Research on World Agricultural Economy

ASEAN’s Ocean-Linked Merchandise and Trade Facilitation: A Quantitative Assessment of Regional Trade Flows

Manh Hung Nguyen

Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, 135 Nguyen Phong Sac, Nghia Tan, Cau Giay, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Thi Phuong Lan Nguyen

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Cam Tu Nguyen

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Dieu Linh Mai

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Thi Thu Hoai Vu

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Anh Van Le

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

Thi Mai Thanh Tran

Department of International Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, VNU University of Economics and Business, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i4.2172

Received: 18 May 2025 | Revised: 12 June 2025 | Accepted: 20 June 2025 | Published Online: 18 August 2025

---

Abstract

Situated within the strategic context of the ASEAN Blue Economy Framework, this paper presents a quantitative assessment of the multifaceted influence of trade facilitation (TF) on ocean-linked merchandise trade. Using a gravity model with PPML estimation on panel data for nine ASEAN coastal countries and thirty-three global partners from 2017 to 2022, the analysis provides a distinct examination of intra-ASEAN and extra-ASEAN trade flows, employing an expanded classification of ocean-linked goods and updated TF metrics. The results consistently show that TF reforms significantly boost maritime commerce by minimizing border delays and transaction costs, with the trade-enhancing effects being more pronounced for trade with partners outside the ASEAN region. Among the different dimensions, effective governance and improved transparency were found to be particularly impactful catalysts for trade. However, the analysis also confirms that these positive trends were hindered by persistent impediments, such as geographical distance, and were significantly counteracted by adverse policy and economic shocks in 2019 and 2022. These findings underscore the necessity of a targeted TF strategy for ASEAN, focusing on strengthening governance and transparency to enhance efficiency, build supply chain resilience, and sustainably harness the region's strategic maritime potential.

Keywords: Trade Facilitation; Ocean-Linked Merchandise; Maritime Commerce; ASEAN; Gravity Model

---

References

[1] Asean Indonesia, 2023. ASEAN Blue Economy Framework. Available from: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ASEAN-Blue-Economy-Framework.pdf (cited 11 March 2025).

[2] World Bank Group, 2017. The potential of the blue economy: increasing long-term benefits of the sustainable use of marine resources for small island developing states and coastal least developed countries. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/523151496389684076/pdf/115545-1-6-2017-14-48-41-BlueEconomyJun.pdf (cited 11 March 2025).

[3] Zheng, L., Tian, K., 2021. The contribution of ocean trade to national economic growth: a non-competitive input-output analysis in China. Marine Policy. 130(1), 104559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104559

[4] UNCTAD, 2021. Towards a harmonized international trade classification for the development of sustainable oceans-based economies. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: Geneva, Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210053082

[5] de Sá Porto, P., Canuto, O., Morini, C., 2015. The impacts of trade facilitation measures on international trade flows. The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA. pp. 1–18.

[6] Otsuki, T., 2011. Quantifying the benefits of trade facilitation in ASEAN. Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University: Osaka, Japan.

[7] Wilson, J.S., Mann, C.L., Otsuki, T., 2005. Assessing the benefits of trade facilitation: a global perspective. The World Economy. 28(6), 841–871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2005.00709.x

[8] Layton, B., 2008. Trade Facilitation: A Study in the Context of the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. In: Soesastro, H. (ed.). Deepening Economic Integration in East Asia – The ASEAN Economic Community and Beyond. ERIA: Chiba, Japan. pp. 76–100.

[9] Hollweg, C., Wong, M.H., 2013. Regulatory Restrictions in Logistics Services. In: Dee, P. (ed.). Priorities and Pathways in Services Reform Part I — Quantitative Studies, 1st ed. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.: Singapore. pp. 111–141.

[10] Bacrot, C., Faure, M.A., 2024. Red Sea crisis and implications for trade facilitation in Africa. UNCTAD Transport and Trade Facilitation Newsletter. Available from: https://unctad.org/news/red-sea-crisis-and-implications-trade-facilitation-africa (cited 11 March 2025).

[11] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2022. The state of agricultural commodity markets 2022: The negative externalities of trade. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5b1d7bed-225a-444b-a041-c0844060a73c/content (cited 11 March 2025).

[12] Hoekman, B., Mattoo, A., English, P. (eds.), 2002. Development, Trade, and the WTO: A Handbook. The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA.

[13] OECD Trade Committee Working Party, 2001. Business benefits of trade facilitation. Report no. TD/TC/WP(2001)21/FINAL, 10 April 2002.

[14] ADB, 2013. Designing and implementing trade facilitation in Asia and the Pacific 2013 update. Available from: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27530/trade-facilitation-reference-book-2013.pdf (cited 11 March 2025).

[15] The Center for WTO and International Trade - VCCI, 2025. Upgrading ATIGA into a modern agreement, providing good support for businesses. Available from: https://trungtamwto.vn/an-pham/28853-nang-cap-atiga-thanh-hiep-dinh-hien-dai-ho-tro-tot-cho-doanh-nghiep (cited 11 March 2025). (in Vietnamese)

[16] Go, E., 2018. Contribution and effectiveness of trade facilitation measures. IEG, World Bank. Available from: https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/reports/tradefacilitation_literaturereview.pdf (cited 7 March 2025).

[17] Das, S.B., 2017. ASEAN Single Window: Advancing trade facilitation for regional integration. ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute Perspective 72. Available from: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ISEAS_Perspective_2017_72.pdf (cited 13 March 2025).

[18] World Trade Organization, 2018. Speeding up trade: Benefits and challenges of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report15_e.pdf (cited 14 March 2025).

[19] World Trade Organization, 1947. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.htm (cited 14 March 2025).

[20] Duc, P.M., Mishra, D., Cheong, K.C., et al., 2013. Trade facilitation, value creation and competitiveness: Policy implications for Vietnam's economic growth. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/234631468319757413/pdf/Trade-facilitation-value-creation-and-competitiveness-policy-implications-for-Vietnams-economic-growth.pdf (cited 14 March 2025).

[21] World Trade Organization (WTO), 2017. World Trade Report 2017: Trade, technology and jobs. WTO. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report17_e.pdf (cited 16 March 2025).

[22] World Bank, 2020. Supporting countries in unprecedented times: Annual report 2020. World Bank Group. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/585151601566378168/pdf/Main-Report.pdf (cited 14 March 2025).

[23] Chan, S.W., 2024. Trade facilitation measures that are necessary, but not sufficient, to improve trade across borders performance. Revista Científica Administrar Lo Público. 1(1), 19–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/alp.2024.57736

[24] Erokhin, V., Tianming, G., Ivolga, A., 2021. Cross‐country potentials and advantages in trade in fish and seafood products in the RCEP member states. Sustainability. 13(7), 3668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073668

[25] Duval, Y., Utoktham, C., Kravchenko, A., 2018. Impact of digital trade facilitation on trade costs. ARTNeT Working Paper Series. 174, 27–42.

[26] Bin, P., 2009. Enhancing export competitiveness through trade facilitation in Asia. Available from: https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/3-ENHA~1_0.PDF (cited 17 March 2025).

[27] Tinbergen, J., 1962. Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. The Economic Journal. 76(301), 92–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2229041

[28] Helpman, E., Melitz, M., Rubinstein, Y., 2008. Estimating trade flows: trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 123(2), 441–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.441

[29] Anderson, J.E., van Wincoop, E., 2003. Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review. 93(1), 170–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214

[30] Anderson, J., 1979. A theoretical foundation for gravity equation. American Economic Review. 69, 106–116.

[31] Bergstrand, J., 1985. The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics. 67(3), 474–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1925976

[32] Krugman, P., 1990. Increasing returns and economic geography. NBER Working Paper No. 3275. Available from: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3275/w3275.pdf (cited 20 March 2025).

[33] Melitz, M.J., 2003. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica. 71(6), 1695–1725.

[34] Silva, J.M.C.S., Tenreyro, S., 2006. The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 88(4), 641–658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641

[35] Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., Trognon, A., 1984. Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: Theory. Econometrica. 52(3), 681–700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913471

[36] United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), 2013. Alternative gravity model estimators. Available from: https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/6%20-%204.%20Alternative%20Gravity%20Model%20Estimators_0.pdf (cited 20 March 2025).

[37] Motta, V., 2019. Estimating Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood rather than log-linear model of a log-transformed dependent variable. RAUSP Management Journal. 54(4), 508–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0110.

[38] Korinek, J., Sourdin, P., 2009. Maritime transport costs and their impact on trade. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265119237_MARITIME_TRANSPORT_COSTS_AND_THEIR_IMPACT_ON_TRADE (cited 20 March 2025).

[39] Nepal, S.R., Thapa, B.S., 2021. Trade balance and its determinants in South Asian countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Journal of Nepal. 44(3–4), 53–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ejon.v44i3-4.55073

[40] Zhang, J., 2023. Economic influencing factors of trade volume between China and RCEP member states. Proceedings of Business and Economic Studies. 6(3), 14–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26689/pbes.v6i3.5082

[41] Natale, F., Borrello, A., Motova, A., 2015. Analysis of the determinants of international seafood trade using a gravity model. Marine Policy. 60, 98–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.016

[42] Tsiotas, D., Ducruet, C., 2021. Measuring the effect of distance on the network topology of the global container shipping network. Scientific Reports. 11(1), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00387-3

[43] Alfarajat, M.H., Masron, T.A., 2024. The effect of trade facilitation measures on import in developing countries. Applied Economics. 56(52), 6547–6563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2274310

[44] Masood, A., Martínez-Zarzoso, I., 2024. Trade effects of trade facilitation revisited. Economics Letters. 234, 111477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111477

[45] Franco, C., Maggioni, D., 2022. Does international trade favor proximity in cultural beliefs? Eurasian Economic Review. 12(3),449–477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-022-00212-w

[46] Lee, J., 2015. Culture, network, and international trade. Journal of International Logistics and Trade. 13(2), 21–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24006/jilt.2015.13.2.21

[47] Berthou, A., Ehrhart, H., 2014. Trade networks and colonial trade spillovers. Banque de France Working Paper no. 526, December 2014.

[48] Campbell, D.L., 2010. History, culture, and trade: a dynamic gravity approach. MPRA Paper No. 24014. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24014/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[49] Mitchener, K.J., Weidenmier, M., 2008. Trade and Empire. The Economic Journal. 118(533), 1805–1834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02192.x

[50] Mike, J., 2022. Challenges of Cargo Shipping in 2022. Harvard Dataverse. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9OQEPK.

[51] IW-Forschungsgruppe Gesamtwirtschaftliche Analysen und Konjunktur, 2019. Economy is treading water: IW Economic Forecast and IW Business Survey Winter 2019. IW Trends No. 4, 18 december 2019. (in German)

[52] Handley, K., Kamal, F., Monarch, R., 2025. Rising import tariffs, falling exports: when modern supply chains meet old-style protectionism. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 17(1), 208–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20210051

[53] Manggabarani, N., 2022. Intra-ASEAN trade stagnation in the 2015 AEC Period: domestic factors and interdependence. Jurnal Ilmiah Universitas Batanghari Jambi. 22(1), 607–613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33087/jiubj.v22i1.1903 (in Indonesian)

[54] UNCTAD, 2023. Development prospects in a fractured world: Global disorder and regional responses. Available from: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2022_en.pdf (cited 28 March 2025).

[55] Kerr, W.A., 2008. Trade Agreements: The Important Role of Transparency. Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy. 9(1), 1–11.

[56] Moïsé, E., 2011. Transparency Mechanisms and Non-Tariff Measures: Case Studies. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 111. OECD Publishing: Paris, France. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5kgf0rzzwfq3-en

[57] Trajano, E., Vicente, M., 2007. The transparency principle and an early warning system to overcome information barriers to trade. EJIS-Electronic Journal of Information Systems Edition. 11, 1–6.

[58] Doanh, P.H., Hòa, P.N., 2023. The Strong Impacts of the ASEAN Economic Community on Vietnam's Economy. Available from: https://tapchinganhang.gov.vn/nhung-tac-dong-manh-me-cua-cong-dong-kinh-te-asean-toi-nen-kinh-te-viet-nam-10631.html (cited 29 March 2025). (in Vietnamese)

[59] Bourdet, Y., Persson, M., 2010. Completing the EU Customs Union: The Effects of Trade Procedure Harmonization. IFN Working Paper No. 848. Available from: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/81390 (cited 29 March 2025).

[60] Oğuz, S., 2024. The impact of customs procedures on global competitiveness: an investigation with structural equation modelling. Fiscaoeconomia. 8(3), 1264–1278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1458266

[61] Wilson, N., 2007. Examining the Trade Effect of Certain Customs and Administrative Procedures. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 42. OECD Publishing: Paris, France . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/278266703766

[62] Bloom, N., Manova, K., Sun, S.T., et al., 2018. Multinationals, Offshoring, and the Decline of U.S. Manufacturing. Centre for Economic Performance: London, UK. A

[63] JETRO, 2017. JETRO global trade and investment report 2017: Global economy reaching turning point. Available from: https://www.jetro.go.jp/ext_images/en/news/releases/2017/a62b8a37b416f089/1.pdf (cited 30 March 2025).

[64] Chang, S.M., Huang, Y.Y., Shang, K.C., et al., 2020. Impacts of regional integration and maritime transport on trade: with special reference to RCEP. Maritime Business Review. 5(2), 143–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-03-2020-0013

[65] Massijaya, N.K., Na, W., Novianti, T., 2019. The impacts of Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) economic integration on Indonesian Macro and sectoral economy. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology. 6(1), 144–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRSET196140

[66] ASEAN, 2022. Annual Report 2021–2022: Addressing Challenges Together. Available from: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LAYOUT-ANNUAL-REPORT-2021-2022-11-28-spread_compressed.pdf (cited 30 March 2025).

[67] Luan, X., Kim, J., Tan, S.R., et al., 2023. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Trade Facilitation on Chinese Exports to South American Countries: The Case of Commodities and Electronic Products. In: Eijdenberg, E.L., Mukherjee, M., Wood, J. (eds.). Innovation-Driven Business and Sustainability in the Tropics. SEIGOP 2023. Springer: Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2909-2_3

[68] Wilson, J.S., Mann, C., Otsuki, T., 2003. Trade Facilitation and Economic Development: Measuring the Impact. Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 2988. The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA.

[69] European Commission, 2015. Tackling illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/mare/items/22691/cs (cited 30 March 2025).

[70] Guberman, D., Schreiber, S., Perry, A., 2024. Export restrictions on minerals and metals: Indonesia’s export ban of nickel. U.S. International Trade Commission. Available from: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ermm_indonesia_export_ban_of_nickel.pdf (cited 30 March 2025).

[71] Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers, World Bank, 2021. A trade-based analysis of the economic impact of non-compliance with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing: the case of Vietnam. Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers: Hanoi, Vietnam.

[72] UNCTAD, 2021. Trade and development report 2021, from recovery resilience: the development dimension overview. Available from: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2021_en.pdf (cited 30 March 2025).

[73] European Parliament, 2022. Annual report: public access to documents – 2022. European Parliament. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/rapports_annuels/2022/P9_AR(2022)ATD_EN.pdf (cited 30 March 2025).

[74] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024. Enhancing the safety of imported shrimp through regulatory partnerships. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/conversations-experts-food-topics/enhancing-safety-imported-shrimp-through-regulatory-partnerships (cited 2 April 2025).

[75] International Trade Centre (ITC), 2021. International Trade Centre (ITC). UN System SDG Implementation – United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/un-system-sdg-implementation/international-trade-centre-itc-44301 (cited 2 April 2025).

[76] Djalante, R., Nurhidayah, L., Van Minh, H., et al., 2020. COVID-19 and ASEAN responses: comparative policy analysis. Progress in Disaster Science. 8, 100129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100129

[77] Hồng, T., 2023. 2022: Handled 139,758 cases of smuggling, trade fraud and counterfeit goods. Available from: https://baodantoc.vn/nam-2022-xu-ly-139758-vu-viec-vi-pham-buon-lau-gian-lan-thuong-mai-va-hang-gia-1677051723092.htm (cited 3 April 2025). (in Vietnamese)