Risk contagion in China-ASEAN and US-ASEAN trade-investment networks

ASEAN has emerged as the pivotal intersection where the strategic competition between China and the United States converges with regional economic integration. Clarifying the risk contagion mechanisms within the China-ASEAN (C-ASEAN) and US-ASEAN (U-ASEAN) trade-investment networks are crucial for safeguarding regional and global economic stability. This study treats C-ASEAN and U-ASEAN as two distinct research regions. By employing conditional association equations and an improved SEIR infectious disease model, it compares and analyzes the risk contagion and linkage effects within the trade-investment networks of C-ASEAN and U-ASEAN. The study finds: (1) C-ASEAN and U-ASEAN exhibit distinct structural characteristics across network layers. The C-ASEAN trade network has gradually evolved from a multi-core structure toward a more centralized structure dominated by China, whereas the U-ASEAN trade network has maintained a relatively stable multi-core configuration. At the investment level, the C-ASEAN network is centered on Singapore, while the U-ASEAN network exhibits a dual-core structure centered on Singapore and the United States. (2) The estimated country-specific internal response coefficients in the C-ASEAN and U-ASEAN trade–investment networks exhibit relatively consistent patterns in trade linkages and greater heterogeneity in capital-related linkages. The Export→Import coefficients are generally positive, whereas the FIP→Import coefficients vary in sign and are relatively small in magnitude. The Export→OFIP and FIP→OFIP coefficients exhibit greater variation across countries and between the C-ASEAN and U-ASEAN networks. (3) Regional losses under the China and U.S. shocks are broadly similar at the trade level, while differences are more pronounced at the investment level. Country-level overall losses further exhibit four distinct patterns: trade-led exposure to China, investment-led exposure to the United States, dual trade-investment exposure to the United States, and offsetting exposure across network layers. (4) Network connectivity and edge-weight allocation in the trade–investment network influence risk coverage. Changes in effective distance show no consistent relationship with changes in risk coverage, and changes in first-arrival times for jointly reached cases remain relatively limited. Patterns of risk propagation and cross-country variation in losses under different external shocks reflect the combined influence of direct trade and investment exposure, trade–investment network structure, and domestic trade and investment responses.