Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
Table 4

### 4. Estimated Impact of Agreements

### 4.1 The general pattern of results

We now turn to the estimated impact of the PTAs. We start with GDP. Table 4 below presents the estimated impact on GDP of the agreements, when implemented collectively, and also the impact when implemented individually.

Change in GDP, percent
All FTAs together	impact given bilateral FTA	Impact given other FTAs
Japan	0.80	0.43	0.44
Korea	2.29	2.61	1.97
Canada	0.34	0.17	0.15
USA	0.46	0.18	0.17
Latin America
Argentina	0.99	0.62	0.60
Brazil	1.57	1.17	1.12
Other	0.52	0.09	0.06
India	1.18	0.58	0.57
ASEAN
Indonesia	1.09	0.51	0.49
Thailand	1.39	0.85	0.74
Other ASEAN	1.13	0.72	0.72
European Union
France	0.73
Germany	1.01
Italy	1.08
United Kingdom	1.00
Netherlands	1.22
Spain	0.69
Other eurozone	1.89
Other non-eurozone	0.98
In Table 4, the first column presents the impact of all PTAs together. For example, for Korea, there is an estimated 2.29 percent long-run increase in GDP. This means the path of GDP, over the long-run, is 2.29 percent higher than otherwise. The second two columns present the impact of the individual agreement, from two different perspectives. In the second column, for Korea, the impact of the EU-Korea PTA in isolation, as modelled, implies a 2.61 percent increase in GDP. However, from the third column, given the other PTAs, the marginal impact of the EU-Korea PTA is actually 1.97 percent. This is lower than the bilateral assessment would imply. The other PTAs matter. At the same time, for Korea, the difference between the first and third columns means that given the full set of EU PTAs, while the marginal impact of the bilateral agreement is 1.97 percent of GDP, the total impact id 2.29 percent. The difference, 0.3 percent, is from the impact of third country agreements with the EU. On net, Korea benefits from these agreements, even though it is not a direct participant. Indeed, this result holds for all partners. The difference between columns 1 and 3 range from 0.2 percent of GDP (Canada) up to 0.65 percent (Thailand). Consistently though, the partners benefit from EU negotiations with third countries. We will examine this effect, with some decomposition of static and dynamic effects, below.

Table 5 presents the export impact of the agreements. Interestingly, while there is a strong difference between collective and individual impact when we look at GDP, this is not reflected in trade flows. Indeed, with Canada, the trade impact is negative, even with positive GDP effects. This suggests that the scope of the agreements has an impact across a channel that increases the global economic base (investment effects), on top of any direct trade effects.

Table 6 below presents a decomposition of the collective effects of the trade agreements, broken down along static and dynamic effects to help deconstruct the overall impact. This breakdown actually helps to explain why we see a difference between trade and GDP effects from the PTAs.
Table 5

Change in exports, percent
All FTAs together	impact given bilateral FTA	Impact given other FTAs
Japan	11.73	11.82	13.08
Korea	11.57	14.85	12.31
Canada	-1.05	3.69	3.27
USA	7.70	8.00	7.71
Latin America
Argentina	8.56	8.99	8.67
Brazil	30.26	31.97	30.48
Other	12.11	11.72	11.53
India	30.47	28.56	29.88
ASEAN
Indonesia	6.27	5.95	5.74
Thailand	15.00	15.11	14.86
Other ASEAN	5.67	6.14	5.86
European Union
France	4.58
Germany	8.38
Italy	8.70
United Kingdom	10.30
Netherlands	5.94
Spain	3.94
Other eurozone	6.60
Other non-eurozone	4.91
Table 6

Decomposition of effects
A	B	C	D	E=A-B-C-D
Total effects	static allocation	pro-competitive	dynamic CRTS	growth and variety interaction
Japan	0.80	0.12	0.10	0.21	0.37
Korea	2.29	0.53	1.07	0.25	0.44
Canada	0.34	0.19	-0.41	0.19	0.38
USA	0.46	0.14	-0.07	0.14	0.24
Latin America
Argentina	0.99	0.31	0.12	0.22	0.34
Brazil	1.57	0.33	0.64	0.22	0.38
Other	0.52	0.11	-0.26	0.25	0.42
India	1.18	0.27	0.29	0.24	0.38
ASEAN
Indonesia	1.09	0.19	0.18	0.27	0.45
Thailand	1.39	0.55	-0.12	0.33	0.64
Other ASEAN	1.13	0.23	0.18	0.25	0.47
European Union
France	0.73	0.22	-0.11	0.21	0.40
Germany	1.01	0.40	0.05	0.20	0.36
Italy	1.08	0.33	-0.03	0.27	0.52
United Kingdom	1.00	0.48	0.00	0.18	0.33
Netherlands	1.22	0.56	0.06	0.22	0.38
Spain	0.69	0.30	-0.24	0.22	0.41
Other eurozone	1.89	0.62	0.51	0.24	0.52
Other non-eurozone	0.98	0.46	-0.15	0.22	0.44

The total GDP effect, from the full set of PTAs, is reported in column A of Table 6. This corresponds to the first column results in Table 4. These are then reported under alternative model closures. In column B, we have the static impact on GDP under perfect competition. Column C then reports the incremental impact of including monopolistic competition. Column D reports the incremental impact when, under perfect competition, we also include induced investment effects. Column E then reports the remaining effects, when have added both monopolistic competition and induced investment effects. These are effects that result from the two mechanisms implemented in the model at the same time, on top of either of these separately (which are reported in columns C and D). Column E captures the interaction between variety and income effects. The importance of this dynamic precompetitive effect is quite strong. For Japan,
almost half of the total effect is in column E, and 70% is linked to dynamics (columns D and E). Indeed, in the table, on average the combined dynamic effects in columns D and E account for roughly 70% of total effects. In the case of Canada, the dynamic effects are critical, far outweighing static losses linked to variety effects and driving the estimated overall gain to GDP.

The importance of dynamic effects explains the difference between GDP and trade effects (Tables 4 and 5). The market access gains drive static changes in GDP, and some local investment effects. However, at the same time there is a collective dynamic gain that is strong and regionally broad-based. This contributes to the overall effects, and while following from improved market access and reductions in trade barriers, it comes on top of direct trade effects.

#### 4.2 The Importance of NTMs vs. tariffs

Table 7

Change in GDP, percent
All FTAs together	impact of tariffs	impact of NTMs
Japan	0.80	0.21	0.59
Korea	2.29	0.79	1.50
Canada	0.34	0.02	0.32
USA	0.46	0.08	0.38
Latin America
Argentina	0.99	0.19	0.80
Brazil	1.57	0.61	0.96
Other	0.52	-0.18	0.70
India	1.18	0.38	0.80
ASEAN
Indonesia	1.09	0.37	0.72
Thailand	1.39	0.33	1.06
Other ASEAN	1.13	0.34	0.79
European Union
France	0.73	0.18	0.55
Germany	1.01	0.27	0.75
Italy	1.08	0.36	0.73
United Kingdom	1.00	0.26	0.74
Netherlands	1.22	0.35	0.87
Spain	0.69	0.15	0.54
Other eurozone	1.89	0.66	1.24
Other non-eurozone	0.98	0.25	0.73
We next turn to the relative importance of NTMs and tariffs. Table 7 gives a different decomposition of GDP changes, based on tariff elimination, and on NTM reductions. Consistently, the impact of NTM reductions is greater than tariff reductions. In one case (other Latin America), where tariffs are high and elimination implies revenue losses and Vinerian trade diversion, the NTM reductions are critical to the overall, positive outcome. In ASEAN, the NTM reductions are far greater than the tariff reductions as a source of gains. In Canada, the entire set of GDP gains rests on reductions in NTMs. In addition, for all the EU Members, NTMs are much more important than tariff reductions. This result rationalizes the EU focus on barriers beyond tariffs alone. There are broad potential gains, both to EU Members but also from PTA partners, from NTM reduction.

### 4.3 Third country effects – low-income countries

We next turn to the impact on third countries, with an emphasis on low-income countries. This is summarized in Table 8. In the table, both export and GDP effects are reported.

## Table 8

Impact on Low Income Countries
GDP	Exports
Low income Asia	0.55	-4.26
Low income Africa	0.60	0.23
Bangladesh	0.51	-1.16
Vietnam	0.79	7.27

Income growth in G20 export markets exhibits a clear spillover effect, and the net result of increases in global investment (see Table 6) is improved GDP levels, though the trade effects are more mixed.
### 5. Summary

This paper has examined the impact of recent and prospective EU preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Emphasis has been placed on both the role of reducing non-tariff measures in the likely impact of these agreements, and also the de facto collective nature of these agreements. While the EU negotiates such agreements bilaterally (or within regional structures), they take place in the context of similar potential agreements in other regions. This raises the question of what the collective impact of such an approach is likely to be.

To examine both sets of questions, a global CGE model has been used. Emphasis has been placed on agreements and prospective candidates for FTA negotiations between the EU's OECD and G20 trading partners. The starting point is tariff protection and also benchmarked NTM protection. The NTM protection levels are estimated based on recent EU and OECD studies benchmarking levels of NTMs across the G20. The combination of NTM and tariff barriers allows for comparison of the impact tariff and non-tariff barriers liberalization.

A unique value added of this exercise has been the comprehensive overview of the impact of these agreements, if they are implemented simultaneously, in contrast to piecemeal impacts one by one. The collective impact is far greater than the sum of the parts. This follows from induced investment effects. The investment impacts lead to positive gains for third countries. These investment effects also mean that individual countries negotiating with the EU actually stand to gain from ongoing negotiations with EU negotiations with third countries at the same time.

The comparison of NTMs and tariffs also highlights the potential importance of regulatory and administrative barriers to trade. Overall, estimated impact from reduction in NTMs is much larger than reduction in tariffs. This may explain the shift in emphasis in recent agreements from tariffs to deeper modes of integration, as these are more likely to address the impact of non-tariff measures on European exporters.
Finally, the discussion of trade patterns points to the differential interest of individual EU Members on a geographic basis. The importance of the North American, Latin American, and Asian markets varies across EU Members. This reflects both geography and history. Examination of trade patterns also highlights the progressive share of EU trade covered by PTAs. If the full set of PTAs examined here (including the US and Japan) were to become fact, then 90 percent of EU trade (when we include the EU itself and the EEA) would be covered by such agreements. As the remaining candidate markets are likely to be problematic (including China, and also low and middle income developing countries), any remaining initiatives would, perhaps, be more easily addressed in a multilateral setting.
## References

Anderson, J. E., J. H. Bergstrand, P. Egger and J. Francois (2008) 'Non-Tariff Barrier Study Methodology,' technical paper prepared for the EC Ecorys study, 'Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – An Economic Analysis', Report prepared for European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Reference: OJ 2007/S 180-219493, 2009.

Anderson, J. E and E. van Wincoop (2004), 'Trade Costs', Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (3): 691-751.

Behgin, J. C. and J-C Bureau (2001) 'Measurement of Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade, OECD, September 2001.

Berdin, K. et al (2009), “Tariff Measures in EU-United States Trade and Investment,” prepared for European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, ECORYS Nederland BV, Rotterdam.

Copenhagen Economics (2010), 'Assessment of Barriers to Trade and Investment between the EU and Japan'. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Trade.

Dee, P (2010), 'The employment implications of liberalising foreign direct investment in services', Paper prepared for the Directorate for Trade and Agriculture, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Ecorys (2009), 'Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – An Economic Analysis', Report prepared for European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Reference: OJ 2007/S 180-219493.

Francois, J.F. (1998), “Scale economies and imperfect competition in the GTAP model,” GTAP consortium technical paper.

http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=317

Francois, J.F. and D.W. Roland-Holst (1997), "Scale economies and imperfect competition, in Francois, J.F. and K.A. Reinert, eds. (1997), Applied methods
for trade policy analysis: a handbook, Cambridge University Press: New York.

Francois, J.F., B. McDonald and H. Nordstrom (1996), "Trade liberalization and the capital stock in the GTAP model," GTAP consortium technical paper. http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=310

Francois, J.F., J. van Meijl and F. van Tongeren (2005), Trade liberalisation in the Doha development Round, Economic Policy, vol 42 (April): pp. 349-391.

Francois, J. F. and B. Hoekman (2010), ‘Services Trade and Policy’, Journal of Economic Literature 48, p.1-51.

Hertel, T. 1997, Global Trade Analysis: Modelling and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

OECD (2000), ‘An Assessment of the Costs for International Trade in Meeting Regulatory Requirements, OECD

OECD (2005) 'Analysis of Non-Tariff measures: Customs fees and Charges on Imports,' OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No 14.

OECD (2006), 'Quantifying the Trade and Economic Effects of Non-Tariff Measures', OECD Trade Policy Woking Paper No.28

OECD (2009), 'A cost-benefit framework for the assessment of non-tariff measures in agro-food trade,' OECD Food, agriculture and fisheries Working papers, no., 21, OECD publishing. doi: 10.1787/220613725148

OECD (2011), 'The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Jobs and Growth: TECHNICAL NOTE,' OECD Trade Policy Working Papers, No. 107, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5kgj4jfj1nq2-en.
## Annex Tables

Table 9

Change in terms of trade, percent
All FTAs together	impact given bilateral FTA	Impact given other FTAs
Japan	-0.41	-0.13	-0.36
Korea	-0.89	-0.99	-0.73
Canada	0.53	-0.15	-0.10
USA	0.01	-0.05	-0.09
Latin America
Argentina	1.48	1.61	1.45
Brazil	1.04	1.38	1.20
Other	1.31	1.16	1.16
India	-2.78	-2.67	-2.67
ASEAN
Indonesia	-0.10	-0.05	-0.07
Thailand	0.55	0.98	0.86
Other ASEAN	-0.17	-0.11	-0.15
European Union
France	0.23
Germany	0.17
Italy	0.06
United Kingdom	0.21
Netherlands	-0.14
Spain	0.24
Other eurozone	-0.65
Other non-eurozone	0.67
Table 10

Change in welfare, million dollars
All FTAs together	impact given bilateral FTA	Impact given other FTAs
Japan	28,250	18,299	17,910
Korea	12,704	15,066	11,791
Canada	4,235	1,357	1,305
USA	40,680	18,571	17,454
Latin America
Argentina	1,820	1,412	1,338
Brazil	11,274	10,013	9,440
Other	5,131	2,529	2,271
India	2,942	-69	59
ASEAN
Indonesia	2,241	1,060	988
Thailand	2,294	2,273	1,925
Other ASEAN	5,819	3,238	3,072
European Union
France	15,963
Germany	28,572
Italy	18,892
United Kingdom	22,954
Netherlands	7,739
Spain	6,888
Other eurozone	23,563
Other non-eurozone	16,528

Table 11

Direction of EU extra-EU exports, shares
exporters ==>
other € zone	other non €	France	Germany	Italy	United Kingdom	Netherlands	Spain	Total EU
Other FTAs	13.21	11.64	19.75	12.77	17.62	12.08	12.69	24.33	14.55
Korea	2.48	2.25	2.31	2.90	2.11	2.18	2.18	1.56	2.39
Japan	5.94	6.99	6.33	6.73	5.59	7.39	5.72	4.00	6.36
Latin America	5.43	5.58	5.27	5.17	6.58	4.39	7.23	13.67	5.81
India	3.44	2.02	1.93	1.70	1.56	3.17	2.15	1.83	2.32
ASEAN	8.52	7.70	8.73	8.29	7.18	9.02	13.06	7.78	8.49
USA	29.89	26.29	24.75	30.08	25.86	37.04	26.70	17.95	28.86
Canada	2.23	3.04	3.02	2.50	2.78	4.43	2.35	1.92	2.85
China	6.68	6.15	6.41	10.54	6.37	4.46	6.20	6.13	7.10
ROW	22.18	28.32	21.50	19.33	24.34	15.84	21.70	20.82	21.26
Mapping of Model Sectors to NACE and GTAP Sectors

CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
Agriculture, 1 forestry, fish	Growing of crops; market gardening; 11 horticulture	1 PDR - Paddy rice 2 WHT - Wheat 3 GRO - Cereal 4 grains n.e.c. V_F - Vegetables, 5 fruit, nuts 6 OSD - Oil seeds C_B - Sugar cane, 7 sugar beet PFB - Plant-based fibers 8 OCR - Crops n.e.c. CTL - Bovine cattle, sheep and goats, horses OAP - Animal 10 products n.e.c. 11 MLK - Raw milk WOL - Wool, silk-worm cocoons 12 FRS - Forestry
12 Farming of animals	9
Forestry, logging and related services	13
20 activities	14
Fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms	15
2 Processed Foods	151 Meat products	19
152 Fish and fish products	20
153 Fruits and vegetables	21
154 Vegetable and animal	22
155 Dairy products; ice cream	23
156 Grain mill products and starches	24
157 Prepared animal feeds	25
158 Other food products	26
160 Tobacco products	27
part	28
29
part	29
part	29
part	29
part	29
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors products

3 Energy extraction	101	Anthracite, not agglomertd	15 COA - Coal
101	Bitum, coal not agglomertd	16 OIL - Oil
101	Oth coal, not agglomerat.	17 GAS - Gas
101	Briquettes etc (coal)	18 OMN - Minerals
102	Lignite, not agglomerated
102	Lignite, agglomerated
103	Peat
111	Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas
120	Mining of uranium and thorium ores
131	Mining of iron metals
Mining of non-ferrous metal ores, except uranium and thorium ores
132	Quarrying of stone
141	Quarrying of sand and clay
142	Mining of chemical
143	and fertilizer minerals
144	Production of salt
145	Other mining and quarrying n.e.c.
3 Petrochemicals	231	Coke oven products	P_C - Petroleum,
232	Refined petroleum and nuclear fuel	32 coal products
233	Nuclear fuel
4 Chemicals and plastics	241	Basic chemicals	CRP - Chemical,
242	Pesticides, other agro-chemical products	33 rubber, plastic
243	Paints, coatings, printing ink
244	Pharmaceuticals
Detergents, cleaning and polishing, perfumes
245	Other chemical
246
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
products
251	Rubber products
252	Plastic products
5 Metals	271	Basic iron and steel, ferro-alloys (ECSC)	I_S - Ferrous metals
272	Tubes	35
273	Other first processing of iron and steel	36
274	Basic precious and non-ferrous metals	37
281	Structural metal products	products
282	Tanks, reservoirs, central heating	37
283	radiators and boilers
Steam generators
Forging, pressing, stamping and roll forming of metal;
284	powder metallurgy
Treatment and coating of metals; general mechanical
285	engineering
286	Cutlery, tools and general hardware
287	Other fabricated metal products
6 Motor vehicles	341	Motor vehicles	MVH - Motor
342	Bodies for motor vehicles, trailers
343	Parts and accessories for motor vehicles
7 Other machinery	351	Ships and boats	OTN - Transport equipment n.e.c.
352	Railway locomotives
353	and rolling stock
354	Aircraft and spacecraft	40
355	Motorcycles and bicycles
356	Other transport equipment n.e.c.
357	Electronic valves and tubes, other electronic comp.
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
322	TV, and radio transmitters, apparatus for line telephony	OME - Machinery and equipment
323	TV, radio and recording apparatus	41 n.e.c.
300	Office machinery and computers	Machinery for production, use of
291	mach. power	Other general purpose
292	machinery	Agricultural and
293	forestry machinery	forestry machinery
294	Machine-tools	Other special purpose
295	machinery	Weapons and
296	ammunition	ammunition
297	Domestic appliances n.	e. c.
Electric motors, generators and transformers	Electricity distribution
311	and control apparatus	Isolated wire and cable
312	Accumulators, primary cells and primary batteries	313
314	Lighting equipment	315
316	and electric lamps	Electrical equipment
317	n. e. c.
331	Medical equipment	Instruments for
332	measuring, checking, testing, navigating	333
Manufacture of industrial process	control equipment
334	Optical instruments and photographic equipment
335	Watches and clocks
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
8 other manufactures	171	Preparation and spinning of textile fibre	27 TEX - Textiles
172	Textile weaving	28 WAP - Clothing
173	Finishing of textiles
174	Made-up textile
175	Articles
176	Other textiles
Knitted and crocheted
fabrics
177	Jerseys/pullovers/etc
181	Leather clothes
Other wearing apparel
182	and accessories
Dressing and dyeing of
183	fur; articles of fur
Tanning and dressing	29 LEA - Leather
191	of leather
Luggage, handbags,
192	saddlery and harness	30 LUM - Wood
31 products
PPP - Paper
193	Footwear	part
Sawmilling, planing
and impregnation of
201	wood	34 NMM - Mineral
products n.e.c.
OMF -
Manufactures
202	Panels and boards of
wood	42 n.e.c.
Builders' carpentry
203	and joinery
204	Wooden containers
Other products of
wood; articles of cork,
205	etc.
Pulp, paper and
211	paperboard
Articles of paper and
212	paperboard
221	Publishing
222	Printing
Glass and glass
261	products
262	Ceramic goods
263	Ceramic tiles and flags
Bricks, tiles and
264	construction products
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
265	Cement, lime and plaster
266	Articles of concert, plaster and cement
267	Cutting, shaping, finishing of stone
268	Other non-metallic mineral products
361	Manufacture of furniture
362	Jewelry and related articles
363	Musical instruments
364	Sports goods
365	Games and toys
366	Miscellaneous manufacturing n. e. c.
371	Recycling of metal waste and scrap
372	Recycling of non-metal waste and scrap
9 electricity	401	Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply	43
10 gas and water	402	Manufacture of gas; distribution of gaseous fuels through mains	44
403	Steam and hot water supply
Collection, purification and distribution of water	45
11 Construction	450	Construction	46
12 Trade	500	repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles an Non-specialized retail trade in stores	47
510
521
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
522	Retail sale of food, beverages and tobacco in specialized stores
523	Other retail trade of new goods in specializ
524	Retail sale of second-hand goods in stores
525	Retail trade not in stores
526	Repair of household and personal goods
550	Hotels and restaurants
Transport and 13	600	Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel agencies	OTP - other transport
630	Land transport; transport via pipelines
14	610	Water transport	WTP - water transport
15	620	Air transport	ATP - air transport
16	640	Post and communications	CMN - communications
17	650	Financial intermediation, except insurance and pension funding	OFI - other financial services
670	Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation
18	660	Insurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security	53 ISR - insurance
19	700	Real estate activities	OBS - other
711	Renting of transport equipment
712	Renting of other machinery and equipment
713	Renting of personal and household goods
720	Computer and related activities
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
730	Research and development	55
740	Other business activities
20	Other services	Recreational, sporting, and cultural activities	ROS - recreational and other consumer services
920
930	55
950	OSG - public
750	56
800	56
850	56
900	56
910	56
CGE Model Sectors	NACE sectors	GTAP sectors
711	Renting of transport equipment
712	Renting of other machinery and equipment
713	Renting of personal and household goods
720	Computer and related activities
730	Research and development
740	Other business activities
20 Other services	920	Recreational, sporting, and cultural activities
930	Other service activities
950	Private households with employed persons
Public administration and defense; compulsory social security
750	OSG - public
800	Education
850	Health and social work
Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation
900	and similar activities
Activities of membership
910	organizations n.e.c.
## 「新しい日本のための優先課題推進枠」要望一覧

人事院

(单位: 千円)

事業名	要望額
勤務形態の多様化の実現	6,942
研修集約化による行政の業務改革	976
女性国家公務員の活躍推進	917
合計	8,835
ESRI Discussion Paper Series No.153

# 高い成長率、乖離する購買力平価、大きな経済規模（PPP レート換算の経済規模と高成長率は整合するか）

by

広瀬哲樹

July 2005

內閣府経済社会総合研究所

Economic and Social Research Institute

Cabinet Office

Tokyo, Japan
# 高い成長率、乖離する購買力平価、大きな経済規模 (PPP レート換算の経済規模と高成長率は整合するか)

by

広瀬 哲樹 $ ^{*} $

内閣府 経済社会総合研究所 特別研究員

2005年7月