activity of joint
ventures is much needed to promote trade expansion, especially horizontal trade expansion
19 See, Sperry Lea, "Free Trade by Sectors," NPA, Looking Aheed, September 1966.
2Q F.W. Holmes, "Australia and New Zeal nd in the World Economy," The Ec' onomic Record, March
1967.
21 The assurance against the reimposition of duties in a free trade area wou]d induce enterprises to
expand trade and investment abroad . The code of good conduct would reduce uncertainty in international
trade and be a partial substitute for the formation of free trade area. See. Bela Balassa, Trade I_iberalizat 'on A1'10n I d t " I Count,' s Council on Foreign Relations 1967 pl" 160-1(;1.
l g n uslra I ., , ,
26 HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF Eco) 'oMlcs [June
In heavy manufactures 22 and for the development of the vast mmeral resources of the Pacific
region. A code which minimises the fear of American capital domination and maximises
protection for America's balance of payments would greatly facilitate overseas investment and
the better allocation of regional resources.
3. A code of aid and trede policies towards associated developing countries is also required, so that Asian and Latin American countries might enjoy the benefits of larger markets
for their agricultural products and light manufactures. The flow of developmental aid must
be increased, appropriate aid projects selected, and domestic industrial structures adjusted to
meet the legitimate trade needs of affiliated less developed countries.2s
An Organization for Paclfic Trade and Development (OPTAD) should be established in
order to give effect to these codes of international behaviour. Its main features would be
similar to those of the OECD, and it could be structured in the same way, with three committees on trade, investment, and aid.24
Further, a Paclfic Bankfo' Investment and Settlenrent would be established with the aim
of facilitating investment and settlement within the Pacific. Asian, and Latin American region,
and equipped with a mechanism for preventing the drainage of gold from the United States.25
22 N.P.G. Elkan suggests an interesting scheme for promoting horizontal trade in his article, "How to
Beat Backwash: The Case for Customs-Drawback Unions," Economic Journal, March 1965. His plan
may be applicable to trade between small economies like Australia and New Zealand but would be too
cumbersome to work in wider markets. It seems to me that horizontal trade would be fostered most
efficiently through the expansion of joint ventures and other private capital's activities.
2B See, Kiyoshi Kojima, "A Proposal for International Aid," The Developing Econolnies, December 1964.
Ditto, "Japan's Role in Asian Agricultural Development," The Japan Quarterly, April-June, 1967.
24 Aid Committee could be set up first because of urgency for increasing aid and trade with developing
countries.
25 My own thought was shown in Kiyoshi Kojima, "A Proposal for Increasing International Liquidity,"
The Oriental Econo'nist, Aug., 1964, which was reviewed in "How Aid Could be Untied," The Econovnist
(London). July 25, 1964, pp. 401-402.
27
JAPAN’S INTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
1968】
STATlsTlcAL APPENDDζ：
TRADE MATRlx BY CoMMQDITY GRoup（1，000dollars）
upper column，1958
middle cQlumn，1963
10wer column，1965
（1） 〈71−goods
to
xports from
SA
1，713
1，357，101
97｝018
71，904
，380，451
，673，502
130，054
85，993
649，506
5，017
5，798
29，973
22，640
221
957
0
，154
2，332
，028
0，299
119，763
23，408
2，816
14，944
一
一
57
42
177
56
455，940
40，154
09，467
12，923
52
43，226
『
一一一
5，533
一
15
2，128，879
，658，406
一
一一一
301，253
1，181
2，614
16ン126
55，727
21，667
6，113
4，449
0126
10，374
345，540
74，068
31，564
0133
4，829
51
1013 ，12，365
0 0
42，708
57
66
138，222
32，699
16，126
一一一
0
20，740
20，835
00一
240
08
201，312
0133
26，616
69ン236
48，699
57
68
49
9
0681
5，100
Total
xports
000
000
16，573
66
18
ther Asia
∫Paci五c C．
θ
．Z．
0
0
一一一
226
96
42
0
000
9．Other Asia
8，831
6，668
32
1，142
6，653
一一一
57，142
f．Paci丘c C．
73，101
000
6． New Zealand
82，469
0371
000
000
4． Australia
047498
0 0
0681
189
‘． Japan
111，638
26，584
69，236
48，328
000
000
8，831
5，987
apan
一一一
56，953
ム． Canada
4
ustralia
f
anada
一一一
α． USA
δ
α
28
田TOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
【June
（2） ハ尾一goods
to
6
α
xports from
SA
anada
一一一
α． USA
12，950
76，358
89，118
32，137
’σ． New Zealand
∫．Paci丘c C．
6，230
，722
0，436
22，434
22，174
57，086
8，388
1，827
9，622
1，671
3，460
7，728
67，460
9，124
1，181
2，376
9，226
，532
，083
245，573
96，737
28，226
29，439
33，259
351，700
175，633
9，584
61，801
64，050
0，（〕85
17，963
61，037
01，584
359，583
23，456
50，290
165，409
，047 388，657
，254 454，635
02，841
927
1，064 382，735
10，777
，130
，880
3，805
，721
，321
3，840
，720，225
43，383 1， 881，504
988 318，734
，183 435，331
1，252 84，886
557 92，355
42，597
675 118，642
7，148
9，035
2，679
2，714
7，588 40，081
0，472 347，933
1，632 246，068
75，797
＿ 81，6（巧一 102，746− 76，172
14，363
，150
，708
11，475
，891
，575
412，011
一
395，924
49，063
43，378
308，9432， 520，664
92，7723， 一
26，817
一
2，517
一
82，497
34，969
77，903
1，898 903，69511，723 669，081
14881 ，
231，115
一
5，124
6，0641，250，425
8，7441，330，848
97，129
56，836
6，885
，476
11，573 828，660
490，040
2，794 一
﹃一一
542，076
，687
5，155
991，574
1，669 239，353
一一一
9、Other Asia
，784
，564
Total
xports
2，903
4，146
8，126
一一一
4。 Australia
2，355
8，210
2，161
一一一
73，599
6． Japan
﹃一一
09，832
23，704
4，106
ther Asia
9
ustralia
apan
221，831
378，583
み． Canada
θ ∫N．Z． Paci丘c C．
4
‘
（3） ム㌔一goods
to
xports from
δ
α
SA
anada
一一一
α． USA
148，362
7，616
85，963
27，859
94，760
9，921
7，111
1，607
05，921
32，823
8， New Zealand
5，363
6，261
408，192
∫．Paci丘c C．
3，283
，606
，912
2，022
，871
，102
154，624
246，273
23，663
136，590
，189 571，775
，504 785，643
41，118
70，208
10，721
8，595
3，291
3，857
1，191 348，622
5，011
0，937
158，786
12，167
96，895
10，785
4，981
9，589
4267565
468，726
20，256
206，763
70，609
81，355
455
0
｝247
7，586
，249 497，410
，013 561，567
0，725
3，324
31，240
8，355
『
，852
，695
635 20，618
16，900
5，661 196，413
22，981
01 31，283
71 32，188
，245 374，625
，516 417，244
一 53，216− 104，452− 109，553
，237
，601
40，299
3，767
0，482
9，342
94，278
40，857
21，397
757，462
，102，113
一
2，248
265，877
182，486
，7841，579，545
17，208
，811 881，644
，638 一
09，297
88，134
一
9，2271，038，907
5，475 732，460
503，246
9，315
，441
，105
3，3041，906，195
，999，188
，342，492
『
63，966
68，582
3，162，759
，315，421
『
一一一
02，536
6，043
5，828
1，541，896
1，740 420，038
9，197
9，619
93，932
42，978
41，826
95，142
Total
xports
01，773
65，557
74，750
94，053
1，354
ther Asia
9
﹃一﹃
9，0ther Asia
》261
｝559
ustralia
一一一
28，683
4． Australia
957
8 ∫N．Z， Paci丘c C．
apan
一﹃一
18，571
‘． Japan
一一一
328，115
δ． Canada
ご
‘
1968］
29
JAPAN’S INTEREST IN THE PAαFIC TRADE EXPANSION
（4） ハ7‘一goods
to
xports from
‘z δ
ustralia
8
。Z．
一 291，867− 303，732− 369，724
103，137
13，954
4，316
α． USA
み． Canada
4
apan
‘
SA Canada
604，849 −
36，661 −
02，908 一
47，645
97，164
0，805
1，236
，457，962
，617，756
10，082
3，768
617
765
619，316
1，020
799，345
41，709
18，016
0，737
1，348
76，029
18，804
81，612
277534
3，676
9，001
17シ144
0
，456
50，655
23，747
74，247
5，057
0
2，617
一
一
15
2，796
64，426
6，224
44，823
『
111
一
680
，786
2，321，290
1，906
，778，559
『
一
379，081
9，982
1，743
1，389
99，392
59，984
264
923
，694，388
，778，402
14，423
3，735
10，675
2，136
1，085，567
，138，190
，412，743
﹃一一
91，864
65，898
8，170
0，213
186
，366
，319
﹃一一
160，293
22，601
22，732
96，612
0897
129，821
0
一一一
152
759
50，286 303，860
28，665 370，584
118，849 1，183
6，016 737
4，570 1，625
164
12
64
1，972
0
0
，524
0
，524
一一一
9，0ther Asia
130
1，824
618，329 291，867
∫．Paci丘c C．
0，914
14，630
0 0
o， New Zealand
，433
0640
0 0
，138 154
3，625 128
1，619 706
1，405，334
，741
，624
8，873
1，266
13，424 0
47，659
3，992
5，746
一一一
4． Australia
413，274
Total
xports
15，180
95シ070
56 0
‘． Japan
9
∫Paci丘c C。Other Asia
（5） Z，1−goods
to
み
α
xports from
22，596
52，732
65》454
77，092
336
77
44
158
θ． New Zeaiand
11
16
1，084，139
∫．PaciHc C．
，323
，082
1，035
，446
，515
12
10，489
8，253
6，013
46，524
6，789
48，674
8，234
2，915
8，276
3，811 262，299
2，532 610，621
5，150 688，428
137，181
3，019 723，847
3，453
0，171
3，840
，905 746，077
，384 884，211
5，207 471，170
316，931
9，204 725，983
37，640
54，169
0，392 1，139，558
12，731 15，947
3，101 34，564
7，778 30，079
一 8，404− 13，226− 18，650
152，216
21，025
2，802
38，990
10，793 225，826
，147
5，011
一
0
8，7422，130，471
6，7042，760，926
9，530 586，367陶
6，089 一
460，574
32，258
『
Total
xports
2，012，458
，312，407
，242，724
875，141
956，139
，125，168
1，252，261
，927，510
，489，186
33，232
5，515
一
9，992
5，597
1，972
4，183，084
，267，168
一
一﹃一
73，479
70，926
65ン315
24，7681，481，667
7，466
4，963
7，142
，384
『
，119
88，236
28，362
5，143
0，017
3，009
560
，295，101
，735，582
47，536
60，157
75，503
86，333
﹃一一
9，0ther Asia
288，792
11，175
157
058
000
，740
，442
4，536
3，400
7，546
2，969
2，352
一一一
1，845
4。 Australia
46，799
9，285
1，697
6，308
一一一
372，640
c． Japan
23，423
34，618
一﹃一
709，496
ウ。 Canada
ustralla
apan
241，657
9
β ∫N．Z． Paci五c C．Other Asia
4
‘
anada
一一一
4． USA
SA
30
H【TOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
［June
（6） Z，2−goods
to
xportsfrom
δ
α
SA
一一一
α． USA
93，164
24，988
6，231
7，225
73，985
66，333
52，529
631
972
732
22，078
2，607
353
88，243
90，018
00，522
一一︸
08，109
49，708
25，436
3，604
3，842
136
，017
，305
554
，113
一
2，312
2，658
0，170
，253
，800
183，539
46，069
29，651
49，141
4，028
46，294
3，173
22，044
，905
1，242
一
一
21
27
99
7，501
9，782
9，472
373，384
137，994
53，833
42，543
94，561
194
89
45
8，488
0，126
一
295
366
，526
1，570，596
，167，131
一
一一一
，475
，549
9，663
9，030
2，020
2，323
8，274
48，581
46，045
28，224
5，091
4，677
3，296
，591
，369
，549，827
，228，153
一一一
838
13，586
，069
867
1，316，137
83，661
20，375
25》310
000
6，766
5，332
3，381
232，841
21
27
99
260，730
一︸一
94，020
32，675
20，491
一一一
，028
0
0，932
000
0
224
，373
0131
9，0therAsia
76，353
37，856
000
11
000
∫．PaciHcC．
，799
，962
4，721
3，692
37
θ． New Zealand
4，396
》234
，328
Total
xports
9
∫Paci丘cC。OtherAsla
9，986
5，929
3，071
11，298
292
4． Australia
8
．Z．
2，461
2，835
24，805
143， 876
﹃一一
‘． Japan
apan
221，543
19，743
ウ． Canada
4
ustralia
‘
anada
一
（7） C1−goods
＼ t・ 、
xp。rtsfr＼
635，542
930，271
，171，719
66，489
64，946
63，226
5，019
7，975
6，594
25，177
162
4，032
7，866
9，520
1》798
2，209
6，016
3，028
173
1，149
，543
，170
，213，461
，875，875
492，702
103，783
21，185
95，434
64，977
86，737
，936
7，960
14，836
3，320
3，007
8，263
7，324
6，030
8，143
2，061
5，743
0，405
，343
47，276
26，493
11，755
2，633
，695
一
ther Asia
6，223
3》654
7，946 1，
2，533
，273
3，006
458
3，511
7，343
31，434
7，530
0，161
40，648
614，501
160，232
00，280
76，078
93，990
30，188
653，484
994，673
916
，775
45，458
Total
xports
2，250，523
，998，195
，789，387
1，174，812
3，841
3，428
，505，568
，863，532
77，996
24，575
19，224
262，788
464，315
71，486
38，567
，163，256
，139，099
58，571
16，015
129，996
，261，569
7，381
12，644
10，093
2，175
8，742
1，414，645
02，9682， 229，084
18，4563， 288，257
1，079
9
75，253
61，698
一
2，783
一
353
63
55
484，846
42，363
一
91，112
一
17，104
0，625
4，383
4，036，750
，878，756
一
一一一
2，420
11，377
∫Paci丘c C．
一一一
54，285
02，831
65，640
227
，229
9，682
5，027
θ
．Z．
一一一
9。Other Asia
24，126
941
，707
730，236
∫，Paci丘c C，
96，804
14，675
16，972
6，701
3，760
0 0
θ． New Zealand
02，269
46，133
ustralia
一一一
4． Australia
487，348
apan
一一一
‘。 Japan
4
‘
anada
一一一
み． Canada
SA
一一一
α． USA
ゐ
α
JAPAN'S lNTEREST IN THE PACIFIC TRADE EXPANSION
1968]
(8) C2-goods
Note
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Source: UN, Colnmodity Trede Statistics,
Figures are the value of exports from each country.
Since figures of Australia for 1965 are not available, exports of other four Pacific countries
to Australia are shown as Australian imports , and imports of those countries from Australia
are shown as Australian exports.
Figures of New Zealand for 1963 cover the period from July 1962 to June 1963.
"Other Asia" covers the same countries as shown in the footnote of Table 1.
As regards commodity classification, see the text.
31
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
