For more than two decades, East Asia has been at the center of a debate over the overlapping existence of free trade agreements (FTAs) in an unorganized manner. Economist Richard Baldwin first coined the famous term “Noodle Bowl,” which he named after Europe’s earlier, similar problem known as the “Spaghetti Bowl” situation. Figure 1 below is an image developed by Baldwin, showing how East Asian countries have been involved in multiple trade arrangements with one another, creating a complex web of FTAs.
Credit. Figure 1 of the “Managing the Noodle Bowl: The Fragility of East Asian Regionalism” by Richard Baldin, Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 7 (2007).
What’s the problem with the Noodle Bowl?
In economics and political science, the rise of multiple FTAs in an uncoordinated manner is considered a concern because each trade deal could potentially disrupt another. For example, Japan signed and implemented a bilateral agreement to liberalize trade in goods and services with Thailand in 2007; but Japan and Thailand are also part of two multilateral agreements together, the ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP) since 2008, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in effect since 2022. As a result, firms, which are the actual users of FTAs, must choose which trade deal to use, or whether to use one at all. At worst, they are left confused about how to navigate these overlapping international agreements.
Such a situation also reflects the complex political situation in East Asia. Unlike Europe, countries have been unable to come together for more effective economic cooperation, let alone integration. Research has argued that this has been partly due to historical and political tensions among China, Japan, South Korea, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Subsequently, some studies have concluded that East Asian FTAs serve as realpolitik tools to gain diplomatic advantage.
Heavily discussed with little empirical evidence
Another issue with the “Noodle Bowl” is that, although it has been heavily cited and discussed in the literature, there is little empirical evidence to demonstrate how the situation negatively affects each trade deal. For some political studies, the mixed results from econometric research on the positive impacts of FTAs on trade are indirectly treated as empirical confirmation of the Noodle Bowl syndrome. Put differently, what is implied is that while many FTAs exist simultaneously, there is no clear-cut trade-creation effect in the region, and thus the Noodle Bowl must be the one to blame.
The lack of direct empirical evidence also reflects a methodological issue. The gravity model has been a classical econometric approach to examine this effect for over half a century, but the model is not without flaws. One of the major flaws is the overwhelming use of a simple dichotomous variable, which many studies consider inadequate for capturing the complex nature of FTAs, where the effects vary across multiple factors. In particular, such a measure overlooks variation in the extent to which implemented FTAs are actually utilized.
For many FTAs, including Japan’s, implementation does not automatically mean liberalization of trade. Firms must go through a lengthy and costly process to obtain the certificate of origin (COO) in order to benefit from FTAs. In other words, implementation alone does not generate trade effects; The outcome depends on firms’ cost-benefit analysis of using an agreement signed by their government, while also weighing other available options, including agreements concluded by that very same government. This is why, as Figure 2 below illustrates, the number of COOs issued to utilize each Japanese FTA varies significantly across its bilateral agreements.
Credit. Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry
Providing empirical evidence of the Noodle Bowl: The case of Japan’s FTAs
As such, Rosenbaum (2025) provided rare empirical evidence of the emergence and consequences of the Noodle Bowl syndrome using the case of Japan’s bilateral FTAs. Instead of using a simple binary measure, this research used the number of COOs issued for each bilateral FTA to capture the complexity of implementation and utilization of these trade agreements.
The empirical analysis shows that Japan is more likely to implement bilateral FTAs with partners that maintain broader liberal trade networks and have access to the Chinese market, and that greater use of AJCEP further increases this likelihood. These findings reflect both competitive and contagious dynamics in trade policymaking. While Japan does not have a bilateral trade deal with China, it views China as the biggest market opportunity and pursues FTAs with partners that offer flexible access to the Chinese market. At the same time, Japan has generally sought bilateral FTAs with countries that already enjoy access to liberal trade deals in order to benefit from those arrangements or avoid discrimination.
The results further demonstrate that increased use of AJCEP encourages Japan to implement bilateral FTAs, showing how the Noodle Bowl syndrome (overlapping FTAs) emerges. By contrast, bilateral FTAs are less likely to be utilized when RCEP is more actively used. This finding provides empirical evidence of how a nation’s FTAs negatively affect its own, illustrating the consequences of the Noodle Bowl syndrome.
So what’s ahead?
Despite scholarly concerns over overlapping FTAs, the ongoing trend worldwide, including in Japan, shows that more bilateral negotiations are underway alongside new multilateral frameworks. Perhaps it is time for scholars to move beyond the syndrome and recognize that this is just how it works: countries will continue to pursue a variety of free trade agreements, and firms must choose from a large selection of FTAs.
Even so, the empirical research modeling the Noodle Bowl through Japan’s experience is an important stepping stone in the research field. It demonstrates that the Noodle Bowl effect is not just a catchy metaphor but also has measurable consequences for how trade agreements are made and used. In doing so, it contributes to the literature by providing empirical support for the longstanding academic debate.
🔬🧫🧪🔍🤓👩🔬🦠🔭📚
Journal reference
Rosenbaum, C.Y. Modeling the emergence and impact of the noodle bowl: empirical evidence from Japanese FTAs. Asian Rev. Political Econ. 4, 18 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44216-025-00062-8
