본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Citation
No Title

Abstract

The average tariff reduction rate is 20% point higher in five developed countries analyzed in this study compared to five developing countries following the direction offered by the Chairman's Draft Text. Average tariff reduction rates are 31.6% for the five developing countries and 51.4% for the five developed countries. Korea's tariff reduction rate reaches to 36.1%, the highest reduction in developing countries, when Korea retains the developing country status. When Korea makes tariff reductions following the direction for developed countries, the average tariff reduction rate rises to 55.8%. Tariff reductions following the second Draft Text affect the tariff structure. Tariff escalation, dispersion and peaks can be mitigated by applying the tariff reduction methods proposed in the Second Draft Text. Tariff reductions give rise to the effects of reducing tariff escalation problem and the effects are stronger for the commodities with higher tariff rates and in developed countries. The average tariff rate for tariff peak commodities is reduced by 40% in developing countries and by 60% in developed countries. Tariff dispersion is also mitigated by reducing tariff rates. The difference of the average tariff rate between Korea and Australia is reduced to 38.5% from 59.8% by cutting tariff rates with the rules proposed in the second Draft Text. Korea needs to prepare the Country Schedule in advance to evaluate the potential outcome of the tariff cut following the Draft Text and to capture various voices from producers, consumers and other related institutions. For the preparation of the Country Schedule, Korea needs to decide minimum tariff cut items within a group of the commodity classified by tariff rates and this procedure requires discussion among producer and consumer groups.

JEL classification: F13, Q17, Q18

Keywords

High Tariff, Tariff Reduction, Progressive Tariff

Language

Korean

References

  1. Song, Y. C. and J. H. Park. 1999. “Analysis on the Tariff Cut Formula in the WTO’s Negotiation on,” Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 137-163. (In Korean)
  2. Im, J.-B. 2000. “Policy Implications of Tariff Reduction in the Next WTO Negotiation on Agriculture,” The Korean Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 111-125. (In Korean)
  3. Choi, S.-K., Eor, M.-K. and J.-O. Lee. 1998. “Tariff Structure in the Agricultural and Food Sectors,” Research Reports R383, Korea Rural Economic Institute . (In Korean)
  4. Choi, S.-K. and M.-K. Eor. 1998. “Tariff Structure and Effective Rates of Protection in the Agricultural and Food Sector,” Journal of Rural Development, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1-19. (In Korean)
  5. Choi, S.-K. 2001. “Comparative Study on Agricultural Tariff Structure and Effents of Tariff Reduction,” Journal of Rural Development, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 23-37. (In Korean)
  6. Choi, S.-K. 2002. “How Tariff Reduction Methods Affect the WTO Agriculture Negotiations?,” Journal of Rural Development, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 15-30. (In Korean)
  7. Choi, S.-K., Lim, S.-S. and M.-K. Eor. 2002. “How Tariff Reduction Methods Affect WTO Agriculture Negotiations and Agricultural Tariff Structure in Major Countrie,” Research Reports R448, Korea Rural Economic Institute. (In Korean)
  8. Austalia. 2000. Customs Tariff Schedule.
  9. Canada. 2000. Customs Tariff.
  10. China. 2000. Customs Tariff Schedule.
  11. Choi, S.K. et al. 1998. "Effective Protection Rates of Food and Agricultural Products in Korea," Journal of Rural Development, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 115-128.
  12. EU. 2000. Common Customs Tariff.
  13. Japan. 2000. Customs Tariff Schedule.
  14. OECD. 1999. Post-Uruguay Round Tariff Regimes: Achievements and Outlook. Paris.
  15. U.S.A. 2000. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
  16. INTERNET SITE, http://lanic.utexas.edu/~sela/AA2K1/ENG/docs/Globalization/SPCLXXVIIDi2/spclxxviidi2-9.htm CrossRef