effects in terms of exports of manufactured goods and chemical products, although the trade creation effects for agricultural goods, as
well as machinery and transport equipment, are small.
Based on our findings, the actual trade policy between China and ASEAN should be maintained, as it favours not only ACFTA's
intra-regional trade growth and development, but also benefits extra-bloc countries. However, from the perspective of international
production chains, China and most ASEAN countries are still hovering in the low segment of international trade. Even if the ACFTA
bloc has great economic and trade potential, its implementation is still at an initial stage compared to other well-developed regional
trade agreements. On the one hand, the reduction and elimination of tariffs for sensitive goods, such as agricultural products, is still
restricted in ACFTA. On the other hand, the progress in other areas, such as the reduction of non-tariff barriers, free trade in services,
foreign direct investment, labour mobility and environmental standards, has been slow. In order to achieve a deeper economic
integration in the region, ACFTA should not only focus on tariff barriers, but also on improving production efficiency, product
competitiveness and structures of trade complementarities. Meanwhile, trade facilitation should get more attention, such as
coordination of products standards and simplification of customs clearance procedures. In future research, we believe it is necessary
to take into consideration more disaggregated data for specific commodities. Moreover, from the perspective of similarities and
differences in trade structures and integration impacts, a comparative study between ACFTA and other FTAs using disaggregated trade
data could also be a relevant research topic