본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Citation
No Title
1 Middle power and power asymmetry: how South Korea’s free trade agreement strategy with ASEAN changed under the New Southern Policy  / 2023 /  Contemporary Politics  / vol.29, no.3, pp.318 / 

10.1080/13569775.2022.2146288
2 Trade in Services and Economic Growth  / 2007 /  East Asian Economic Review  / vol.11, no.1, pp.3 / 

10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2007.11.1.162

Article View

East Asian Economic Review Vol. 9, No. 1, 2005. pp. 131-149.

DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2005.9.1.139

Number of citation : 2

View
522

Download
181

crossmark images crossmark images
PDF PPT Twitter Facebook

An Analysis of Trade Liberalization in Services: A Korea-ASEAN FTA

Author

Soon-Chan Park

Kongju National University

spark@kongju.ac.kr

Moonsung Kang

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)

mkang@kiep.go.kr
Creative Commons Attribution License

EAER is an open access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license.

Abstract

As tariffs have fallen worldwide through multilateral negotiations, the focus of free trade agreements has shifted towards other issues, including trade liberalization in services, harmonization of technical standards, and so on. Korea and ASEAN established a Joint Study to examine the feasibility and desirability of a comprehensive FTA. This paper evaluates the impacts of trade liberalization in services of a Korea-ASEAN FTA using a computable general equilibrium model. We use a modified version of the GTAP model that captures trade liberalization in services. As services are an input into the production of most industries, an inefficient service sector can be very costly to the economy as a whole. From the general equilibrium perspective, liberalizAs tariffs have fallen worldwide through multilateral negotiations, the focus of free trade agreements has shifted towards other issues, including trade liberalization in services, harmonization of technical standards, and so on. Korea and ASEAN established a Joint Study to examine the feasibility and desirability of a comprehensive FTA. This paper evaluates the impacts of trade liberalization in services of a Korea-ASEAN FTA using a computable general equilibrium model. We use a modified version of the GTAP model that captures trade liberalization in services. As services are an input into the production of most industries, an inefficient service sector can be very costly to the economy as a whole. From the general equilibrium perspective, liberalization in services gives manufacturing industries access to low cost, high quality service inputs so that they can be competitive. This implies that the positive effects of trade liberalization in services are never negligible. We find that the impacts of service liberalization on GDP and welfare are significant. If trade barriers to services are reduced by 60 percentages, it is estimated that Korea's GDP would increase by 0.21 percentages.

JEL classification: F12, F14, F15, L8

Keywords

FTA, Liberalization in Services, CGE

Language

Korean

References

  1. Kim, J.-D. and I. S. Kang. 2000. “Economic Effects of Korea's Liberalization of Trade in Services,” Policy Analysis 00-02, Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (in Korean)
  2. Austrailian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 1999. Global Trade Reform: Maintaining Momentum. Canberra.
  3. Baldwin, R.E. 1989. "The growth effect of 1992," Economic Policy no.9, pp. 247-281. CrossRef
  4. Baldwin, R.E. 1992. "Measurable Dynamic Gains from Trade." Journal of Political Economy, vol. 100, pp. 162-174. CrossRef
  5. Benjamin, N. and X. Diao. 2000. "Liberalising Services Trade in APEC: A General Equilibrum Analysis with Imperfect Competition," Pacific Economic Review, vol. 5, pp. 49-75. CrossRef
  6. Brown, D., Deardorff, A. and R. Stern. 1996. "Modelling Multilateral Liberalization in Services," Asia-Pacific Economic Review, vol. 2, pp. 21-34.
  7. Brown, D., 2001. "CGE Modelling and an Analysis of Multilateral and Regional Negotiating Options," University of Michigan Working Paper.
  8. Chadha, R. 2000. "GATS and the Developing Countries: A Case Study of India," In R. M. Stern ed. Services in the International Economy: Measurement and Modeling, Sectoral and Country Studies, and Issues in the WTO Services Negotiations. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  9. Deardorff, A. and R. Stern. 1998. Measurement of Nontariff Barriers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  10. Francois, J. F., McDonald, B. J. and H. Nordstrom. 1999. "Trade Liberalization and Investment in a Mulitilateral Framework," In Baldwin, R.E. and J.F. Francois eds Dynamic Issues in Commercial Policy Issues. Cambridge: CEPR, pp. 202-223.
  11. Hardin, A. and L. Holmes. 1997. Services Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Staff Research Paper. Industry Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services.
  12. Harrison, G.W., Rutherford, T.F. and D.G. Tarr. 1995. "Quantifying the Uruguary Round," In W. Martin and L.A. Winters eds. The Uruguary Round and the Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press, 216-252.
  13. Hertel, T., Francois, J. and W. Marin. 2000. "Agriculture and Non-agriculture Liberalisation in the Millennium Round," CIES Policy Discussion Paper no. 0016.
  14. Hoekman, B. 1995. "Assessing the General Agreement on Trade in Services," In Martin, W. and L.A. Winters eds. The Uruguary Round and the Developing Economies. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 307.
  15. Hoekman, B. and C. P. Braga. 1997. "Protection and Trade in Services: A Survey," Open Economies Review, vol. 8, pp. 285-308. CrossRef
  16. Hoekman, B. and J. F. Francois. 1999. "Market Access in the Service Sectors," Manuscript, Tinbergen Institute.
  17. Kalirajan, K., McGuire, G., Nguyen Hong, D. and M. Shuele. 2000. "Restrictiveness of International Trade in Banking Services," In Findlay, C. and T. Warren eds. Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications. New York: Routledge.
  18. Kemp, S. 2000. "Trade in Education Services and the Impacts of Barriers to Trade." In Findlay, C. and T. Warren eds. Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications. New York: Routledge.
  19. Kim, J.-I. and J.-D. Kim. 2000. Liberalization of Trade in Services and Productivity Growth in Korea. KIEP Working Paper 00-10.
  20. McGuire, G. and M. Schuele. 2000. "Restrictiveness of Intenational Trade in Maritime Services," In Findlay, C. and T. Warren eds. Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications. New York: Routledge.
  21. Robinson, S., Wang, Z. and W. Martin. 1999. "Capturing the Implications of Services Trade Liberalisation," Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Denmark: Ebberuk, Jun 20-22.
  22. Trewin, R. and T. Warren. 2001. "A Price-Impact Measure of Impediments to Trade in Telecommunication Services." In Findlay, C. and T. Warren eds. Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications. New York: Routledge.
  23. Warren, T. 2001. "The Impact on Output of Impediment to Trade and Investment in Telecommunications Services," In Findlay, C. and T. Warren eds. Impediments to Trade in Services: Measurement and Policy Implications. New York: Routledge.
  24. WTO. 2003. International Trade Statistics 2003. Geneva.