Impact of the Indonesia-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) on the Economic Growth of Indonesia = 인도네시아-한국 포괄적 경제동반자 협정(CEPA)이 인도네시아 경제 성장에 미치는 영향

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 연구는 정적 GTAP(세계 무역 분석 프로젝트) 모델을 사용하여 인도네시아-한국 포괄적 경제 동반자 협정(IK-CEPA)이 인도네시아의 경제 성장에 미치는 영향을 조사한다. 분석은 두 가지 무역 시나리오를 시뮬레이션한다: (1) 모든 부문에 대한 100% 관세 인하와 (2) 상대적 우위가 있는 부문에서 100% 인하 및 상대적 불리가 있는 부문에서 90% 인하를 포함하는 차별화된 시나리오이다. 연구 결과는 협정이 제기하는 기회와 도전을 밝혀내면서 부문별 역학을 강조한다. 결과는 인도네시아의 전통 산업인 섬유 및 목제품 분야에서 성장을 나타내며, 특히 목제품은 시나리오 1에서 +0.55%, 시나리오 2에서 +0.49%의 중요한 출력 증가를 보여준다. 반면, 컴퓨터 및 기계류와 같은 고기술 산업은 글로벌 시장에서의 경쟁 증가를 반영하여 감소세를 보였다. 마찬가지로 가공식품, 철, 철강 등의 부문도 출력 감소를 나타내며, 이 산업들의 경쟁력을 강화하기 위한 정책 개입의 필요성을 시사한다.또한 동등한 변화(EV) 분석은 인도네시아에 대한 소박한 복지 이득을 제안하며, 시나리오 1에서 EV가 $13.029백만이고 시나리오 2에서는 소폭 개선된 $13.122백만입니다. 이는 한국의 더 높은 EV 값과 비교된다. 추가적으로 무역 지수를 사용한 분석은 두 국가 간의 미묘한 무역 관계를 밝혀냈다. 상대비교우위(RCA)는 목제품(5.68의 RCA) 및 곡물 및 작물(3.14의 RCA)에서 인도네시아의 강점을 나타내어 이 부문에서의 경쟁력을 제시한다. 그러나 산업 내 무역(IIT) 분석은 가공식품과 섬유류와 같은 부문에서 특히 수출 또는 수입에서만 우세를 보이는 낮은 수준의 양방향 무역을 보여준다. 수출 중복 지수(IEO)와 수출 유사성 지수(IES) 모두 낮은 값을 기록(0.027), 두 국가 간의 수출 구조에서 겹침이 거의 없음을 나타내어 직접적인 경쟁은 최소화하지만 보완적 무역 관계의 잠재력을 강조한다.이 연구는 국내 정책과 국제 무역 협정 간의 역동적 상호작용을 강조한다. IK-CEPA는 인도네시아의 전통 산업에 성장 기회를 제공하지만, 산업 기반의 다양화와 고가치 부문의 강화에 있어 상당한 도전이 남아 있다. 연구 결과는 무역 자유화의 장기적 혜택을 극대화하기 위한 전략적 개입의 필요성을 강조한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examines the impact of the Indonesia-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IK-CEPA) on Indonesia’s economic growth using a static GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) model. The analysis simulates two trade scenarios: (1) a 100% tariff reduction across all sectors and (2) A differentiated scenario, with 100% reductions in sectors with comparative advantages and a 90% reduction in sectors with comparative disadvantages. The findings highlight sectoral dynamics, revealing opportunities and challenges posed by the agreement. The results indicate growth in Indonesia's traditional sectors, such as textiles and wood products, with the latter showing significant output increases of +0.55% and +0.49% under Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Conversely, high-technology sectors like computers and machinery faced declines, reflecting increased competition in global markets. Similarly, sectors such as processed food, iron, and steel exhibited output reductions, signaling the need for policy interventions to enhance competitiveness in these industries. Additionally, equivalent variation (EV) analysis suggests modest welfare gains for Indonesia, with an EV of $13.029 million in Scenario 1 and a slight improvement to $13.122 million in Scenario 2, compared to South Korea’s higher EV values. Further analysis using trade indices revealed nuanced trade relations between the two countries. The Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) indicated Indonesia's strong position in Wood Products (RCA of 5.68) and Grains and Crops (RCA of 3.14), suggesting competitive strengths in these sectors. However, the Intra-Industry Trade (IIT) analysis showed low levels of two-way trade, especially in sectors like Processed Food and Textiles, pointing to dominance in either exports or imports but not both. The Index of Export Overlap (IEO) and the Index of Export Similarity (IES) both registered low values (0.027), indicating little overlap in the export structures of the two countries, which minimizes direct competition but also highlights the potential for complementary trade relationships. The study underscores the dynamic interplay between domestic policies and international trade agreements. While IK-CEPA presents growth opportunities for Indonesia’s traditional industries, significant challenges remain in diversifying its industrial base and strengthening high-value sectors. The findings emphasize the need for strategic interventions to maximize the long-term benefits of trade liberalization.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Chapter One: Introduction 1
• 1.1. Background of Study 1
• 1.2. Significance Study 5
• 1.3. Research Questions 7
• 1.4. Research Objectives 8
• 1.5. Research Hypothesis 8
• 1.6. Research Structure 9
• Chapter Two: Overview of Free Trade Agreements in Indonesia 11
• 2.1. Key Drivers of Indonesia's Global Integration: Free Trade Agreements 11
• 2.2. Indonesia's Strategic Approach to FTAs 16
• 2.3. Key Bilateral and Multilateral FTAs 16
• 2.4. Benefits of FTAs for Indonesia 17
• 2.5. The Role of FTAs in Indonesia’s Economic Policy 18
• 2.6. Economic Impacts of Indonesia’s Free Trade Agreements 19
• 2.6.1. Impact on Trade Flows 19
• 2.6.2. Attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 20
• 2.6.3. Contribution to Economic Growth 21
• 2.6.4. Employment and Social Impacts 21
• 2.6.5 Challenges and Criticisms 22
• 2.7. Historical Context and Diplomatic Relations 23
• 2.8. Economic Cooperation 23
• 2.8.1. Defense and Security Cooperation 24
• 2.8.2. Cultural and People-to-People Exchanges 25
• Chapter Three: Literature Review 26
• 3.1. Bilateral Trade Agreement 26
• 3.1.1. The Evolution and Purpose of Bilateral Trade Agreements 26
• 3.1.2. Economic Implications of Bilateral Trade Agreements 27
• 3.1.3. The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in Bilateral Trade Agreements 29
• 3.1.4. Challenges and Criticisms of Bilateral Trade Agreements 30
• 3.2. Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Context of Indonesia 31
• 3.2.1. Relevance to the Indonesia-Korea CEPA 31
• 3.3. Indonesia-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IK-CEPA) 32
• 3.3.1. Theoretical Foundations of Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements 33
• 3.3.2. The Objectives of IK-CEPA 34
• 3.3.3. Expected Benefits of IK-CEPA 35
• 3.3.4. Challenges and Criticisms of IK-CEPA 37
• 3.3.5. IK-CEPA within the Context of Indonesia’s Trade Strategy 39
• 3.4. Trade Performance Analysis 39
• Chapter Four: Methodology and Data 42
• 4.1. Computable General Equilibrium Model 43
• 4.2. Applicability to Trade Agreements and Economic Growth 45
• 4.3. Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) 46
• 4.3.1. Concept and Scope of GTAP 48
• 4.3.2. Structure of the GTAP Model 50
• 4.4. Key Features and Extensions of the GTAP Model 51
• 4.5. Limitations and Challenges of GTAP 52
• 4.6. Analysis Flow 53
• 4.7. The setting of GTAP Model Simulation 56
• 4.8. Model Version and Database Configuration 57
• 4.8.1 Regional and Sectoral Aggregation 58
• 4.8.2 Policy Shock Simulation 61
• 4.9. Research Variable 62
• 4.10. Trade Performance Analysis 69
• Chapter Five: Result and Discussion 74
• 5.1 Overview of Indonesia and South Korea Trade 74
• 5.1.1 Relationship Between GDP and the Indonesia-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IK-CEPA) 78
• 5.2 Impact of IK-CEPA on total sector output 81
• 5.3. Impact of IK-CEPA on aggregate import of commodities by region (% change) 85
• 5.4 Impact of IK-CEPA on aggregate export of commodities by region (% change) 87
• 5.5 Impact of IK-CEPA on trade balance (% change) - del_tbal 90
• 5.6. Impact of IK-CEPA on equivalent variation ($ US million) - EV 92
• 5.7. Impact of IK-CEPA on terms of trade (% change) - tot 93
• 5.8. Impact of IK-CEPA on demand for endowment (% change) - qfe 95
• 5.9. Impact of IK-CEPA on change in GDP (% change) - qgdp 97
• 5.9.1. Comparison and Implications 99
• 5.10. Result of Revealed Comparative Advantage - RCA 99
• 5.11. Result of Intra-Industry Trade - IIT 101
• 5.12. Result of Index of Export Overlap - IEO 102
• 5.13. Result of Index of Export Similarity - IES 103
• Chapter Six: Conclusion and Recommendation 105
• 6.1. Conclusion on RunGTAP Analysis Results 105
• 6.2. Conclusion on Trade Performance Analysis Results 116
• 6.3. Limitation 118
• 6.4. Recommendation for Future Research 120
• References 123