한·중 FTA의 주요쟁점과 추진전략에 관한 연구

김용진 한국무역통상학회 2009 무역통상학회지 Vol.9 No.2

Korea has signed FTAs and is in FTA talks with several countries. And as economic interdependence between Korea and China grows significantly nowadays, government officials and economists find it more and more necessary to form a free trade agreement to strengthen bilateral economic relations. But while recognizing the necessity of a bilateral free trade agreement amid rapidly increasing economic interdependence between the two countries, both governments are still reluctant to launch an official government-level talk on the issue. Because Korea is concerned that a free trade agreement will cause massive inflows of cheap Chinese agricultural products, possibly hurting the nation’s fragile agricultural industry. And China is concerned several high-tech Chinese firms are expected to be threatened by Korean electronics. But Korea-China FTA, if it is realized will bring new momentum for regional development.''The bilateral trade between Korea and China has grown rapidly since the two countries established formal relations in 1992. Recently China is the largest trading partner for Korea while Korea is the third-largest trading partner of China. So I believe upgraded ties between Korea and China could also be beneficial to both countries in the long run. Korea has signed FTAs and is in FTA talks with several countries. And as economic interdependence between Korea and China grows significantly nowadays, government officials and economists find it more and more necessary to form a free trade agreement to strengthen bilateral economic relations. But while recognizing the necessity of a bilateral free trade agreement amid rapidly increasing economic interdependence between the two countries, both governments are still reluctant to launch an official government-level talk on the issue. Because Korea is concerned that a free trade agreement will cause massive inflows of cheap Chinese agricultural products, possibly hurting the nation’s fragile agricultural industry. And China is concerned several high-tech Chinese firms are expected to be threatened by Korean electronics. But Korea-China FTA, if it is realized will bring new momentum for regional development.''The bilateral trade between Korea and China has grown rapidly since the two countries established formal relations in 1992. Recently China is the largest trading partner for Korea while Korea is the third-largest trading partner of China. So I believe upgraded ties between Korea and China could also be beneficial to both countries in the long run.

The Prospects for Economic Reform in North Korea after Kim Jong-il and the China Factor

Troy Stangarone,Nicholas Hamisevicz 통일연구원 2011 International journal of korean unification studie Vol.20 No.2

In recent years, it has become clear that China is the most important external partner for North Korea. Total trade with China represented 32.7 percent of North Korea’s trade in 2003, and in four short years grew to 67.1 percent, excluding inter-Korean trade. China during its economic growth has tried to encourage North Korea to undertake a similar path of economic reform. Nearly every time Kim Jong-il has visited China, Chinese government leaders have made statements demonstrating China’s support for North Korea’s economic reform. Moreover, Chinese officials often try to highlight their economic successes to Kim Jong-il when he visits China. Often, Kim Jong-il made statements suggesting North Korea would reform, especially through Special Economic Zones, following these trips. Yet real economic reform and success has yet to be seen in North Korea. Interestingly, as North Korea’s relationship with China has grown closer in recent years, North Korea has also taken steps to build relationships with other partners. Kim Jong-il visited Russia in 2011 to discuss economic projects. But among Pyongyang’s top trading partners, Russia only breaks into the top ten on the import side as North Korea’s fifth largest import partner in 2010. Overall, North Korea has more trade with Egypt and Brazil than Russia, and almost as much with Mexico. North Korea also did around $50 million in trade with Germany, from whom it imported machinery to make wine and press fruit, while exporting apparel. Ultimately, only North Korea can determine the direction of its economic development. Provocations against South Korea have hurt inter-Korean trade, limiting this option of economic interaction. North Korea still restrains itself from fully engaging in Chinese-style reforms though the passing of Kim Jong-il may open opportunities for greater economic change. Moreover, despite its outreach to other countries like Russia, Egypt, and Brazil, North Korea still needs more trade and financial engagement with other countries to fully develop in the dynamic global economy. In recent years, it has become clear that China is the most important external partner for North Korea. Total trade with China represented 32.7 percent of North Korea’s trade in 2003, and in four short years grew to 67.1 percent, excluding inter-Korean trade. China during its economic growth has tried to encourage North Korea to undertake a similar path of economic reform. Nearly every time Kim Jong-il has visited China, Chinese government leaders have made statements demonstrating China’s support for North Korea’s economic reform. Moreover, Chinese officials often try to highlight their economic successes to Kim Jong-il when he visits China. Often, Kim Jong-il made statements suggesting North Korea would reform, especially through Special Economic Zones, following these trips. Yet real economic reform and success has yet to be seen in North Korea. Interestingly, as North Korea’s relationship with China has grown closer in recent years, North Korea has also taken steps to build relationships with other partners. Kim Jong-il visited Russia in 2011 to discuss economic projects. But among Pyongyang’s top trading partners, Russia only breaks into the top ten on the import side as North Korea’s fifth largest import partner in 2010. Overall, North Korea has more trade with Egypt and Brazil than Russia, and almost as much with Mexico. North Korea also did around $50 million in trade with Germany, from whom it imported machinery to make wine and press fruit, while exporting apparel. Ultimately, only North Korea can determine the direction of its economic development. Provocations against South Korea have hurt inter-Korean trade, limiting this option of economic interaction. North Korea still restrains itself from fully engaging in Chinese-style reforms though the passing of Kim Jong-il may open opportunities for greater economic change. Moreover, despite its outreach to other countries like Russia, Egypt, and Brazil, North Korea still needs more trade and financial engagement with other countries to fully develop in the dynamic global economy.

GL지수를 활용한 한중 FTA 양허안 효과분석

이종찬(Lee Jong Chan)(李鐘燦),채상수(Chae Sang Soo)(蔡相秀) 대한중국학회 2016 중국학 Vol.57 No.-

한국의 대외개방도는 1950년대부터 지속적으로 높아져 2015년도에 이르러서는 100%가 넘는 수준으로 매우 높은 대외개방도를 나타내고 있다. 한국경제 성장의 발판이 된 수출산업은 약 21%의 수출이 중국시장을 통해 이루어지고 있다. 이러한 무역기조를 반영하여 2015년 12월20일에 한중 FTA가 발효되었다. 그러나 변화한 중국의 수출산업은 현재 한국의 수출산업을 위협하고 있다. 따라서 한중무역의 구조변화는 양국무역에 많은 영향을 주고 있다. 본고에서는 이러한 한중무역간의 변화를 Grubel-Lloyd지수를 산출하여 한중양국의 무역의 무역구조가 산업내 무역과 산업외 무역 중 어느 쪽에 가까운지 파악하고, 이에 따라 2015년에 발효된 한중 FTA양허안의 효과를 분석하였다. Korea s external openness has been steadily rising since the 1950s that has reached over 100% in 2015, indicating a very high level of external openness. The export industry was the heart of Korean economic growth and it was accounted for 21% of exports to China. In this situation The Korea-China FTA was signed in 2015, and it entered into force in 2016. The Korean government expects the Korea-China FTA to help Korea s economy. However, there have been many changes in Korea-China trade and the biggest change in Korea-China trade was the change in trade structure. Therefore, in this paper we calculated the GL index of Korea-China trade. The GL index is used to analyze the trade structure of bilateral trade so we analyzed the trade structure of Korea-China trade through GL index. Korea and China started trading in 1992, and at that time, bilateral trade had the form of inter-industry trade, but due to China economic growth and technological growth, Korea-China trade turned into intra-industry trade. In other words, China s export industry is competing with Korea s export industry. This means that Chinese export products and Korean products are competing in the Korean market, while Korean exports products and Chinese products are competing in the Chinese market. This phenomenon will be a big factor in the effect of Korea-China FTA. Therefore, we analyzed the effect of Korea-China FTA through the changes in the trade structure between Korea and China.

한-중 수교 이후 무역구조 변화와 특징 분석: 수출경쟁력과 무역결합도를 중심으로

서창배 현대중국학회 2022 現代中國硏究 Vol.24 No.1

Since establishing diplomatic ties in 1992, Korea-China relations have been developing rapidly in various fields such as trade, investment, and people-to-people exchanges. In particular, Korea- China's merchandise trade increased 47 times from US$6.4 billion in 1992 to US$301.5 billion in 2021. And also, Korea-China trade relations had transformed from ‘Inter-industry trade’ to ‘intra-industry trade.’ Accordingly, this paper analyzes structural changes such as export competitiveness and trade intensity developed in the bilateral markets of Korea-China over the past 30 years since the establishment of Korea-China diplomatic relations. Based on this, we look back on the 30 years of the Korea-China trade relations through the structural characteristics of trade between the two countries according to the determinants of the trade structure and provide implications for enhancing Korea's manufacturing export competitiveness to China. To summarize the analysis results, first, in terms of export competitiveness, Korea has a comparative advantage in chemicals and chemical products,electrical and electronic equipment, and precision machinery. And China has a comparative advantage in food and beverage products, other manufacturing, textile products, and metal products. Second, in the case of intra-industry trade, in Korea, 'intra-industry trade' between Korea and China was the largest in the transport equipment sector, with textile products and other manufacturing in the 1990s and general machinery and metal products in the late 2000s. In China, 'intra-industry trade' between Korea and China was actively conducted in metal products and electrical/electronic equipment, textile products in the 1990s, and general machinery in the late 2000s. Third, in the case of trade intensity, it was found that trade intensity between the two countries was high in most industries after establishing Korea-China diplomatic relations. In particular, in China, the trade concentration of electric/ electronic products, chemicals, and chemical products was high. In Korea, transportation equipment and food and beverage products were highly concentrated. 한-중관계는 1992년 수교 이래 무역, 투자, 인적 교류 등 다양한 분야에서 비약적인 발전을 거듭하고 있다. 특히 한-중 상품무역은 1992년 64 억 달러에서 2021년 3,015억 달러를 기록함으로써 약 47배 증가하였고, ‘산업간 무역’은 ‘산업내 무역’ 형태로 전환되었다. 이에 본고는 한-중 수교 이후 지난 30년간 양국 상호시장에서 전개된 수출경쟁력과 무역결합도등의 구조적 변화를 분석하였다. 이러한 분석내용을 바탕으로 무역구조결정요인에 따른 양국 무역의 구조적 특징을 통해 한-중 무역관계 30년을 회고하는 한편, 한국의 對중국 제조업 수출경쟁력 제고를 위한 시사점을 제공하고자 한다. 분석 결과를 요약하면, 첫째, 수출경쟁력의 경우, 한국은 화학물질 및 화학제품, 전기・전자제품, 정밀기기 등이, 중국은 음식료품과 기타제조품, 섬유제품, 금속제품 등에서 비교우위를 보이고 있다. 둘째, 산업내 무역의 경우, 한국 시장에서 한-중간 산업내 무역은 수송기기 분야에서 가장 크게 나타났으며, 섬유제품과 기타제조품은 1990년대에, 일반기계와 금속제품은 2000년대 후반에 산업내 무역이 나타났다. 중국 시장에서는 금속제품과 전기・전자제품에서 한-중간 산업내 무역이 활발히 이루어지고 있으며, 섬유제품은 1990년대에, 일반기계는 2000년대후반에 산업내 무역이 나타났다. 셋째, 무역결합도의 경우, 한-중 수교 이후 대다수 산업에서 양국 간 무역긴밀도가 높은 것으로 나타났다. 특히중국 시장에서는 전기・전자제품, 화학물질 및 화학제품이, 한국 시장에서는 수송기기, 음식료품의 무역집중도가 높게 나타났다.

한중무역 30년의 변화와 시사점-무역구조와 GVC 분석-

문익준 중국학연구회 2022 중국학연구 Vol.- No.101

This paper analyzed the changes and implications of 30 years of Korea-China trade after diplomatic relations between Korea and China. First, over the 30 years from 1992 to 2021, the volume of Korea-China trade increased by about 47 times, and China’s share of Korea export increased significantly from 3.52% in 1992 to 25.28% in 2021. Korea-China trade quickly changed from simple light industry to high-value items such as semiconductors and displays and converted to semiconductor intra-industry trade. Second, Korea and China have developed into a win-win structure for 30 years, but in the future, the structure is highly likely to change due to changes in the Chinese government’s strategy and trade environment. The growing dependence on Chinese exports, intra-industry trade centered on the semiconductor industry, and the limited structure of intermediate goods trade are signaling many structural changes in Korea-China trade in the future. Third, according to the GVC analysis, the proportion of Korea and China increased in the proportion of added value by country. In addition, as the global value chain (GVC) linkage gradually decreases, the production and consumption of final goods in China are gradually increasing. The same result was found in China’s export analysis to Korea, and Chinese exports to Korea are converting to the form of final production and consumption. The implications of this paper are as follows. First, during the 30 years of Korea-China trade, they grew together in a win-win structure, but in the future, they are likely to face a major change from the past. Second, as Korea-China trade enters a new turning point, an institutional basis for creating a free trade and investment environment is important, and negotiations on services and investments of the Korea-China FTA should be promoted in line with new changes. Third, Korea-China trade will be reorganized around the semiconductor industry in the future, and Korea’s economic security strategy is very important as it expands to a global multilateral problem, not a bilateral problem. 본 논문은 한중수교이후 한중교역 30년의 변화와 시사점을 분석하였다. 30년 한중교역의 특징을 요약해 보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 1992년부터 2021년까지의 30년동안 한중 교역규모가 약 47배 증가하고, 수출에서 중국이 차지하는 비중도 1992년 3.52%에서 2021년 25.28%로 크게 증가하였다. 수교 초기에는 단순한 경공업에서 시작한 무역이 중화학을 거쳐서 반도체, 디스플레이 등의 고부가가치 품목으로 빠르게 변화했고, 반도체 중심의 산업내 무역으로 전환되었다. 둘째, 한중수교 이후 30년동안 한국과 중국은 서로 윈-윈하는 구조로 발전해 왔으나, 앞으로는 중국 정부의 전략과 통상환경의 변화로 인해서 구조가 변화할 가능성이 매우 크다. 증가하는 중국 수출과의 의존도, 반도체 산업을 중심으로 하는 산업내 무역, 한계에 이른 중간재 교역 구조 등은 향후 한중무역의 많은 구조적 변화를 예고하고 있다. 셋째, GVC 분석에 의하면, 한중무역의 국가별 부가가치 비중에서도 서로간의 부가가치 비중이 상승하였다. 또한 점차 글로벌가치사슬(GVC) 연계성이 낮아지면서 중국에서의 최종재 생산, 소비가 점차 증가하고 있다. 이는 중국의 대한국 수출 분석에서도 최종재 생산,소비의 형태로 전환되고 있다. 본 논문의 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 한중 무역 30년동안 서로가 윈-윈하는 구조로 함께 성장하였으나, 앞으로는 과거와는 다른 대전환기에 직면할 가능성이 높다. 둘째, 한중 무역이 새로운 전환기에 진입하게 되면서 자유로운 무역과 투자 환경 조성을 위한 제도적인 기반이 중요하며, 한중 FTA의 서비스ㆍ투자의 협상등이 새로운 변화에 맞게 추진되어야 한다. 셋째, 한중 무역은 향후 반도체 산업을 중심으로 재편될 것이며, 양자간의 문제가 아닌 글로벌 다자간의 문제로 확대되면서 한국의 경제안보 전략이 매우 중요하다.

CGE 모형에 의한 한,중,일 FTA의 거시경제효과 분석

신범철 ( Beom Cheol Cin ) 아시아.유럽미래학회 2010 유라시아연구 Vol.7 No.3

한국을 포함한 동아시아 지역 국가들은 1990년 초반만 해도 다자간 무역체계에 중심을 두고 지역무역협정체결에는 소극적인 입장이었다. 하지만 1997~1998년 기간 동안의 동아시아 금융위기를 격은 이후 대부분의 동아시아 지역 국가들은 역내 및 역외 FTA, 지역 금융협력 체제 형성, 그리고 금융위기의 재발 방지를 위한 협력체제 구축 등에 관심을 갖기 시작하였다. 우리나라는 2003년 2월 칠레와 최초로 FTA 협상을 체결한 뒤, 정부는 FTA 역외국으로 불이익을 피하고 거대경제권에 대한 교두보 확보를 위해 다수국과 협상하고 적극적으로 FTA 무역정책을 확대 추진하고 있다. 현재 우리나라는 칠레, 싱가포르, EFTA, ASEAN(상품, 서비스) 등 4개의 경제권과 FTA가 발효 중이다. 미국과 인도는 협상이 완료되어 있고 EU와는 가서명된 상황이고 캐나다, GCC(걸프협력이사회), 멕시코, 페루, 호주, 뉴질랜드 등 6개 경제권과 FTA 협상이 진행되고 있다. 하지만 이렇게 짧은 시간에 많은 FTA를 체결할 경우 그 경제적 효과가 상호 상쇄되어 축소될 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 대부분의 선행연구들은 2001년 기준의 자료를 사용하고 있어서 이러한 동아시아의 FTA 체결 증가 추세가 수입 관세율이 낮출 수 있음을 고려하지 못하였다. 중국의 개방 이래 한·중·일 상호 무역의존도가 급증하고 경제적으로 상호의존성이 높아지면서 한·중·일 간 FTA의 필요성이 제기되어 왔다. 2008년도 현재 중국과 일본이 각각 1위와 3위의 교역상대국으로, 중국과 일본이 각각 한국의 1위와 3위의 수입국이며, 1위와 2위의 수출 대상국이다. 이 연구는 연산가능 일반균형(computable general equilibrium: CGE) 모형을 기반으로 한·중·일 FTA로 인한 관세인하 혹은 관세철폐의 경제적 효과를 새로운 GTAP 데이터를 활용하여 재검토하고 그 결과를 비교·평가하고자 한다. 한·중·일 FTA의 결정은 경제적 요인 뿐만 아니라 정치, 안보 등 비경제적인 요인 등에 의해서도 영향을 받을 수 있지만 본 연구는 경제적 관점, 특히 관세철폐 혹은 관세인하에 따른 거시경제적 효과 측면에서 논의할 것이다. 이는 관세가 다른 무역장벽에 비해 정량화되어 있고 상호 비교 측면에서 상대적으로 용이하기 때문이다. GTAP의 CGE에 의한 추계 결과를 보면, 우선 완전 관세철폐의 경우 한·중 및 한·일 FTA 체결은 한국의 실질 GDP를 0.07%∼0.60% 증가시키고, 한·중·일 상호 간 자유무역 체결은 한국의 실질 GDP를 0.28%∼0.65% 증가시키는 것으로 예상되어 선행연구의 주장과는 달리 크지 않을 것으로 예상된다. 둘째 한·중 FTA와 한·일 FTA의 경제효과를 비교해보면 전자의 한·중 FTA의 경제효과가 상대적으로 크게 나타나고 있다. 셋째 한·중·일 FTA가 체결의 경제효과가 크지 않지만, 선행연구에서 주장한 것처럼 한·중·일 FTA가 체결될 경우 3개 국가 중 한국 경제적 효과가 가장 크게 나타나는 것으로 예상된다. 이 결과는 무역자유화의 이익이 경제규모가 작은 국가일수록 더 커진다는 전통적 이론을 지지하고 있다. 넷째 한·중·일 FTA가 동시에 발효된다고 하더라도 한·일 FTA와 한·중 FTA 효과가 서로 보완적 관계를 갖기 보다는 대체적 관계를 갖기 때문에 그 효과를 서로 상쇄하는 것으로 보인다. 이는 동시에 발효될 경우의 경제효과가 각각의 FTA 경제효과의 합보다 작게 나타나는 결과를 근거로 하고 있다. 이러한 결과는 현 정부의 ``동시 다발적인`` FTA 정책이 시너지 효과를 유발한다는 주장은 근거가 없다는 것을 시사한다. 즉, 동시다발적인 FTA 정책 방향이 재검토되어야 할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 마지막으로 2001년 기준인 GTAP v.6 자료를 사용할 경우 보다 2004년 기준인 GTAP v.7자료를 사용할 경우 한·중 및 한·일 FTA 경제효과가 두드러지게 낮게 나타나고 있다. 한·중·일 상호간 FTA 자유 무역의 거시경제효과 역시 비슷한 패턴을 보이고 있다. 이는 2001년 기준의 GTAP 자료를 사용하고 있는 선행연구가 한·중 및 한·일 그리고 한·중·일 FTA 체결의 경제효과를 과대평가할 수 있음을 시사한다. FTA의 거시경제적 효과가 감소하는 원인은 여러 가지 측면에서 살펴볼 수 있으나 우선 Ackerman (2005) 주장대로 세계적인 무역자유화 추구로 인한 관세인하 효과의 축소를 들 수 있다. 실제로 GTAP의 관세자료를 비교해 보면, 2001년에 비해 2004년의 한·중·일의 수입관세가 훨씬 낮게 나타나고 있다. 아시아 국가들의 FTA 체결이 2000년대 급속히 확산되었다는 사실을 함께 고려해 보면 수입관세율이 낮아지고 있다는 현상은 쉽게 이해할 수 있다. 이처럼 세계적으로 관세인하의 추세가 지속된다면 향후 FTA의 경제적 효과는 더욱 더 감소할 수 있음을 시사하고 있다. 또 다른 이유로 한국 제조업의 공동화 현상과 밀접하게 연관되어 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 제조업 공동화 현상은 금융시장과 자본시장의 완전 개방화로 해외로의 자본이동이 급격히 진행되면서 한국 생산설비가 인건비 저렴한 지역, 특히 중국과 동남아 및 인도로 급격히 이동하여 발생한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 또한 외환위기 이후 수출의 부가가치유발 효과가 여전히 낮은 수준이어서 관세인하로 인한 수출의 생산효과가 여전히 크지 않다는 점이다. East Asian countries including Korea were mainly interested in multilateral cooperation trade policy under the GATT/WTO system in early 1990s. Due to Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, however, their interests were changed toward bilateral and regional free trade arrangements, development of regional financial arrangements, and regional crisis prevention and management capability. Korean government, since the Korean financial crisis in 1997, has emphasized more on regional cooperation trade policy rather than multilateral cooperation so as to minimize negative effects caused by other FTAs. As the first bilateral free trade arrangements, the Korea-Chile FTA(free trade agreement) were effective from 2004, three more FTAs, with Singapore, EFTA, and ASEAN, have come into effect and Korea has been further negotiating free trade arrangements with Mexico, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, GCC, and Canada. Korean government has considered FTAs among Korea, China and Japan very important not only because the free trade area of them, if it were built, would be the third largest economic bloc in the world in terms of their GDPs but also they are increasingly interdependent, economically and politically. Both China and Japan are major trading partners to Korea. In 2008, China and Japan is the first and the second largest export market to Korea and the first and third largest importing partner. Furthermore, Korea is also one of major foreign investors in China and the third largest importing partners to Japan. Despite the importance of either bilateral or trilateral FTAs among Korea, China and Japan, their economic effects have not been evaluated enough yet in contrast with much debate on the Korea-U.S. FTA or the Korea-EU FTA. In particular, as most of studies did not take into account the impacts of worldwide tariff cuts due to free trade arrangements pervasive in the 2000s, especially among East Asian countries, and thus the macroeconomic effects of the Korea-China-Japan FTA would be incorrectly estimated. It has been argued that the economic effects of the Korea-China-Japan FTA would not be fully examined for lack of information about the content and negotiation process between them, which should have been provided by government. This paper critically examines the macroeconomic effects of the free trade area among Korea, China and Japan and bilateral FTAs between them using the GTAP CGE model under various scenarios including both the Korea-Chile and the Korea-ASEAN FTAs which are currently in effect. In simulating economic effects of such free trade arrangements, the paper uses the GTAP static CGE model based on a new GTAP data set. The paper comparatively analyzes the macroeconomic effects of the bilateral and regional free trade arrangements of the three countries can be caused by either tariff reduction or elimination. Most of all, the GTAP CGE simulated results show that under the assumption of the full elimination of tariffs in all agricultural and manufacturing sectors except the service industries, Korea``s real GDP would be expected to increase by 0.28~0.65% due to the Korea-China FTA or the Korea-Japan FTA and by 0.07~0.60% due to the free trade arrangement of the three countries. The results indicate that Korean government might overestimate the macroeconomic effects of the FTAs among the three East Asian countries and therefore it should re-examine the FTA policy strategies. Second, the CGE simulation results indicate that the economic effects of the Korea-China FTA in terms of a change of GDPs are expected to be larger than those of the Korea-Japan FTA. Next, the simulation results show that both the Korea-China FTA and the Korea-Japan FTA would not be complementary. The economic effects of the Korea-China FTA would be offset by the Korea-Japan FTA. This implies that there is no robust evidence for government argument that both the FTAs should have complementary effects. Finally, the results show that the real GDP effect of the free trade arrangement of Korea, China, and Japan could be smaller when the GTAP DB version 7 is used for the CGE model rather than when the GTAP version 6 is used. This implies that the economic effects of the Korea-Japan FTA as well as the free trade arrangement of Korea, China, and Japan would be smaller over time. There might be two possible explanations for the reduction of FTAs`` economic effects when the GTAP DB v.7 is used. One is that as Ackerman(2005) argued, an expansion of global trade liberalization has led to tariff reductions, specially in the East Asian countries and thus economic effects of additional tariff cuts by the FTA should be smaller. In fact, GTAP data show that bilateral trade tariff rates in 2004 among Korea, China and Japan are much lower than those in 2001. The other is that Korean capital and financial market liberalization in the late 1990s may result in an rapid increase in capital outflows to China, South East Asian countries and India. The increases in Korea``s foreign investment in China and other Asian countries reduced domestic investment and production in manufacturing sectors, which should lessen macroeconomic effects of tariff cuts. In fact, the effects of Korean exporting on the value added have been reduced since Korea``s financial crisis.

산업패널을 이용한 한국의 대중국 수출결정요인 분석

양평섭 한국동북아경제학회 2007 동북아경제연구 Vol.19 No.1

Since the normalization of the relationship in 1992, trade between Korea and China has increased rapidly, an annual average growth rate standing at 27.4%. As a result, China is now Korea’s largest trade partner. As of 2005, the total trade volume between the two stood $100.6 billion, substantiating a magnificent growth from $3.4 billion in 1991. China’s portion of Korea’s total exports has also naturally risen from 3.6% in 1992 to 21.8% in 2005. Growth in trade volume also generated some significant changes in the trade structure. In 2005, for instance, 53% of the total trade volume and 55.8% of Korea’s export to China are generated by processing trade. Consequently, intermediate goods now makes up 82.0% of Korea’s export to China. And 70% of the total trade volume between the two countries and 76.4% of Korea’s exports to China are generated by foreign firms investing in China. Highlighting the complementary nature of the trade structure of the two countries, this paper attempts to analyze how China’s export, China’s industrial production, and Korea’s investment in China have determined the structure of Korea’s exports to China. With the respect to the question of how Korea’s export pattern differed by manufacturing industries, it also varied by China’s export volume, size of China’s domestic market, and Korean investment in China, all contribute to an increase in China’s import from Korea. This study shows that there is a positive correlation between Korea’s investment in China and Korea’s export to China and also that Korea’s export induction effect as a result of Korean investment in China is far greater than export substitution effect. The results put together demonstrate that Korea and China have maintained a complementary division of labor and that Korean investment in China is an important factor behind the rise in Korea’s exports to China. However, as China’s industrial and trade structure becomes more sophisticated, Korea faces fierce competition from China in the final goods market, and China’s import substitution rate is becoming faster with the improvement of China’s product competitiveness. Korean enterprises in China will also increase their usage of intermediate goods and materials purchased within the Chinese market. In the mid and long-term perspectives, given the overall changes, a negative impact may well be delivered to Korea’s intermediate goods-driven export to China.

수교 30년 중-한 무역의 정치적 요소 분석

PAN BINBIN 한국아시아학회 2023 아시아연구 Vol.26 No.2

China and South Korea established formal diplomatic relations in 1992. As of 2022, trade between China and South Korea has experienced 30 years of development. Due to the natural advantages of the two countries in terms of geography, the comparative advantages possessed by the two countries have made the trade relations between the two countries stronger and stronger. Political factors have played an important role in the development of China-South Korea trade and have shown different characteristics at different stages of the development of China-South Korea trade. They are the first stage from 1992 to 2000, the second stage from 2001 to 2008, and the third stage from 2009 to the present, respectively. With the deep integration of the China-South Korea industrial chain and the continuous improvement of the institutionalization of China-South Korea trade, the two countries have gradually formed an inseparable trade operation mechanism and constituted an interdependent community of destiny, which has led to a continuous trend of weakening the influence of political factors on China-South Korea trade, while China has lost its absolute power to impose economic sanctions on South Korea. In terms of the impact of the political crisis on trade, the effect of China's economic sanctions against South Korea is extremely limited due to the cost of sanctions, and it is difficult for economic sanctions to work effectively in a longer period of time, which eventually leads to the impotence of China's economic sanctions against South Korea. This shows that a well-developed trade regime and interdependence within industries make the economy more independent of politics and effectively mitigate the negative effects of political conflicts. Therefore, the realization of "political and economic separation" between China and South Korea should not only be discussed in terms of value chain decoupling, but also in terms of improving institutionalization and industrial chain cooperation.

한·중 경제관계의 성과, 문제, 그리고 대응

임반석 한국동북아학회 2008 한국동북아논총 Vol.13 No.3

International trade and mutual economic cooperation between Korea-China set out after the start of China's reform and opening policy again. And the performance of Korea-China economic cooperation during past 15 years is marvelous. China became the first trade and export partner of Korea, and Korea the 4th trade partner to China. Not to mention Korea"s export to China, the dependency rate of Korea economy to Chinese economy is very high. Due to the trade with China, Korea has been gaining a great deal of surplus every year since 1993, and Korea became 2nd largest international trade deficit partner at present. Many research results say, from Korea's viewpoint, international production sharing between Korea and China is not so efficient. In spite of the comparative advantage in technology, the presents of Korea's parts and component export to China is not reasonable. In short, Korea do not fully utilize his comparative advantages. So, researchers agree that the model of economic cooperation between Korea and China is based not on the vertical mutual dependent relation but on the horizontal mutual dependent relation. Theoretically speaking, the basis of the horizontal mutual dependent relations is easy to change, namely unstable, in nature. From the facts argued above, we can get to this conclusion: Korea-China economic relations is very intimate but not stable. So, we need to build up a new economic corporation model. Of course, the Korea's efforts to create exclusive advantage industries and technologies have to be made incessantly. In addition, the results of this paper support, the new economic cooperation model between Korea and China is supposed to head to win-win direction, in China and world market, through active and affirmative mutual cooperation. 한중 교역은 이미 연간 1000억 달러를 넘었고, 중국은 한국의 1위 교역국이자 1위 수출국이고, 한국은 중국의 4대 교역국이다. 한중 교역에서 한국은 1993년부터 지속적인 일방적 대규모 흑자를 보고 있으며, 이로 인해 한국은 중국의 2위 적자 대상국이다. 중국과의 수출입은 한국 총수출입의 22%, 15%에 달하고 있으며, 중국의 총수출입에서 점하는 한국의 수출입의 비율은 각각 8%, 6% 정도로서, 중국경제에 비해 한국경제의 중국경제 의존도가 훨씬 높은 수준이다. 한중간에는 상호 보완적인 산업구조에도 불구하고 국제 생산분할이 합리적이라고 보기 어렵다. 그 이유는 열악한 국내 기업활동 환경을 피한 탈출, 거대한 내수시장 겨냥한 적극적인 진출, 중국의 기술이전 요구에 대한 순응 때문으로 해석된다. 한중 간에는 자본재 교역 비중이 거의 비슷한 데서 알 수 있듯이 한중 교역 구조는, 경제발전 수준과 기술수준의 격차에도 불구하고 '균형적인 상호의존 관계'의 성격이 강하다. 한국의 아시아에 대한 투자 중 60% 이상이 중국에 투자되고 있고, 한국의 중국투자는 중국 외국인 투자의 약 6.5%를 점할 만큼 한국자본의 중국투자는 매우 활발하다. 이에 비해 중국자본의 한국투자는 아직 활성화되지 않고 있다. 한국의 중국투자는 초기의 노동집약 중소기업에서 점차 기술-자본집약 대기업으로 전환되고 있고, 일부 저부가가치 공정의 이전보다는 주요 생산공정의 이전 형태가 증가하고 있다. 중국자본의 한국투자는 초기에 소규모 요식업 투자에서, 아직은 활발하지 않지만, 인수합병을 통한 경쟁력 있는 산업에 대한 기술습득형 투자로 바뀌고 있는 중이다. 중국의 외환보유고가 1.8조 넘었으나, 당분간 신규투자 형태의 한국진출을 기대하기는 쉽지 않다. 그렇지만 중국자본의 한국진출을 위한 한국의 제조업 및 3차 산업 분야에서 중국자본 유인 환경을 구축할 필요가 있으며, 상호 투자가 증대될 때 양국 경제협력은 안정성을 확보할 수 있다. 한중 간의 새로운 교역 및 국제분업 모형의 지향점을 생각할 때, 새로운 모형은 안정적이고 활발한 교역, 비교우위를 살린 합리적인 국제분업, 통상마찰 잠재성 축소를 통해 양국 간 상호 이익을 증진시키는 방향이어야 한다. 좀 더 구체적으로 말해서, 당연히 배타적인 우위 분야를 창출·유지하는 노력이 경주되어야 하지만, 많은 제조업 분야에서 경쟁도가 높아져 가고 있고 중국경제의 성장과 한국경제의 성장 간의 연관도가 높아져 가고 있는 만큼, 한중간 경제협력 패러다임의 바람직한 지향점은 경쟁보다는 적극적인 상호협력을 통한 내수장과 세계시장 진출이라는 방향이 되어야 할 것 같다.

중국의 대한국, 대일본 무역통계 오차와 재추정

고정식 한국비교경제학회 2004 비교경제연구 Vol.11 No.2

본 연구에서는 미중간 발생하는 무역통계 불일치 문제를 한국, 일본으로 확대하여 중국의 무역통계 불일치 문제가 미국과 중국의 무역통계에 국한된 것이 아니라 중국의 주요 무역대상국에도 일반적으로 나타나는 현상임을 밝히고자 하였다. 연구 결과 중국은 대한국, 대일본 무역에서 홍콩의 역할을 자국에 최대한 유리하게 활용하는 방식으로 무역통계를 짐계하고 있다는 사실을 확인하였다. 한국과 중국, 일본과 중국간 무역통계 차이는 통상협상 과정에서 적지 않은 영향을 발휘하고 있다. 특히 중국 측에 의해 무역불균형 시정을 내세운 시장개방 압력으로 곧잘 활용되는 사례를 경험하고 있다. 따라서 중국과의 교역에서 발생하는 무역통계 불일치 문제를 해결하기 위하여, 한국과 일본, 그리고 미국을 포함하여 공동으로 중국의 무역통계 집계방식에 대응할 필요가 있다. 개별국가적 차원에서 중국과의 무역통계 불일치 문제를 접근하는 것보다는 종국과의 교역에서 무역통계 불일치 문제를 공동으로 안고 있는 미국, 일본, 한국 등이 공동으로 협력하여 중국과의 무역통계합동조사위원회를 구성하여 공동 조사연구를 진행할 필요성도 있다. This paper aims to prove that Chinese trade statistics discrepancies does not only happen within the trade returns of China and U.S., but occurs in trades with China's other main trade partners as well. For instance, within trade with Korea and Japan. In this paper, I will analyze the following questions; 1) Does trade statistics discrepancies also happen in the China-Korea and China-Japan trade returns? 2) What are the reasons for the China-Korea and China-Japan trade returns discordance? Does Hong Kong's re-exportation of goods, which causes the China-U.S. trade returns discordance, affect the China-Korea and China-Japan trade returns discordance in the same way? 3) Is it possible to solve the existing trade returns discordance in China-Korea and China-Japan trade by readjusting Hong Kong's re-exportation of goods? 4) Was the change in the trade returns finding method of China a reason for trade returns discordance between 1985 and 2000? As a result, I confirmed that China calculates trade returns by taking full advantage of Hong Kong's role in trade with Korea and Japan. This is also clearly shown in the China-U.S. trade returns finding method as well. Recently, China-Korea and China-Japan trade returns discordance have been affecting the trade negotiation process. In fact, China often pressures other countries to open their markets claiming that there is trade inequality. Therefore, to solve the issue of trade returns discordance, there is a need for states that trade with China, including Korea, Japan and the U.S., to jointly set a system for some type of action against China's trade returns finding methods. Establishing a joint commission on trade returns with China to conduct cooperative research would be beneficial for the U.S., Japan, and Korea; considerably more beneficial than each country attempting to settle the disparity on its own.