China’s prominence poses challenges to the Pacific Alliance (PA) countries seeking to strengthen their integration. This is due to asymmetries in trade exchange and reprimarization within the framework of the Commodities Consensus. From a critical point of view, the trade positioning between the PA and China between 2001 and 2021 is examined, contrasting the Chinese Five-Year Plan and its dual circulation strategy with an analysis of trade concentration and composition. This period allows us to study trade since China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The findings show a deterioration of the PA countries’ position, but also opportunities for catching up through integration in intermediate goods value chains.

The relationship between China and the Pacific Alliance (PA) group of countries has been studied from theoretical and analytical perspectives mainly related to International Relations and Geopolitics (García-Parra, 2018; Guerra-Barón, 2019; Zarco et al., 2019). This research paper integrates theoretical and empirical perspectives from International Political Economics regarding the evolution of the commercial positioning between China and the PA countries in the 21st century, following the increase of Chinese geo-economic influence.

The main hypothesis is that the growing influence of the PA countries since 2001 has created mutually beneficial opportunities: on the one hand, the Alliance countries have increased their commodity exports and acquired low-cost manufactured goods, while China has acquired strategic raw materials and consolidated new markets for its exports.

China's growing importance in the first two decades of the 21st century has been evident, consolidating itself as an important player in the international arena and as an economic power (Bonilla Soria and Milet García, 2015; Romero et al., 2017; Vadell, 2019; Vargas, 2020; Zapata and Martínez-Hernández, 2020; Arciniegas Carreño, 2020). The transformation of production means that China is in high demand for commodities, such as food, minerals, hydrocarbons and oilseeds, with the exploration of these goods present in its foreign policy between 2008 and 2016.

In this context, China's interests in Latin America became geo-economically relevant, as it was perceived as a potential exporter of primary sector goods, and bilateral trade between the two regions grew (Legler et al., 2020; Wainer, 2023). At the geopolitical level, the initial stages of the China-Latin America relationship were formalized in 2008 with the publication of one of the Chinese foreign policy documents that promoted the bilateral promotion of development, taking into account South-South cooperation, making Latin America a strategic area for commercial trade (Vattuone, 2022). In 2016, the Asian country published the White Paper that promoted a closer trade relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. It includes priorities in energy, resources, infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, scientific and technological innovation, based on the China-Latin America and Caribbean States Cooperation Plan (Vattuone, 2022).

These two official documents represent China's guidelines on its approach to the region, which favors commercial and diplomatic relations, in addition to strengthening free trade agreements (FTA), including the Chile-China 2006, Peru-2010, and Costa Rica-2011 agreements, not to mention strategic partnerships with Brazil in 2012, Peru in 2013, Argentina and Venezuela in 2014, Ecuador in 2016, and Bolivia in 2018 (Slipak, 2014). In 2021, diplomatic meetings between China and the members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) resumed after the Covid-19 pandemic at the China-CELAC Forum to discuss new opportunities for future cooperation and development (Shi, 2022), which was subsequently discussed again at the July 2023 Forum, demonstrating the consolidation of ties between the two regions.

However, with the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 and the changes in China's strategic position in total world trade (World Integrated Trade Solution [WITS], 2020), the economic dynamics show that the relationship with this country at the regional level exhibit at least the following characteristics: dynamism in the relationship, imbalances in terms of trade (Creutzfeld, 2014; Wainer, 2023), and the reprimarization of the relationship within the framework of the Commodities Consensus (Svampa, 2019). Although Latin America faces significant challenges in redesigning a cooperative relationship, there is also a benefit explained by the increase in the prices of raw materials, and thus, an increase in the level of income and welfare of the population. (Afonso et al., 2021). This represents an opportunity, as this trading partner can benefit the development of the region (Niu, 2015). However, there are concerns about Chinese leadership in the extraction of strategic raw materials and investments that create debt traps (Deych, 2021; Acker et al., 2020; Rapanyane, 2023), which would be supported by a disruption of traditional multilateral systems (Wihtol, 2023).

In this scenario, the PA, as a regional integration bloc in Latin America formed by Mexico, Peru, Colombia and Chile, seeks to establish trade relations, particularly with the Asia-Pacific region, and becomes a relevant subject of study to analyze the challenges and benefits represented by the type of relationship that China seeks in the region based on South-South cooperation. In order to observe the trade behavior between China and the four PA countries, it was considered important to review the years prior to the creation of the alliance and after China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) (2001-2010), as well as the period 2011-2021, in order to compare the indicated behavior. For this purpose, the degrees of trade concentration and industrial composition are highlighted through the Herfindahl-Hirschman (HHI) and Grubel-Lloyd (GLI) indices.

These indices are used because, although the number of studies using them is considerable, there are few studies that use them to analyze the China-PA relationship during the period analyzed.

In order to answer the research question, this article is organized in six sections: first, the Chinese government's five-year plan (2021-2025) is presented through the Dual Circulation Strategy (DCS). Second, we review the literature on trade dynamics based on the HHI and GLI indices. Third, we present the methodology used, including data on exports and imports from the PA countries to China for the period 2001-2021. Fourth, we present the results of the methodology used. Fifth, we discuss these results. Finally, we present our conclusions.

China's foreign policy strategy, based on a pragmatic multi-bilateral agenda built on the five principles of peaceful coexistence, has allowed it to strategically position itself since the 1980s, in addition to achieving more than double-digit growth in its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 2000 and 2010 (Lim, 2014). This has turned it into a major global player in recent decades.

With China's accession to the WTO in 2001, relations between the Asian country and Latin America became more dynamic, with an increase in the number of countries establishing cooperation ties or links. This relationship expanded the South-South foreign policy agenda and discussions on regionalism by linking Latin America to the Belt and Road Initiative. The papers that raise this discussion in Latin America deal with: Regional integration (Briceño Ruiz, 2018; Legler et al., 2020), post-development (Escobar, 2010) and its criticism (Jiménez-Castillo, 2016), neo-extractivism (Svampa, 2019), as well as specific problems at the regional level (Molano-Cruz, 2017), among others.

The Chinese government's participation in multilateral cooperation schemes, such as the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Forum (APEC) and the China-CELAC Forum, led to the signing of agreements between China and Latin America in Mexico (1994), Chile (2006) and Peru (2012) in the 1990s, consolidating a previously established bilateral relationship (Rosales and Kuwayama, 2012). As a result, cooperation expanded and various trade agreements were signed, in addition to other regional integration agreements with Brazil (1982, 1980, 1998), Venezuela (1999) and Argentina (2019), which led to China’s increased participation in these countries' trade balances (WTO, 2022). The 2015 China-CELAC Forum, for example, strengthened dialogue between the two regions through subforums or specialized areas on issues such as agriculture and scientific and technological innovation, with the participation of businessmen and women, think-tanks, political parties and other civil society organizations in order to discuss joint plans and programs of interest to the 33 member countries (China-CELAC Forum, 2023).

In this context and given the slowdown in China's economic growth compared to the first decade of the 20th century, the impact of Covid-19 and the competition in the trade war with the United States, the need to redefine the order of priorities without neglecting its strategic objectives was raised within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). All this while incorporating the DCS model, which focuses on the internal and external markets in a reciprocal manner.

The DCS economic model redefines the objectives of the foreign policy agenda by establishing two priority axes: i) industrial promotion through international circulation and ii) internal or rural sector growth based on the production of intermediate goods from domestic circulation. In both cases, the aim is to deal with the effects of external shocks in crisis situations in order to modernize the country in the coming decades.

International circulation is supported by the strengthening of economic multilateralism through the strengthening of the Chinese industrial system. This promotes the search for resources through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), especially inputs, moving from an economy that produces goods and services to one that strengthens high value-added industries and income capacity. This five-year plan continues the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative and includes priorities for the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda based on technological innovation. In turn, domestic circulation aims to strengthen the domestic market by reducing regional disparities in the production of goods and services, while improving the quality of life of the population.

For its implementation, DCS focuses on investments in strategic areas and zones that promote increased consumption and production of tradable and non-tradable goods. These guidelines are linked to a stage of balanced, coordinated and inclusive growth and are framed at the political level in China's participation in the 76th Conference of the United Nations General Assembly in 2021 (United Nations, 2021a). Thus, the idea of China as a world power is consolidated, as well as the development of the implementation mechanism known as the Global Development Initiative (GDI) under the government of Xi Jinping (United Nations, 2021b). The GDI responds to the challenges of globalization by consolidating greater domestic demand and consumption and formulating a balance based on a sustainable growth rate.

In this way, equity, multilateral cooperation and equilibrium are the axes that strengthen policy coordination on a government level and optimize the parameters of global governance already defined in the previous decade (Xinhua, 2021a). To this end, technology transfer will be promoted in countries with lower income, providing access to new infrastructures based on the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), supported by South-South cooperation.

In terms of relations between China and Latin America, the DCS proposes an increase in the use and availability of strategic inputs based on extractive activities as focal points of trade exchange, a strategy that has been historically successful in reviewing trade relations with different countries. The strengthening of China's strategy towards Latin America establishes the diversification of energy supply and the importance of commodities as trade policy tools in the bilateral relations between the two regions. Given that the Belt and Road Initiative has been prioritized at the regional level since 2017, the five-year period 2021-2025 is the period for launching new spaces for interlocution, whose medium- and long-term objectives correspond to strategic planning (Xinhua, 2021b). This maneuver is based on competitiveness through sustainable development and aims to reduce internal disparities by dynamizing bilateral relations with Latin America, supported by multilateral programs.

Taking into account the DCS, we analyze the nature of the trade relationship between the PA countries and China using the Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) model, which states that trade patterns between countries are determined by each country's allocation of productive factors (Baldwin, 2008). For example, less developed countries have difficulties accumulating physical or financial capital and therefore have a relative abundance (or scarcity) of natural capital or low-skilled labor. This allocation partly explains why countries are limited to exporting low value-added products.

Another framework for analyzing trade relations is the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (Arezki et al., 2014), which suggests that the trade terms of poor countries tend to deteriorate over time if they specialize in exporting commodities while importing high value-added goods, as is the case of trade between some PA countries and China. One explanation for this phenomenon is that commodities, being less differentiated, have more suppliers, which reduces their prices in the long run. Commodities also tend to have a lower income elasticity of demand than manufactured goods. This means that as income rises, the demand for commodities grows less than that for manufactured goods (Toye and Toye, 2003). If this hypothesis is correct, the trade relationship between the PA and China would show a deterioration in the terms of trade, as PA countries tend to export lower value-added goods to China.

Considering China's geo-economic interests in the DCS, the H-O model, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem and the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis, the GLI and HHI indices are presented to analyze the trade dynamics between PA countries and China, and thus determine the trade positioning between both participants, taking into account China's geo-economic influence.

Although the specialized literature points to different ways of measuring and explaining intra- and inter-industry trade, one of the most widely used is the GLI (Deese, 2017; Bano, 2014; Reinoso, 1997; Din et al., 2009; Bolinaga and Slipak, 2015). This index is considered the standard tool for intra- and inter-industry trade because it permits the measurement of these types of exchange with simplicity and temporal comparability (Grubel, 1970; Jaime Camacho and Cuevas Ahumada, 2020).

Authors such as Hamilton and Kniest (1991) emphasize the importance of detailed context in the measurement to explain the evolution of the observed behavior in contrast with the disadvantage of the static nature of the GLI. Despite its static nature, the GLI is useful for comparing the structure of trade over different years and for detecting differences in exchange between countries (Brülhart, 1994); as we attempt to demonstrate in this research using the China-PA exchange.

There is also a large body of research using the GLI. For example, Din et al. (2009) analyze intra-industry trade flows between China and Pakistan after the signing of the FTA in 2006. While the agreement initially favors China, it is expected to lead to more balanced and beneficial trade for both countries. Bano (2014), for example, examines the trade relationship between New Zealand and China since the signing of the FTA in 2008 in terms of trade intensity and highlights the positive impact on the New Zealand economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. However, concerns have been raised about low-cost Chinese imports, which Grubel and Lloyd refer to as vertical intra-industry trade (Bano, 2014).

In the case of Latin America, Reinoso (1997) studies intra-industry trade between the Andean Community and Mercosur, focusing on Peru in the 1990s. The results show that intra-industry trade has declined for the Andean country, exacerbating trade imbalances that limit diversification and reduce opportunities for global insertion. For their part, Bolinaga and Slipak (2015) measure the trade flow relationship between China and Argentina, while examining the evolution of trade balances, exports and imports of each country, and the technological content of Argentine exports and imports with China. They use the GLI to measure the degree of overlap in exports and imports between the two countries.

The use of customs data allows the analysis of both inter-industry and intra-industry trade in an economy, identifying broad categories (Deese, 2017). Applying the GLI to trade between China and Latin American countries makes it easier to determine the symmetric or asymmetric nature of the trade relationship, especially given the steady increase in Chinese exports and imports in this century.

As with intra- or inter-industry trade, there is no standard system for assessing the degree of market concentration due to practical difficulties in measuring convergence. However, the existing literature highlights the predominant use of HHI to calculate industry convergence (Durán Lima and Álvarez, 2011, Lu et al., 2017; Rosales and Herreros, 2017). Originally conceived to measure the relative size of companies in an industry and their competition (Herfindahl, 1950), the HHI is also used to assess market concentration and export diversification across countries. This index has the advantage of assigning greater importance to the weight of sectors in a country, which provides a more accurate view of market concentration when considering larger markets (Susilo and Axhausen, 2014) or the impact of linkages between countries, as in the case of China and the PA by encouraging the diversification of exports.

The literature on the estimation of HHI between Latin America and China is extensive and shows variations depending on the country of analysis (Cunha et al., 2013; Kacef, 2016; Rosales and Herreros, 2017; Manting, 2021). Paredes (2017) highlights the high concentration of intra-regional trade, where China stands out for its internal diversity of markets, strengthening its industries and position as a dominant economy. In Latin America, however, intra-regional trade is more concentrated, with most imports exceeding exports.

For their part, Rosales and Herreros (2017) point to a similar situation in the reduction of the concentration of regional exports to different markets. This trend is reflected in the index when only some countries increased their exports between 2000 and 2015, with a more pronounced bias in the concentration of exports by product. Regarding Central America and the United States, the authors point to a decrease in the concentration of their exports, which they attribute in part to the FTAs that have allowed Central American countries to enter new markets and gradually innovate their export products.

The studies show that examining China-PA trade based on the GLI and HHI provides insights into China's impact on the region, showing evidence of significant intra- and inter-industry trade and the degree of concentration or diversification.

For this paper, data on exports and imports to China from the PA countries of the 97 chapters of the Harmonized System for the period 2001-2021 were taken from the Trade Map database (Intracen, 2023). The data on exports from PA countries to China were useful for calculating the GLI, as were China's exports to these countries.

The HHI formula (Matsumoto et al., 2012) was used to calculate the level of export concentration of each PA country with respect to China and China with respect to each PA country. The following formula is used:

Where i is a chapter or sector of the Harmonized System, n is the total number of selected chapters and p is the share of each product i in total exports such that:

Where are the exports of product i from country 1 to country 2, and are the total exports of all products from country 1 to country 2. Country 1 is each of the countries in the PA and country 2 is always China. This index is defined between 0 and 1, where values closer to 0 are associated with high diversification, while values greater than 0.1 are associated with trade concentration. It is also important to note that the HHI^2,1 index, which measures the level of concentration (or diversification) of exports from country 2 to country 1, is calculated, i.e. the evolution of the concentration of exports from China to the selected American countries is assessed. Considering that the HHI allows us to identify whether there is convergence in market composition (Lu et al., 2017), we calculate a joint convergence index defined as follows:

The purpose of this index is to compare export concentration or diversification trends. If this index is greater than 1, it means that the concentration of Chinese exports to the PA countries is greater than that of the PA countries to China. If this index is less than 1, it means that China's exports to the PA countries are less concentrated than the PA countries' exports to China. An important aspect of this index is whether or not it approaches 1 over time. If it does, this indicates that the countries tend to have similar levels of export diversification. If it does not, then one of the parties is improving and the other is deteriorating in terms of diversification.

To determine the presence of inter- or intra-industry trade, the GLI index between each PA country and China was used. The formula used is:

Where M is associated with imports, but the interpretation of the sub-indexes is the same as for HHI. Values close to 0 are associated with inter-industry trade, and values greater than 0.33 are associated with intra-industry trade (Durán Lima and Álvarez, 2011).

In addition, a modified version of this index was calculated to characterize the type of trade by levels of processing. In other words, the index was calculated by classifying products into four categories according to the level of sophistication of their production: raw materials, intermediate goods, consumer goods and capital goods. In this way, it was possible to determine whether trade between countries was inter- or intra-industry at each of these stages. In this case, the following equation was used

Where i represents one of the four stages of production. These indices were also calculated by grouping the four PA countries as a block with respect to China. In this way, it was hoped to obtain an aggregate overview of the evolution of trade between the PA countries and China.

During the period under consideration, the integrated trade balance of the PA countries with China reflects a continuous deterioration. While PA exports have increased, the increase in imports from China has been greater, which is consistent with the data presented by Vergara-Crespo and Pinto-Quijano (2022). This pattern is consistent with the H-O theory of international trade (Baldwin, 2008), which states that countries specialize according to the availability and abundance of productive resources they possess.

The PA countries mainly export primary or low value-added products due to their abundance of natural resources, while they import higher value-added manufactured goods from China, which has abundant labor and infrastructure (see Figure 1).

In contrast, an analysis of the trade balance of each country shows that the situation of Mexico and Colombia is different to that of Chile and Peru. The former show a permanent, growing deficit, while Chile and Peru have maintained a surplus that tends to increase. According to García-Parra (2018), the existence of these two blocs explains why it is difficult to advance a joint action plan after the formation of the PA, since one bloc perceives China as a destabilizing agent for national industries, while the other seeks to consolidate the trade integration process (see Figure 2).

In terms of the HHI of each PA country with respect to China, the exports of the former are quite concentrated, except for Mexico. Moreover, this trend has been accentuated for all countries except Chile over the analyzed period (see Figure 3).

Meanwhile, China's HHI with respect to each country in the PA shows that China's exports have remained diversified, except for Mexico. The high degree of concentration implies risks in the long run, given the dependence on a few products, which translates into volatility. In addition, the dominance of China as a trading partner may also imply increased dependence on Chinese policies and economic cycles (see Figure 4).

When comparing the level of export diversification among the countries being studied with the proposed convergence index, it was found that there was a deterioration for the PA countries over the analyzed period. In other words, there is a divergence in the HHI index because, while exports from the PA to China became more concentrated, exports from China to the PA countries tended to become more diversified. These trends can be explained by the limited development of the productive structure of the PA countries compared to China, which translates into difficulties in producing and exporting high value-added goods.

In addition, if we look at the composition of exports to China from the PA countries by stage of processing, we see that there is a clear and permanent trend towards reprimarization between 2000 and 2020¹ (see Figure 5), as the share of raw material exports from the PA to China increases continuously.

Looking at the composition of exports by stage of processing (see Figure 5) and the trade balance (see Figure 1), there is contradictory evidence that the Prebish-Singer hypothesis is fulfilled in the trade relationship between the PA and China. In other words, reprimarization has a negative long-term impact on countries such as Mexico and Colombia because as the prices of primary goods are reduced compared to manufactured goods, their trade deficit tends to become persistent due to the deterioration of their trade terms. In the case of Chile and Peru, however, the hypothesis does not hold, as they maintain a trade surplus with China. Meanwhile, China's prospects are improving due to the increase in its exports of capital goods, especially in the first decade considered (2000-2010). China's DCS shows that this country wants to continue the same type of relationship in terms of the supply of primary goods (see Figure 6).

By calculating the aggregate GLI for the PA countries with respect to China, we find that the trend is slightly in favor of intra-industry trade (dark line in Figure 7). For a clearer conclusion, we calculate the number of SA chapters where the GLI is greater than 0.33, i.e. chapters where intra-industry trade is said to be dominant (Durán and Álvarez, 2011). Thus, the evolution of intra- and inter-industry trade can be characterized. The clear line represents this calculation and shows an irregular trend between 2001 and 2014, with a decrease in the number of chapters, followed by an increase. This trend shows that the two parties analyzed increased their specialization in similar sectors, which is associated with greater integration in supply chains. The change in trend after 2014 may be due to the fall in oil prices, which entailed a profound repositioning of the export structure of several countries in the world (Gevorkyan and Semmler, 2016; Djimeu and Omgba, 2019).

In order to verify the above, the GLI between the PA and China was calculated by processing stage. The trade of intermediate goods shows greater intra-industry trade, which explains to a greater extent the general trend. In the case of raw materials, intra-industry trade is declining because the PA exports more of these goods to China, while the opposite is true for China (see Figure 6, reciprocal exports). In the case of capital goods, intra-industry trade is also decreasing, and in this case the explanation lies in the fact that it is China that is increasing its exports of these goods, while the PA is exporting less and less. Finally, in the case of consumer goods, there is a trend of increasing intra-industry trade, although it has been decreasing since 2016. While the trends in raw materials and consumer goods reflect a reprimarization of the PA’s exports to China, the trade in intermediate goods shows an increased integration of supply chains. Mexico is leading this trend, consolidating its position as the regional leader in international offshoring investment. While its positioning does not guarantee an impact on domestic development (Legler, 2017), it does reduce exposure to external sector risks (see Figure 8).

In the case of the GLI by country, Mexico’s performance differs from the rest of the PA because it has higher intra-industry trade with China. This is related to the higher level of development of Mexico's industrial structure compared to the other countries, which allows it to exchange manufactured products. Another explanation lies in Mexico's positioning in supply chains in which China also participates (Marchini, 2017). However, it is important to note that despite Mexico's advantageous position, it continues to export mainly raw materials to China, especially metalliferous minerals (Vergara-Crespo, and Pinto-Quijano, 2022), just like in the other PA countries where inter-industry trade is predominant (see Figure 9).

The results obtained indicate a positive impact for China, more than for the PA countries, in terms of diversification, and this allows us to propose explanations that update and question the assumptions of the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis. First, the internal conditions of each country in terms of institutions and productive development - especially in the PA countries - present limitations for the development of a solid, diversified productive system. Second, the weakness of the agreements expressed in the PA is perceived through initiatives established as government policies and not as state policies, which makes it difficult to consolidate itself as a project for integration with sufficient legitimacy to establish a trade policy as a bloc vis-à-vis China. Third, the pursuit of China's national interests to consolidate itself as a world power does not necessarily coincide with its policy of mutual benefit, since China gives priority to ensuring the provision of strategic resources, which reveals its interests in Latin America through the DCS to achieve them. This demonstrates an unfavorable experience for the PA in terms of intra-industry trade and provides evidence of a trend of concentration of trade that leans towards reprimarization, based on the findings of the GLI, the HHI and the concentration index proposed in this study.

Thus, the analysis of PA-China relations based on the dynamics of South-South cooperation in recent years promotes imbalances in trade terms, in most analyzed cases for the benefit of the Chinese government. For this government, the behavior is explained by the export of intermediate and capital goods, linking a vis-à-vis negotiation structure in which multilateralism stands as a launching pad. In the case of the PA countries, the imbalances are explained by the structural conditions of their export offer, which is mainly based on primary goods. This situation confirms the H-O model (Baldwin, 2008), which indicates that trade patterns depend on the relative allocation of productive factors in each country, as discussed above. However, despite the contradictory results for the alliance countries as a whole, this relationship expands strategic ties with the Chinese government.

According to Wihtol (2023), China's foreign policy would have "anti-Western" elements that would be implemented through a "divide and rule" strategy. This strategy implies that China will use bilateral diplomacy rather than multilateral diplomacy, as it will be difficult for the other countries to establish a strong common position against this nation. Moreover, if China opts for bilateral negotiations, there is a risk that PA countries will create a dynamic of downward competition in terms of norms and standards. In other words, countries may be tempted to reduce their protection of labor rights or relax environmental standards in order to attract Chinese investment, as has already been noted in the case of hydroelectric projects in South America (Gerlak et al., 2020).

In this regard, some argue that China promotes multilateralism by rethinking the structure of multilateral institutions in its favor, which Wuthnow et al. (2012) call diverse multilateralism. This explains its participation in international organizations such as the UN and the WTO. Such a position understands multilateralism not as a principle but as a tactic (Scott, 2013), which gives rise to alternative models of governance (European Commission, 2019). This leads to a kind of international multilateralism with Chinese characteristics (Wu and Lansdowne, 2007).

Finally, the results indicate a reprimarization of production in the PA countries, which also poses the paradox of an increase in exports without structural changes in their composition. This type of relationship links new forms of trade dependence, making it difficult to break out of the crossroads of reprimarization.

The results show how asymmetries in trade patterns between the PA countries and China are influenced by differences in factor allocations, as suggested by the H-O model, as well as by disparities in the value added of exported products, as suggested by the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis, and by positioning in global value chains. These imbalances represent challenges to the economic development of the PA countries and raise questions about the foreign, trade and production policies of these countries. It is therefore necessary for these policies to be articulated within each country and thus to have a degree of coordination within the Alliance.

In response to the question posed, the findings show that the trade position of the PA countries vis-à-vis China has weakened in terms of export diversification, while China has consolidated its position. There is also evidence of a deterioration in the industrial composition of trade, as the PA countries tend to export raw materials while importing capital goods from China. This contradicts the hypothesis put forward in the introduction. The quantitative analysis shows that the export composition of the PA countries makes it difficult to agree on a common strategy in the face of Chinese challenges since, while Chile and Peru have consistent trade surpluses with China, Mexico and Colombia have growing deficits. In addition, Mexico has a more sophisticated industrial composition that has allowed it to trade more intermediate goods. Trade in these types of goods represents an opportunity to achieve a more balanced, long-term relationship with China, to the extent that better integration into supply chains with high value-added products is achieved (Deaza Ávila et al., 2021).

In consideration of South-South cooperation, relations between China and Latin America promote the development of multibilateral negotiation schemes that, in the case of China, allow it to establish bilateral agreements with its own designs, which generate imbalances in the productive diversification of trade for most of the PA countries. Meanwhile, by focusing on the production and export of commodities, the PA countries expand the type of trade exchange items, achieving benefits in the financing of infrastructure projects. This scenario strengthens the implementation of the Belt and Road in Latin America, and therefore China's positioning as a strategic participant in the region.

In short, regardless of the debate over China's strategy, it is clear that this country has a solid, long-term, resilient foreign policy and the resources to implement it on a global scale. This contrasts with the situation of the PA countries, which have struggled to find a unified position vis-à-vis China or to strengthen their productive linkages and thus overcome their export-extractive matrix. Similarly, the PA as an integration initiative has struggled to consolidate itself in the long term, in part due to the deep polarization of its societies and the instability of its governments. As a result, this regional integration agreement may be perceived as a temporary ideological alignment between governments rather than a bloc integration policy, which reduces its momentum, continuity and legitimacy.

Therefore, for the PA to be able to offer support in the face of the challenges and opportunities offered by China, it is necessary to reach a broad consensus within each country to avoid the inconsistency and fragility of these integration initiatives. The methodology proposed herein provides evidence of the current state of trade and provides elements for action for future research within the framework of a mutually beneficial relationship, to delve deeper into the factors that facilitate or hinder the consolidation of a common position of the PA vis-à-vis China and to investigate the differential regional impacts within each PA country because of increased trade with China.

The PA faces internal and external challenges to its consolidation. Internal because its legitimacy depends on the political cycle of each member country, and each country has conflicting interests. External, because other countries, such as China, prefer bilateral negotiations, which limits coordination among members. These considerations offer a critical insight into the potential of regional integration in the context of internal polarization and dispute for global hegemony.

Acker, K., Brautigam, D. and Huang, Y. (2020). Debt relief with Chinese characteristics (No. 2020/39). Working Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3745021

Afonso, D., Bastos, S. and Perobelli, F. (2021). América Latina y China: ¿beneficio mutuo o dependencia? Revista de la CEPAL No.135. https://hdl.handle.net/11362/47709

Arciniegas Carreño, A. (2020). La nueva ruta de la seda: contexto histórico y aspectos geopolíticos de la estrategia global de China. Economic corridors in Asia: paradigm of integration? A reflection for Latin America. Universidad del Externado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1rcf2bf

Arezki, R., Hadri, K., Loungani, P. and Rao, Y. (2014). Testing the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis since 1650: Evidence from panel techniques that allow for multiple breaks. Journal of International Money and Finance, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.08.012

Baldwin, R. E. (2008). The development and testing of Heckscher-Ohlin trade models: a review. MIT Press Books, 1.

Bano, S. (2014). An empirical examination of trade relations between New Zealand and China in the context of a Free Trade Agreement. Working Papers in Economics, 14(04). https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/1404_Bano.pdf

Bolinaga, L. and Slipak, A. (2015). El Consenso de Beijing y la reprimarización productiva de América Latina: el caso argentino. Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía, 46(183). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpd.2015.10.003

Bonilla Soria, A. and Milet García, P. (eds.) (2015). China en América Latina y el Caribe: escenarios estratégicos subregionales. FLACSO, CAF.

Briceño Ruiz, J. (2018). El estudio de la integración regional y del regionalismo en América Latina: entre la influencia europea y el pensamiento propio. Análisis Político, 31(94). https://doi.org/10.15446/anpol.v31n94.78239

Brülhart, M. (1994). Marginal intra-industry trade: Measurement and relevance for the pattern of industrial adjustment. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 130(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40440310

China-CELAC Forum (June 8th, 2023). Subforos de áreas específicas. Subforos en Áreas Específicas (chinacelacforum.org)

Cunha, A. M., Da Silva Bichara, J. and Lélis, M. T. (2013). América Latina y el ascenso de China: una perspectiva desde Brasil. América Latina Hoy, 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.14201/alh201365185207

Creutzfeld, B. (2014), China en América Latina: seguimiento de la evolución. CS (14). https://doi.org/10.18046/recs.i14.1851

Deaza Ávila, J. A., Pinto-Quijano, A. C. and Castiblanco-Moreno, S. E. (2021). Tratado de Libre Comercio Colombia-Triángulo del Norte: un ejemplo de desarrollo comercial Sur-Sur. Suma de Negocios, 12(27). https://doi.org/10.14349/sumneg/2021.V12.N27.A5

Deese, W. (2017). One-Way and Two-Way Chinese Trade. U.S. International Trade Commission.

Deych, T. L. (2021). Security and development in China-Africa contemporary cooperation. In Degterev, D. and Shaw, T. Africa and the formation of the new system of international relations: rethinking decolonization and foreign policy concepts (pp. 125-137). Springer International Publishing.

Djimeu, E. W. and Omgba, L. D. (2019). Oil windfalls and export diversification in oil-producing countries: Evidence from oil booms. Energy Economics, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.11.033

Din, M., Gjani, E. and Qadir, U. (2009). Recent experience and future prospects of Pakistan’s trade with China. The Labor Journal of Economics, 14 (Special Edition). DOI:10.35536/lje.2009.v14.isp.a5

Durán, J. and Álvarez, M. (2011). Manual de comercio exterior y política comercial. Nociones básicas, clasificaciones e indicadores de posición y dinamismo. Documento de Proyecto, CEPAL. http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/3914

Escobar, A. (2010). Ecologías políticas posconstructivistas. Revista Sustentabilidades, (2). http://www.sustentabilidades.org/revista/publicacion-02/ecologiaspoliticaspostconstructivistas

European Commission (2019). EU-China strategic outlook. Commission and HR/VP contribution to the European Council. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-china-strategic-outlook-commission-and-hrvp-contribution-european-council-21-22-march-2019_en

García-Parra, P. (2018). La Alianza del Pacífico y Colombia ante la escalada china. Estudios Políticos, (52). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.espo.n52a02

Gerlak, A. K., Saguier, M., Mills-Novoa, M., Fearnside, P. M. and Albrecht, T. R. (2020). Dams, Chinese investments, and EIAS: A race to the bottom in South America? Ambio, 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-01145-y

Gevorkyan, A. and Semmler, W. (2016). Oil price, overleveraging and shakeout in the shale energy sector-game changers in the oil industry. Economic Modelling, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.12.029

Grubel, H. (1970). The theory of intra-industry trade. in McDougall, I. and Snape, R. (coords.). Studies in International Economics (pp. 35-51). North-Holland Publishing Co.

Guerra-Barón, A. (2019). La construcción de una identidad colectiva en la Alianza del Pacífico y China como el “otro” relevante. In Alcalde et al. (eds.). La conexión China en la política exterior del Perú en el siglo XXI (pp. 196-228). Escuela de Gobierno y Políticas Públicas PUCP, LSE Global South Unit, Instituto de Estudios Internacionales de la PUCP.

Hamilton, C. and Kniest, P. (1991). Trade liberalization, structural adjustment and intraindustry trade: A note. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 127(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707991

Herfindahl, O. (1950). Concentration in the steel industry. Unpublished dissertation. Columbia University.

Intracen (2023). Trade statistics for international business development. Monthly, quarterly and yearly trade data. Import & export values, volumes, growth rates, market shares, etc. Retrieved from Intracen.org/es from the Trade Map database.

Jaime Camacho, D. D. and Cuevas Ahumada, V. M. (2020). Comercio intraindustrial y los índices A y B de Brülhart del acero y el aluminio para el comercio México-Estados Unidos. Análisis Económico, 35(89). https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=41364528008

Jiménez-Castillo, M. (2016). Más allá del posdesarrollo: avances hacia un sistema de cooperación sostenible. Sociedad y Economía, (31). http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-63572016000200008 &lng=en&tlng=es

Kacef, O. (2016). Oportunidades y desafíos en las relaciones entre América Latina y Asia. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, (114). http://www.jstor.org/stable/44281879

Legler, T. (2017). ¿Un puente distante? México, la Alianza del Pacífico y China. En Pastrana-Buelbas, E. and Gehring, H. (eds.). La proyección de China en América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 365-386). Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

Legler, T., Turzi, M. and Tzili-Apango, E. (2020). Advancing autonomy? Chinese influence on regional governance in Latin America. En Bernal-Meza, R. and Xing, L. (eds.). China-Latin America relations in the 21st century. International Political Economy Series (p. 27-53). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35614-9_2

Lim, K. (2014). Socialism with Chinese characteristics: uneven development, variegated neoliberalization and the dialectical differentiation of state spatiality. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513476822

Lu, C., Qiao, J. and Chang, J. (2017). Herfindahl-Hirschman Index based performance analysis on the convergence development. Cluster Comput, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-0737-3

Manting, L. (2021). El comercio entre China y América Latina-una revisión de la literatura. Ibero-América Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.55704/ias.v2i1.03

Marchini, G. (2017). La Alianza del Pacífico y China: ¿hacia una relación más diversificada? América Latina y el Caribe y China. In Peters, E. (ed.). Economía, comercio e inversión (pp. 279-298). UNAM.

Matsumoto, A., Merlone, U. and Szidarovszky, F. (2012). Some notes on applying the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Applied Economics Letters, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.570705

Molano-Cruz, G. (2017). La construcción de un mundo de regiones. Revista Estudios Sociales, (61). https://dx.doi.org/10.7440/res61.2017.02

Niu, H. (2015). A new era of China-Latin America relations. Anuario de la Integración Regional de América Latina y el Gran Caribe, 11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293815749.

Paredes, J. (2017). Estimación del Índice de Herfindahl-Hirschman para la Comunidad Andina de Naciones 1995-2015 [Trabajo de grado]. Repositorio institucional Universidad Santo Tomás. http://repository.usta.edu.co/handle/11634/12423

Reinoso, A. F. (1997). Integración y comercio intraindustrial en un contexto de apertura: el Perú en la década de los noventa. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, 63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25675753

Romero, B., López Verhelst, N. and Escobar Espinoza, A. (2017). Breve análisis de las relaciones internacionales con Asia: la integración económica entre China y Colombia. Revista Internacional de Cooperación y Desarrollo, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.21500/23825014.3340.

Rapanyane, M. B. (2023). China’s international relations with Africa: A comparative analysis of neo-colonial practices in Angola and the DRC. Journal of African Foreign Affairs, 10(1). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejcaa_jafa_v10_n1_a4

Rosales, O. and Kuwayama, M. (2012). China y América Latina y el Caribe: hacia una relación económica y comercial estratégica. CEPAL.

______ and Herreros, S. (2017). Desafíos de la competitividad exportadora en América Latina y el Caribe. Estudios Internacionales, 49 (Especial). https://dx.doi.org/10.5354/0719-3769.2017.47536

Scott, J. (2013). China threat? Evidence from the WTO. Journal of World Trade, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2013025

Shi, Y. (2022). Foro sobre relaciones entre China y América Latina en el contexto de la comunidad de futuro compartido para la humanidad. Interacción Sino-Iberoamericana, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/sai-2022-0019

Slipak, A. M. (2014). América Latina y China: ¿cooperación sur-sur o Consenso de Beijing? Fundación Friedrich Ebert; Nueva Sociedad 4(250). https://bit.ly/3qPtFCI.

Susilo, Y. O. and Axhausen, K. W. (2014). Repetitions in individual daily activity-travel-location patterns: a study using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Transportation, 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9519-4

Svampa, M. (2019). Las fronteras del neoextractivismo en América Latina: conflictos socioambientales, giro ecoterritorial y nuevas dependencias (p. 144). Bielefeld University Press.

Toye, J. F. and Toye, R. (2003). The origins and interpretation of the PrebischSinger thesis. History of Political Economy, 35(3). https://muse.jhu.edu/article/46958.

United Nations (2021a). Asamblea General. 76 periodo de sesiones de la Asamblea General (un.org).

______ (2021b). Global development initiative-building on 2030 sdgs for stronger, greener and healthier global development. https://bit.ly/482dW3W

Vadell, J. A. (2019). China in Latin America: South-South cooperation with Chinese characteristics. Latin American Perspectives, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X18815511

Vargas, S. C. (ed.) (2020). Economic corridors in Asia: paradigm of integration? A reflection for Latin America (1st ed.). Universidad del Externado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1rcf2bf.

Vattuone, X. R. (2022). El libro blanco: la política de China hacia América Latina y el Caribe y su concreción en los Planes de Acción de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños. Revista Conjeturas Sociológicas, 10(28). https://revistas.ues.edu.sv/index.php/conjsociologicas/issue/ view/324/413

Vergara-Crespo, R. A. and Pinto-Quijano, A. C. (2022). China and Latin America: Mutual benefits or asymmetric relationship? Journal of Business 14(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.21678/2078-9424

Wainer, A. (2023). ¿Un puente al desarrollo? Cambios en el comercio de América Latina con Estados Unidos y China. Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía, 54(213). https://doi.org/10.22201/iiec.20078951e.2023.213.69938

Wihtol, R. (2023). China’s economic challenge to Europe: Europa y el desafío económico de China. Araucaria, 25(53). https://doi.org/10.12795.araucaria.2023.i53.02

World Integrated Trade Solution (wits) (2020). China comercio % PIB 20162020. China | Comercio (% del PIB) | 2016 - 2020 | WITS Datos (worldbank.org)

______ (2023). Exportaciones por etapas de procesamiento. Recuperado de la base de datos de WITS de worldbank.org.

WTO (2022). Trade Policy Review: China. WT/TPR/S/415/Rev.1. WTO | Trade policy review -China2021.

Wu, G. and Lansdowne, H. (2007). International multilateralism with Chinese characteristics: Attitude changes, policy imperatives, and regional impacts. In Wu, G. (ed.). China turns to multilateralism (pp. 3-18). Routledge.

Wuthnow, J., Li, X. and Qi, L. (2012). Diverse multilateralism: Four strategies in China’s multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-012-9202-6

Xinhua (2021a). Full text of Xi's statement at the General Debate of the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (people.com.cn)

_______ (2021b). China unveils final version of the 14th Five-Year Plan and Long-Term Goals for 2035 (people.com.cn)

Zapata, S. and Martínez-Hernández, A. A. (2020). La política exterior latinoamericana ante la potencia hegemónica de Estados Unidos y la potencia emergente de China. Colombia Internacional, 1(104). https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint104.2020.03

Zarco, R. O., Romo, A. G. and Sánchez-Torres, Y. (2019). Alianza del Pacífico y China: una integración asimétrica. PORTES. Revista Mexicana de Estudios sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico, 13(25). http://www.portesasiapacifico.com.mx/revistas/epocaiii/numero25/2.pdf