Journal of Industrial Convergence (산업융합연구)

DAEHAN Society of Industrial Management (대한산업경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Japan's CPTPP Trade Effect Using Gravity Model

중력모형을 이용한 일본의 CPTPP 교역 효과 분석

  • Received : 2023.04.24
  • Accepted : 2023.05.20
  • Published : 2023.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The South Korean government announced its plan to pursue membership in the CPTPP in 2022, aiming to establish a stable supply chain within the Asia-Pacific region. The CPTPP, led by Japan, was ratified in 2018 by 11 countries with the goal of eliminating tariffs and establishing new trade rules. According to our analysis, since the implementation of the CPTPP, there has been a trade promotion effect among Japan and member countries, with greater effects observed in countries with higher GDP per capita and closer geographical distance. As long as tariff elimination and reduction proceed as planned, the trade promotion effects are expected to expand gradually. However, the expansion of trade between Japan and CPTPP member countries may also indicate a relative contraction in trade with non-member countries, potentially posing a threat to the stable supply chain in the Korean industry within the Asia-Pacific region. As Japan is Korea's fourth-largest trading partner, it is necessary to carefully consider the impact of CPTPP on Japan's future trade with member countries and engage in discussions regarding Korea's participation and negotiation content based on a thorough examination of the matter.

우리 정부는 2022년에 아시아·태평양 지역 내 안정적인 공급망 구축 등을 위해 CPTPP 가입을 추진한다는 계획을 발표하였다. CPTPP는 아시아·태평양 지역의 경제통합 기치 아래 예외 없는 관세 철폐와 새로운 통상규범 정립 등을 목표로 일본이 주도하고 있으며 2018년에 11개국 간 타결되어 출범하였다. 본고의 분석에 따르면 CPTPP 발효 이후 일본과 회원국 간 교역 증진 효과가 확인되었고, 1인당 GDP가 많고 거리가 짧을수록 그 효과가 더욱 컸으며 관세 철폐 및 감축이 예정대로 진행된다면 교역 증진 효과는 점차 확대될 것으로 예상된다. 반면, 일본과 CPTPP 회원국 간 교역 확대는 비회원국과의 교역이 상대적으로 위축될 수도 있다는 것을 시사하므로 아시아·태평양 지역 내에서 안정적인 공급망을 구축해야 하는 우리나라 산업 측면에서는 위협 요인으로 작용할 수도 있다. 일본은 우리나라의 네 번째 무역 상대국으로 주요 교역 파트너인 만큼 CPTPP가 향후 일본과 회원국 간 교역에 미치는 영향에 대한 면밀한 검토 등을 토대로 우리나라의 CPTPP 참여 여부 및 협상 내용 관련 논의가 이루어져야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Economy and Fiance. (2022.4.15.). The 228th Foreign Economic Ministers' Meeting. https://www.moef.go.kr/com/synap/synapView.do;jsessionid=QZGSiZtdWjJLQ2ro-iPC5PM5.node50?atchFileId=ATCH_000000000020140&fileSn=1
  2. Customs Service. (2023.2.1.). Current status of imports and exports using Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in its first year of enactment. https://www.customs.go.kr/kcs/na/ntt/selectNttInfo.do?mi=2891&bbsId=1362&nttSn=10072734
  3. K. P. Kim., H. K. Lee., J. E. Lee & J. K. Kim. (2018). Changes in the global trade environment and Japan's trade policy. Sejong : KIEP (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)
  4. Cabinet Secretariat. (2013). Status of TPP agreement begotiations. Tokyo : Cabinet Secretariat
  5. N. Suzuki. (2013). Reexamination of government estimates on the impact of the TPP: The TPP will damage national interests. http://eimei.hondana.jp/nokei/book/573676
  6. S. S. Kim. (2015). U.S.'s Trans-Pacific Partnership policy and the role of Japan. Journal of Global Politics. 8(2), 5-28. UCI : I410-ECN-0102-2017-340-000241978
  7. H. J. Kim & K. Y. Lee. (2016). Japan's position of joining in the TPP negotiations. Journal of Korean Political Science Society. 24(2), 217-237. DOI : 10.34221/KJPS.2016.24.2.10
  8. N. H. Han. (2017). A study on the effect of the formal signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement(TPP) on Korean trade. Journal of Regional Industry Research. 40(4), 93-118. UCI : I410-ECN-0102-2018-000-003881884.
  9. C. Chung, S. C. Park, I. W. Park, M. S. Kim, S. Y. Kwak & M. C. Chung. (2017). The impact of cumulative rules of origin on trade costs: Estimates from FTAs, economic effects and policy implications. Sejong : KIEP(Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)
  10. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2023). Status of Japan's FTAs, etc. https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000490260.pdf
  11. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2002). Japan's FTA strategy. https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/fta/senryaku.html
  12. J. Tinbergen. (1962). Shaping the World Economy. The International Executive, 5(1), 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.5060050113
  13. J. E. Anderson. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.
  14. J. McCallum. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns. American Economic Review, 85(3), 615-623.
  15. J. E. Anderson & E. V. Wincoop. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214
  16. S. L. Baier & J. H. Bergstrand. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?. Journal of international Economics, 71(1), 72-95.
  17. P. Egger & M. Larch. (2008). Interdependent preferential trade agreement memberships: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 384-399.
  18. K. Head & T. Mayer. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. Handbook of International Economics, 4, 131-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-54314-1.00003-3
  19. L. Fontagne & M. Freudenberg. (2018). The gravity of digital trade. Journal of International Economics, 112, 1-22.
  20. D. Y. Kang & Y. S. Jeon. (2015). A comparative analysis on the FTA effects by Korea and Japan. International Economic Journal, 21(3), 23-51. UCI : I410-ECN-0102-2016-320-000384485 I410-ECN-0102-2016-320-000384485
  21. Y. J. Kwon & C. D. Lee. The estimation of Korea's export to Trans-Pacific member countries using the gravity model. The Journal of International Trade & Commerce, 13(6), 249-266.
  22. K. Y. Park. (2018). An analysis on the trade effect of RCEP and TPP by gravity model. Korean Management Consulting Review, 18(1), 95-104.
  23. A. Levin. C.-F. Lin & C. S. Chu. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
  24. M. Pesaran & Y. Shin. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  25. G. S. Maddala & S. Wu. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
  26. M. H. Lee, K. O. Jung & E. Lim. (2013). A study on the causal relationship between housing land prices and apartment prices: Focused on Seoul metropolitan area. Seoul Studies, 14(2), 51-65. DOI : 10.23129/seouls.14.2.201306.51
  27. KITA. (2023.5.15.). Global trade statistics service K-stat. https://stat.kita.net/stat/istat/jts/JtsWholeList.screen