Amid the crisis of multilateral institutions such as the WTO, the role of mega-regionalism in the world economy is rising markedly, driven in particular by the expansion of blocs such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). These two blocs have occasionally been portrayed as being on a collision course, with RCEP being depicted as China-driven and the CPTPP as an alternative, countervailing bloc in the Pacific region. A number of factors, however, including the recent positive contacts across the two blocs, suggest that a more cooperative scenario may well be feasible. A constructive RCEP-CPTPP Dialogue framework would greatly benefit the global economy through building linkages across regional integration blocs, rendering regionalism an increasingly potent driver of market openness and economic growth.
A landmark inaugural meeting between the two blocs took place on May 22, 2026 on the margins of the 32nd APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade (MRT) Meeting, held in Suzhou, China. The discussion focused on the crucial role of the multilateral trading system in the world economy and the importance of RCEP and CPTPP in the future regional integration[1]. The Dialogue was attended by Secretary-General of ASEAN, Dr. Kao Kim Hourn, highlighting the constructive connectivity role that ASEAN plays in the broader Pacific region as well as between the two mega-regionals. A cooperative Dialogue between CPTPP and RCEP if continued, intensified and perhaps even institutionalized, could give rise to what may be termed “cooperative mega-regionalism” that sets the pace for the broader cooperation across regional integration blocs and their development institutions (what was referred to in the past as “syndicated regionalism”). In fact, in his recent article for the China Daily, Li Tianguo, Deputy Director of the Department of Emerging Economies of the National Institute of International Strategy, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued persuasively how economic cooperation between CPTPP and RCEP could bring the region closer the realization of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, or FTAAP – a project developed more than a decade ago within the APEC framework[2].
The possibilities of closer partnership/dialogue between the two blocs are strengthened by the notable complementarity in their membership expansion patterns. The CPTPP has a number of aspiring applicants to join, including Argentina[3], Philippines[4], Uruguay[5], Costa Rica (has already completed negotiations)[6], with South Korea exploring the possibility to launch a formal application[7]. RCEP has also recently witnessed interest from such economies as Chile[8], Bangladesh[9] and Sri Lanka[10]. Hence, in terms of potential expansion trends, RCEP appears to be more likely to gravitate toward the South Asian region (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh), while the CPTPP is set to expand towards the Western Hemisphere, potentially opening gateways into the Atlantic (via Uruguay). This complementarity in the geography of the blocs’ expansion strengthens the case for greater future cooperation, with existing membership overlaps (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore) serving as focal points for establishing communication lines and ensuring greater commonality in values/development priorities.
In terms of membership overlaps with other blocs, the RCEP leans more towards commonality with BRICS+ – 2 core BRICS members (China, Indonesia) and 3 BRICS partner countries (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand). In the case of the CPTPP formation, the overlap is significantly stronger with the Future of Investment and Trade (FIT) partnership – this concerns six members, including Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia and Peru. In the latter case, the CPTPP-FIT overlap is set to extend even further with the accession of Costa Rica and Uruguay to the CPTPP. For the broader global economy then, both RCEP and the CPTPP serve as leading platforms advancing North-South cooperation between advanced (Australia, Japan, New Zealand) and developing economies (Malaysia, Vietnam, other ASEAN members), including through facilitating dialogue between such platforms as BRICS+ (Global South) and FIT (with a significant role of the advanced economies).
Viewed through a hemispheric lens, both blocs serve as important bridges between the North and South Hemispheres (RCEP, CPTPP) and the East and the West Hemispheres (CPTPP). The pattern observed in the Pacific of overlapping cooperative trade blocs with strong spillover effects is similar to the Hemispheric governance[11] framework of overlapping hemispheres that we developed this year. We argued that across hemispheres, the Southern Hemisphere could most likely build common cooperative arrangements in part because of the connectivity role played by the prevalence of maritime routes (this hemisphere has the highest ocean/land area ratio) despite the gravity of the distance factor. This is precisely what appears to be at play in the Pacific (the largest oceanic basin in the world), where economic connectivity is facilitated by the prevalence of oceanic expanse over land mass. The trends observed thus far in Asia-Pacific render it the most auspicious regional platform for building the framework of Hemispheric governance in the future.
With RCEP and the CPTPP exhibiting notable dynamism and signs of closer coordination, the Pacific basin further reinforces its role as the gravity center of the world economy and the incubator of mega-regional blocs as well as plurilateral trade agreements. The APEC forum, while failing to create a comprehensive economic bloc in the region, may have served as a precursor and the foundation for the cooperative impulses in the region that may yet bring the Asia-Pacific closer to the FTAAP goal[12]. With increasing overlaps and mounting positive spillover effects across the regional formations in the Pacific, this region is increasingly positioned to lead the global economy in the sphere of building new communication lines via “integration of integrations” between regional blocs. In this respect, the closer cooperation between the CPTPP and RCEP would potentially harbor significant benefits not only for the Pacific region, but for the broader world economy and future global governance through a stronger global role for mega-regionalism and a cooperative layer of regional arrangements and their development institutions becoming an integral part of the world’s economic architecture.
[1] https://asean.org/secretary-general-of-asean-participates-in-the-dialogue-between-rcep-and-cptpp-members/
[2] https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202607/23/WS6a616c79a310986e2b466d00.html
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-seeks-join-trans-pacific-partnership-treaty-minister-says-2026-06-02/
[4] https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1278157
[5] https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-relaciones-exteriores/en/embassy-of-uruguay-in-australia/news-and-events/international-the-cptpp-opened-its-door-for-uruguay
[6] https://www.canninghouse.org/canning-insights/costa-rica-and-cptpp-whats-happened-and-whats-next
[7] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/opinion/20260616/why-koreas-accession-to-cptpp-is-important
[8] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202406/1314214.shtml
[9] https://www.thedailystar.net/business/economy/news/bangladesh-pushes-eu-trade-deal-rcep-entry-4243941
[10] https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.lk/cab/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=49&lang=en&dID=13581
[11] https://brics-plus-analytics.org/hemispheric-governance-an-exercise-in-semi-globalism/
[12] In terms of trade liberalization, in the Pacific the APEC did not work much as the WTO foundered at the global level. In both cases, we are witnessing plurilaterals and regionalism stepping into the void.
Yaroslav Lissovolik, Founder, BRICS+ Analytics
Image by ellisedelacruz via Pixabay