The Impact of RCEP on Trade and FDI for East and Southeast Asian Economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world's largest free-trade agreement, brings together a diverse group of 15 economies, to mutually benefit from an expansion in regional trade and investment, through reduced trade barriers and tariffs and enhanced regulatory coherence. This partnership will undeniably reshape regional economic dynamics. To better understand the ability of the RCEP to reshape the economic dynamics in the region, it is essential to evaluate its impact on trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). This paper therefore aims at critically evaluating RCEP's effects on trade and FDI in the East and South East Asian regions. Assessing the impact of RCEP on trade and FDI is crucial for policymakers, businesses, and investors, as it provides fundamental insights into how the agreement might drive economic growth, improve competitiveness, and promote regional and economic integration. Additionally, it will ensure that stakeholders are better equipped to navigate and capitalize on the opportunities associated with the agreement, while mitigating any potential downsides and overcoming inevitable challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".