
LITERATURE REVIEW - REPORT
An economic pillar to round out US strategy in Asia: IPEF and Australia's interests
Published 18 September 2023 by the Korean Development Institute
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The US-proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) falls far short of Australia’s preferred gold standard for regional free trade engagement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), from which the United States withdrew in 2017. Despite hopes for the United States to return to TPP or a TPP-like agreement under President Biden, it appears the United States is in an era of trade protectionism and industrial policy, at least in the near term, spurred by both domestic politics and strategic competition with China. Accordingly, Australian policymakers have turned their attention to leveraging IPEF as best as possible.
As Australia already has a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, Canberra’s main ambition for IPEF is to ensure an enhanced rules-based economic architecture by further integrating the United States economically and strategically with the Indo-Pacific region. Beyond that, Australia’s main interests are in IPEF’s first and second pillars: trade and supply chains, and it hopes that IPEF can create additional critical minerals supply chains and a region-wide digital trade agreement. At the same time, concerns remain over the long-term commitment to IPEF by the United States and the potential for its stipulation of high labour and environmental standards to alienate developing nations, especially if compelling incentives and on-ramps prove evasive.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Korea Development Institute
The Korea Development Institute (KDI) is a Korean government agency established in 1971 to conduct policy research. KDI has conducted research on a broad range of economic and social issues, including macroeconomics policy, fiscal policy, and labor
“Reaching objective conclusions through science-based research is not only a source of pride as a world-renowned think tank but also an essential element for the leadership in the social discourse.”