comparative economic development pakistan and bangladesh case study summary

Advertisement

Assessing the agricultural trade narrative of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: a systematic review of the past decade (2013–2023)

• Open access
• Published: 10 September 2024
• Volume 2 , article number  51 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Humayun Khan 1 &
• Mumah Edwin 1  

47 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It aims to enhance regional trade and economic expansion in Pakistan. We adopted systematic review approach to investigate the agricultural trade narrative of the CPEC and identify future research avenues. Our study uses the Web of Sciences and Scopus database to extract the relevant literature. We executed the search query for 2013–2023. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement to identify the literature. The final analysis includes only 14 articles. We found that the literature mainly focuses on three topics, Gwadar port, road infrastructure, and agricultural complementarity and competitiveness. The review reveals the significant potential of CPEC on the agricultural trade of Pakistan. Based on the review, we point to avenues that could be considered in future research work to fully exploit the potential of CPEC in the agriculture sector of Pakistan.

Similar content being viewed by others

Evaluation of One Belt One Road publications: a bibliometric and literature review analysis

One Belt One Road Initiative and environmental sustainability: a bibliometric analysis

A review of China’s overseas economic and trade cooperation zones along the Belt and Road: Progress and prospects

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The mega project known as China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) aims at regional connectivity, and infrastructural development leading to economic prosperity. As the pioneering project of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), CPEC has attracted vast interest and aroused substantial debates about its impact on various sectors. In this systematic review paper, we focus on the potential role of CPEC in the agricultural trade dynamics of Pakistan. The agriculture sector is of immense importance for both China and Pakistan. It serves as the backbone of Pakistan’s economy, contributing significantly to the country’s GDP and providing substantial employment [ 1 , 2 ]. China as the world's most populated country also depends on its agriculture sector to feed its huge population [ 3 ]. The necessity of this study stems from the significant role agriculture plays in Pakistan's economy and the transformative potential of CPEC in reshaping trade dynamics. As agriculture remains a major GDP contributor and employment source of Pakistan, understanding how CPEC can enhance agricultural trade is vital for policy formulation and economic planning. Moreover, the study addresses a gap in the existing literature, which has largely overlooked the detailed implications of CPEC on agriculture.

The history of the diplomatic relationship between China and Pakistan can be traced back to 1949. However, the relationship got stronger after President Xi Jinping visited Pakistan and signed the game-changer project “CPEC” in 2015 initiated earlier in 2013. President Xi’s statement, “I feel as if I am going to visit my brother's house” marked a new era and launched CPEC with an initial investment of 46 billion US dollars. The project was divided into three phases and the total projected investment rose to 62 billion US dollars. The first phase which is known as the short-term phase covers the period from 2015 to 2022, primarily focuses on the road infrastructural development, port development, and energy sector. The second phase called the medium-term phase span 2021–2025. The second phase focuses on the development of the industrial sector, agricultural sector, and socio-economic development. The third phase of CPEC, from 2026 to 2030, focuses on the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and industrial build-up. In the long term, CPEC is striving to make Pakistan a regional economic hub by 2030.

Since effective inland and cross-border trade requires a well-developed transportation infrastructure, CPEC will enhance the existing road network of Pakistan with an additional 3000 KM in the form of expressways, highways, and motorways [ 4 ]. The 2688 KM CPEC road, which runs from Gwadar to Khunjarab Pass is designed to be traveled with 70 to 120 KM/hour, reducing the distance up to 80 percent as compared to the sea route [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Reshaping the transport infrastructure will open new avenues for Pakistan's agriculture trade, particularly in the trade of perishable agricultural products such as vegetables and fruits. In addition to allowing Pakistan enormous economic prospects CPEC also links China to the markets of Europe, Asia, and other regions [ 8 ].

CPEC, since its inception, attracted much research and debate [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The existing literature is useful, but a vast number of it focuses on the global and regional economic impact of CPEC, its geopolitical position, and the challenges faced by CPEC [ 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Few researchers discuss the CPEC-agriculture nexus [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ] or limited to a specific area [ 21 ]. Moreover, these studies also overlook the commodity-specific agricultural trade of Pakistan.

The year 2023 celebrates the 10th anniversary of CPEC. Hence, it is appropriate time to provide a systematic review of the potential impact of CPEC on the agricultural trade dynamics of Pakistan. More specifically, this systematic review attempts to explore the likely impact of CPEC on Pakistan’s agricultural trade based on studies over the past decade.

The knowledge of the existing literature body will be nourished by this study in several ways. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that covers the previous literature on CPEC over the last decade. Based on the findings, this study will identify the drivers leading to the trade deficit of agriculture. This study will explore how CPEC potentially impacts the agricultural trade of Pakistan. Further, this study will also identify the gaps in the current research which could be potential opportunities for further research on CPEC and agricultural trade nexus.

The rest of this article is structured as follows. Section  2 provides a comprehensive insight into the methodology followed for conducting this systematic review. Section  3 presents the results. Section  4 provides inclusive discussion. Section  5 offers future research directions and in Section  6 we concisely conclude this study.

2 Materials and methods

This section offers a comprehensive piece of information on the methodology followed in this systematic review.

In this study, we follow the article selection and retrieving technique developed by [ 22 , 23 ]. For transparency and robust observations, this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [ 24 ]. The systematic review method is suitable for this study as it allows for a thorough examination of existing literature, identifying trends, gaps, and insights that are critical for understanding CPEC's impact on agricultural trade. This method provides a structured approach to synthesize findings from diverse sources, offering a comprehensive overview of the subject.

2.1 Literature search and database selection

A comprehensive literature search was executed to identify relevant literature. The search was performed from 2013 to 2023. This timeframe is chosen to encompass the inception (2013) and development phases of CPEC, capturing relevant studies on its impact. Among the scholarly databases Scopus and Web of Sciences (WOS) are considered more reliable due to their vast coverage [ 25 , 26 ]. Hence, this systematic review preferred Scopus and WOS databases for the collection of literature. To avoid the bias created from the machine translation and understanding of studies in languages, the search was limited only to the publications in English language. We include only articles that were finally published. This study focuses on the CPEC and agriculture trade nexus, however, CPEC as a corridor among the six corridors of the Belt and Road Initiative also appears in the studies that are not titled CPEC. All the alternative synonyms or terms that are used interchangeably with CPEC were considered while developing the search string to avoid ignoring any informative and relevant study.

2.2 Search string development

The Scopus syntax TITLE-ABS-KEY (….) produces the search appearing in the title, abstract, and keywords of a study. The Boolean operatives OR, and AND were used to extend the coverage of string. After practicing with multiple term, this study eventually produced a very comprehensive string with keywords such as “TITLE-ABS-KEY ("China Pakistan Economic Corridor" OR "China Pakistan Economic Corridor" OR CPEC OR OBOR OR BRI OR "Belt and Road" OR "silk road" OR "new silk route" OR "CPEC impact on agri*") AND (trade OR "agriculture trade" OR "agri* trade" OR "agricultural exports" OR agri* AND exports OR "crop trade" OR "bilateral agri* trade" OR "vegetab* trade" OR "fruit* trade") AND PUBYEAR  >  2012 AND PUBYEAR  <  2024” . The string generated a total number of 1023 results.

Likewise, the Web of Sciences (WOS) string ( TS  =  (("China Pakistan Economic Corridor" OR "China-Pakistan Economic Corridor" OR "CPEC" OR "OBOR" OR "BRI" OR "Belt and Road" OR "silk road" OR "new silk route" OR "CPEC impact on agri*") AND ("trade" OR "agriculture trade" OR "agri* trade" OR "agricultural exports" OR "agri* exports" OR "crop trade" OR "bilateral agri* trade" OR "vegetab* trade" OR "fruit* trade"))) produced 1468 results.

2.3 Screening

All the results were exported and stored in an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis, which included reviewing studies conducted by the two reviewers. The results obtained from both databases were merged into a single Excel spreadsheet. We included and reviewed only those studies that is somewhat related to the CPEC and agricultural trade of Pakistan.

While initially handling the Excel spreadsheet, we identified 362 duplicate publications resulting from the merging of two databases. A total of 2129 studies were retained  in the Excel spreadsheet for further screening. Subsequently, based on the title, abstract, and keywords 1976 studies were excluded from our database as they did not fall within the scope of this study. The full texts of the remaining 153 studies were rigorously screened. We found that many of the selected studies focused on the geopolitics, and challenges related to CPEC, related to the core project of the Belt and Road Initiative, but their study areas were not aligned with the focus of this systematic review. Hence, more 109 studies were eliminated from the created database. A total of 44 studies were selected for the eligibility of inclusion.

2.4 Eligibility check

The full text of the 44 studies were thoroughly reviewed for eligibility. We found that some studies were broadly focused on the BRI or focused on the energy sector, were related to other countries or regions or the full text were not available. Hence, 30 studies were eliminated from the database during the eligibility check. Only 14 studies passed the eligibility check and were included in this systematic review. The PRISMA flow chart in Fig.  1 presents the detailed steps carried out for the inclusion of these studies.

PRISMA chart of the article’s selection process

The section covers a descriptive analysis, journal and geographical scope, keywords analysis, and presents a summary of the key findings from the included literature.

The literature related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is still new and the studies included in this paper have been published between 2018 and 2023. This is justifiable when considering the timeline and the publication process, especially in peer-reviewed reputed journals. Figure  2 presents the the publication statistics considered in this systematic review. The increasing trend suggests growing interest and engagement within the research community. Since, the inception of CPEC, as discussed earlier most focus was on its geopolitical aspects and challenges confronted, however, we see a shift of interest toward the agriculture sector as the CPEC enters into its second phase which also includes agricultural cooperation. The maximum number of studies were observed in 2022.

Year-wise distribution of articles included in the review

The journal distribution of the selected 14 studies is given in Table  1 . The journal’s distribution according to ID frequency provides information on the academic contribution of each journal. The MDPI’s “Agriculture” [ 17 , 27 ] and Routledge’s “Eurasian Geography and Economics” [ 21 , 28 ] each have two appearances in the included studies. There are other journals that each have their position only with one occurrence. These include PLosOne [ 29 ], Journal of Transport Geography [ 30 ], Journal of Advance Transportation [ 31 ], Mobile Information System [ 32 ], Foods [ 33 ], International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development [ 34 ], Chinese Political Science Review [ 35 ], Contemporary South Asia [ 36 ], China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies [ 15 ], and International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy [ 37 ]. The individual representation of journals from World Scientific Publishing Co., Wiley, Hindawi, Springer, Elsevier, Routledge, Econjouranls, MDPI, and Inderscience Publishers also highlights the wide range of journals that contribute to this extracted sample of studies.

The geographical distribution of the articles included in this study is presented in Fig.  3 . Of the 14 studies six studies were conducted in China, which is about 42 percent of the study sample. Four studies were conducted in Pakistan which is 28 percent of the study sample. Two studies were carried out in the UK which occupy 14 percent of the total studies included, while the other researches were carried out in Hong Kong (China), and Germany.

Geographical distribution of articles

The author’s keywords co-occurrence is presented in Fig.  4 . The keyword co-occurrence network visualization is a useful tool for understanding the interconnection between different articles. In this study, we use VOSViewer to visualize the author's keywords co-occurrence. The larger nodes represent the frequent co-occurrence while the thickness of the edges explains the stronger association. Based on the keywords co-occurrence we observe that the chosen literature is not centered on a specific area but covers various aspects of the CPEC. We also observed that the agriculture sector, especially agricultural trade received minimal attention. Based on the analysis of the keyword co-occurrence and association we conclude that currently there are largely untapped aspects of CPEC that have potential to the focus much future research and network analysis.

Author's keywords network

The word cloud analysis of the author’s keywords presented in Fig.  5 shows that the literature included in this paper mainly revolves around the Belt and Road Initiative and its implications for economic development, trade, and sustainable growth, with a focus on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The analysis covers a wide range of topics, including trade in fresh agricultural products, economic expansion, development of infrastructure, and challenges confronted by CPEC. The terms “agriculture,” “vegetable,” “agrarian,” and “food” highlight the CPEC's association with the agriculture sector. Overall, the keywords offer a comprehensive understanding of the economic development, infrastructure, trade, and social aspects of the CPEC.

Author's keyword frequency

Table 2 presents the summary of the key findings of the studies included in this review. These include the objectives, methods, and key findings.

4 Discussion

CPEC has far-reaching positive implications across multiple dimensions for both China and Pakistan. The literature included in this systematic review mainly discussed three aspects of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: including Gwadar port, infrastructure, and complementarity and Competitiveness in agricultural trade.

As the pioneering project of BRI, CPEC, with Gwadar Port as its most significant component, is expected to greatly contribute to Pakistan’s trade [ 38 ]. CPEC has a wide scope and the Gwadar port will provide access to new markets, thereby enhancing agricultural trade [ 39 , 40 ]. CPEC also has significant implications for China. Some studies suggest that China could trade more efficiently with the Middle East, Africa, and Europe by utilizing the Gwadar port and reducing the trade distance from 10,000 KM to 3000 KM [ 30 , 35 ]. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stands out among the six corridors of the Belt and Road Initiative—namely, the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor, the New Eurasian Land Bridge, the China-Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor, the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor, and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. CPEC is strategically important in enhancing connectivity between China and Pakistan, facilitating trade routes to Europe, Asia, and beyond. The development of Gwadar Port is a key component, significantly contributing to agricultural trade by providing a major shipping hub for exporting agricultural commodities. Specific examples include the reduction in transport times and costs, enabling access to new markets for perishable goods.

Degong et al. [ 41 ] in their study highlight the potential economic benefits of the CPEC through the vast infrastructure which is anticipated to boost employment, social welfare, trade, and economic prosperity in Pakistan. Khan [ 15 ] emphasizes how the CPEC’s objectives are expanding beyond infrastructure and energy with a particular emphasis on advancing Pakistan's socio-economic growth, especially in the agriculture sector, which is the lifeline of Pakistan’s economy. The huge Chinese market trades a wide range of products with the countries associated with the BRI countries. Bilateral trade between China and BRI-associated countries has experienced a notable increase. In the context of agricultural trade, [ 27 ] in their study witnessed 8.3% annual growth in the fresh agricultural trade between China and BRI countries. They further found that since 2011, China’s fresh agricultural imports surged from USD 5.5 billion to USD 14.9 billion in 2020.

Mahmood et al. [ 29 ], Rehman et al. [ 34 ] argue that CPEC is a “game changer,” expected to eliminate poverty and uplift the local communities. They conducted survey research across all provinces of Pakistan and found that CPEC significantly contributes to rural development, socio-economic development, and rural–urban linkages through its infrastructural projects. The improved transport infrastructure and fast connectivity by providing timely access to the market are expected to enhance the agricultural output, which has a direct relation with the farming community and their standard of life [ 42 ]. Chen and Zhang [ 33 ] employed a network analysis approach to investigate how cereal trade networks are structured. They analyzed the top 10 countries and their centrality indicators for the years 2001, 2008, 2013, and 2019. Pakistan was found to have more influence in the cereal network trade.

CPEC's infrastructure projects, such as the operational and upgrading of the Karachi-Peshawar railway line (ML-1), are crucial for improving agricultural trade. These projects reduce transport times and costs, facilitating faster and more efficient market access. Enhanced road networks and railway projects, like the completed railway project under CPEC, illustrate tangible benefits, demonstrating improved logistics and expanded trade opportunities. The transport infrastructure is a significant part of the CPEC. Ali, Huang [ 17 ] quantitatively investigated the impact of enhanced infrastructure on Pakistan and China. The authors argue that, in contrast to the traditional sea trade, the new CPEC route is time and cost-effective. The reduction in distance and time in particular will benefit the bilateral agricultural trade especially the trade of perishable products. They emphasize that Pakistan's agricultural exports to China exhibit significant potential possibly due to the higher comparative advantage in the production of agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables.

Wang et al. [ 32 ] argues that China and Pakistan can benefit from each other’s comparative advantage in terms of agricultural resources and structure by increasing agricultural trade. They highlight, that to maximize efficiency and fulfill the demand of both countries, each country concentrates on producing and exporting commodities at which they excel. The authors further suggest that utilizing the geographic advantage, modernizing agricultural cooperation, and establishing an IIoT-based logistic network in Xinjiang can comprehensively improve Pakistan-China bilateral trade.

Idrees [ 37 ] study suggests that infrastructure development including roads and warehouses as well as the construction of cold storage facilities to reduce losses in the perishable commodities, are important to increase connectivity through CPEC. Alam et al. [ 31 ] studied the transit time and cost in the context of CPEC. Their study finds that shipping to China by a new route of CPEC will be less expensive for Middle Eastern countries and Europe. The shipping cost will be roughly 1450 USD per container and transit time will decrease by roughly 21–24 days. Moreover, they say that northern areas of Pakistan which are the major producers of vegetables and fruit, will benefit from the improve infrastructure. The improved connectivity makes it easy to approach bigger markets. A major portion of trade with China will shift from sea to land routes. Their study highlights the cost-effective land routes of CPEC.

CPEC infrastructure connects China’s northern part to the Southern part of Pakistan. One significant benefit of CPEC is the reduction in trade distance. However, contrary to previous studies and the general perspective of CPEC, Spies [ 21 ] draws attention to a particular worry about how the CPEC might affect the agricultural exports from Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Agricultural exports from Gilgit are facing competition due to competing agricultural development in the neighboring Xinjiang region. This competition is causing a general decline in agricultural exports. The authors claim that fresh Cherry is one of the most promising agricultural export commodities of Gilgit-Baltistan, however even with this potential only few farmers may benefit from selling Cherry in the Chinese market. McCartney [ 28 ] in his study also acknowledge that the agricultural product produces in Xinjiang, China are resembling to the agricultural commodities production in Pakistan. Pakistan could face direct competition as a result of Xinjiang’s exports, which might lead to challenges for Pakistani farmers and agriculture exporters. Likewise, McCartney [ 36 ] suggests that China has removed barriers and made it easy for Pakistan to export agricultural products such as mango, citrus, etc. The Rashakai Special Economic Zone, Pakistan, is anticipated to contribute to agricultural productivity and use of natural resources, however, the concern is that both countries are focusing on the same agriculture sector which leads to potential competition. Xinjiang’s Western Development Program is observable in the recent trade statistics as China’s exports to Pakistan which include textile and clothing have significantly increased while Pakistan’s exports remain stationary. The potential competition between agricultural exports from Gilgit-Baltistan and China's Xinjiang region necessitates strategic measures. Policies such as subsidies for local farmers, investment in advanced agricultural technologies, and establishment of trade facilitation centers could mitigate competition and enhance export capabilities.

5 Limitations of study

This systematic review has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. We limited our search to Scopus and Web of Science databases due to their reputation and authenticity. While these databases are comprehensive and reliable, this selection may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies indexed in other databases. Consequently, some relevant research may have been overlooked. This review included only research articles. This exclusion of other types of publications such as reviews, case reports, conference papers, and grey literature could result in a narrowed scope of the findings and a potential underestimation of the breadth of available evidence. Our review included only articles published in English. This decision was made to avoid potential biases introduced by translation or machine translation errors. However, this limitation may have led to the exclusion of valuable research published in other languages, potentially introducing a language bias and limiting the generalizability of our findings to a global context. While these limitations highlight areas of potential bias and scope restriction, they also provide direction for future research. Efforts to include a broader range of databases, publication types, and languages could enhance the comprehensiveness and applicability of subsequent systematic reviews on this topic.

6 Future research directions

This review points to several possible future study directions. To gain a better grasp of agriculture trade in the context of CPEC, researchers in the future could consider the following aspects.

As earlier discussed, in the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, future research should focus on the regional impact of CPEC. Understanding the discrepancies and problems that various areas and regions experience can aid in the crafting of focused policy suggestions.

The current literature is mainly focused on the transport infrastructure and slip on the overall logistics to support agricultural trade. Research could explore specific logistics requirements such as storage facility, cold chain logistics, and transportation efficiency. Exploring these aspects can enhance the CPEC’s positive implications for the agriculture trade of Pakistan.

Further, the prevailing literature overlooks the consumer preferences in the Chinese market for Pakistani agricultural commodities. Research is inevitable to investigate the quality standards, preferences, identification of agricultural sectors with complementarity, and factors that influence market accessibility. This insight can help Pakistani farmers to align their production with Chinese market demand.

This review also reveals that the literature has minimal attention to trade integration. Investigating the effectiveness of the current policies and trade agreements concerning individual sectors of agriculture in harnessing the potential of CPEC for enhanced agricultural trade. Further, addressing areas where policy adjustment may be needed to guarantee the viability of agricultural trade under CPEC.

Following the above research direction, researchers can provide insights to inform policy decisions and exploit the potential of CPEC in the agriculture sector of Pakistan. Aside from the relevant finding, deliberately exclusion of studies other than original article and considering articles published only in English language is one of the main limitations of this systematic review. Future research could consider wide range studies with different inclusion and exclusion criteria.

7 Conclusion

The rigorous review of the articles included in this systematic review led us to the conclusion that though, there is nominal attention to the agriculture sector especially the agricultural trade of Pakistan, researchers have addressed the potential exist in CPEC to enhance Pakistan’s agriculture trade. Some studies point to the possible competition in the agricultural market between China and Pakistan. Few studies compared the CPEC route with the sea route for trade and found it more cost and time-effective. Based on the review, we provide valuable information and identified a research gap that by responding could exploit the potential of the China-Pakistan- Economic Corridor. We explored various research themes that could be considered for future studies.

Data availability

All data sources are mentioned in the article.

Khan ZA, et al. Revisiting the effects of relevant factors on Pakistan’s agricultural products export. Agric Econ. 2020;66(12):527–41.

Google Scholar  

Khan H, Chen Y. Identifying the Potential Trade Opportunities in the Vegetable Market between China and Pakistan. Pak J Agric Sci. 2024;61(2):417–28.

Zhou G, et al. Shocks in agricultural productivity and CO2 emissions: new environmental challenges for China in the green economy. Econ Res -Ekonomska istraživanja. 2022;35(1):5790–806.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hadi NU, Batool S, Mustafa A. CPEC: An opportunity for a prosperous Pakistan or Merely a mirage of growth and development. Dialogue. 2018;13(3).

Shaikh F, Ji Q, Fan Y. Prospects of Pakistan-China energy and economic corridor. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;59:253–63.

Lee PT-W, et al. Research trends and agenda on the Belt and Road (B&R) initiative with a focus on maritime transport. Marit Policy Manag. 2018;45(3):282–300.

Aqeel M, Impact of China Pakistan economic corridor. Unpublished degree thesis, BBA International Business. ARCADA. 2016: 106.

Robina M, Shah AA, Abbas Z. One belt one road: CPEC security challenges, prospects and suggestions. Int J Educ Res Stud. 2019;1(3):18–22.

Khalid R. China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) should be supported by people to people contacts. Institute of Strategic Studies. 2015.

Baig N, et al. Does China Pakistan Economic Corridor become an avenue to achieve sustainable development goal no. 2 (food security) in Pakistan: under the condition of COVID-19? PLoS ONE. 2023;18(1): e0279520.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sher A, et al. Linking entrepreneurial skills and opportunity recognition with improved food distribution in the context of the CPEC: a case of Pakistan. Sustainability. 2019;11(7):1838.

Ullah S, et al. Pakistan-China regional trade potentials in the light of CPEC. SSRN J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3182163 .

Hali S. One belt and one road: impact on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. 2015;34.

Khan S, Liu G. The China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): challenges and prospects. Area Dev Policy. 2019;4(4):466–73.

Khan Z. The China-pakistan economic corridor: economic rationale and key challenges. China Q Int Strat Stud. 2019;5(02):249–65.

Hussain M, Jamali AB. Geo-political dynamics of the China-Pakistan economic corridor: a new great game in South Asia. Chin Polit Sci Rev. 2019;4(3):303–26.

Ali T, Huang J, Xie W. Bilateral economic impacts of China-Pakistan economic corridor. Agriculture. 2022;12(2):143.

Batool S, Ali MM, Amer A. Contribution of CPEC to mitigate issues in agri sector. Int J Agric Sustain Dev. 2021;3(4):77–86.

Kamran A et al. Impact of China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) on agricultural sector of Pakistan. 2021. Springer.

Ahmad M. Developing a competitive agriculture and agro-based industry under CPEC. China’s Belt and Road Initiative in a Global Context: Volume II: The China Pakistan Economic Corridor and its Implications for Business. 2020: p. 227–269.

Spies M. Promises and perils of the China-Pakistan economic corridor: agriculture and export prospects in northern Pakistan. Eurasian Geogr Econ. 2021;64:1–27.

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag. 2003;14(3):207–22.

Denyer D, Tranfield D. Producing a systematic review. 2009.

Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–94.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Panibratov A, et al. The belt and road initiative: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Eurasian Geogr Econ. 2022;63(1):82–115.

Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106:213–28.

Fu J, Chen L, Xue H. The impacts of trade facilitation provisions on fresh agricultural products trade between China and the BRI countries. Agriculture. 2023;13(2):272.

McCartney M. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): infrastructure, social savings, spillovers, and economic growth in Pakistan. Eurasian Geogr Econ. 2022;63(2):180–211.

Mahmood S, et al. Belt and road initiative as a catalyst of infrastructure development: assessment of resident’s perception and attitude towards China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(7): e0271243.

Zhao J, Sun G, Webster C. Does China-Pakistan Economic Corridor improve connectivity in Pakistan? A protocol assessing the planned transport network infrastructure. J Transp Geogr. 2022;100: 103327.

Alam KM, Li X, Baig S. Impact of transport cost and travel time on trade under China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). J Adv Transp. 2019;2019:7178507.

Wang B, et al. Analysis of competitiveness and complementarity of Chinese fruits and vegetables in Pakistani market in the context of industrial internet of things. Mob Inf Syst. 2022;2022:3189858.

Chen W, Zhang H. Characterizing the structural evolution of cereal trade networks in the belt and road regions: a network analysis approach. Foods. 2022;11(10):1468.

Rehman ZU, et al. Transition or change? The morphosis of One Belt One Road initiatives in Pakistan: a study on the challenges, prospects and outcomes of the China-Pakistan economic corridor. Int J Technol Learn Innov Dev. 2021;13(3):246–82.

Javed HM, Ismail M. CPEC and Pakistan: Its economic benefits, energy security and regional trade and economic integration. Chin Political Sci Rev. 2021;6(2):207–27.

McCartney M. The prospects of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): the importance of understanding western China. Contemp South Asia. 2021;29(3):358–75.

Idrees RQ. Energy cost saving and economic prospective of China Pakistan Economic Corridor, in Energy cost saving and economic prospective of China Pakistan economic corridor: Rao Qasim Idrees. 2018.

Rahman ZU, Ishaq M, Naeem M. A critically analysis of Gwadar port in the changing maritime scenario. Aust J Maritime Ocean Affairs. 2023;16:1–20.

Rathore K, Khan M, Chawla M. Challenges and opportunities of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) for Pakistan: a Human Resource Development (HRD) Perspective (1970s to 2018). Pak Vision. 2020;21:299–318.

Khan MZU, Khan MM. China-Pakistan economic corridor. Strat Stud. 2019;39(2):67–82.

Degong PM, et al. An empirical nexus between exchange rate and China’s outward foreign direct investment: Implications for Pakistan under the China Pakistan economic corridor project. Q Rev Econ Finance. 2023;87:224–34.

Toor MR. An assessment of China-Pakistan economic corridor: threats, prospects and implications. J Int Affairs Glob Strat. 2017;56:18–50.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China

Humayun Khan & Mumah Edwin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

H.K collected data and information, screened and reviewed the articles, and wrote the main manuscript. M.E screened and reviewed the articles, reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Humayun Khan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 35 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khan, H., Edwin, M. Assessing the agricultural trade narrative of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: a systematic review of the past decade (2013–2023). Discov Agric 2 , 51 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00067-6

Download citation

Received : 03 June 2024

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 10 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00067-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)
• Agricultural
• Trade dynamic
• Systematic review
• Infrastructural development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research