지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2016.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 165 (165page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Background of Research
The world economy had been pursuing multilateral systems under the WTO. However, regionalism has intensified with rapid expansion of free trade agreements since 1990. On the other hand, the international trade order is recently changing from bilateral FTAs to Mega FTAs. TPP, which was concluded at the end of 2015, is an agreement, intended for economic integration of 12 countries, and by TPP, negotiation of RCEP is also accelerating.
Korea has concluded 15 FTAs with 52 countries as of July 2016 and bilateral FTAs with major countries are about to be completed. Therefore, it is time to review negotiation strategies on TPP and RCEP as well as trade policy of Mega FTA.
This study reviews issues to consider when negotiating TPP and RCEP, drawing negotiation strategy. Also, it aims to suggest trade strategy which can minimize impact on the agricultural sector and utilize Mega FTAs.
Method of Research
Literatures regarding trends of international trade order and discussion on Mega FTAs were reviewed to study background of new international trade order. Also, current trade issues which Korea is facing were analyzed through the results of TPP negotiation, discussion and issues of RCEP, previous studies and statistical data.
Regular forums and seminars were held to discuss current agricultural trade issues and the implications drawn from the forums were reflected in this study. The agricultural trade forum was formed of experts from agricultural and non-agricultural sectors and it was used as a door to collect extensive opinions.
Research Results and Implications
It is expected that the international trade negotiation will be developed, mainly by Mega-FTA and certain agendas in future. In particular, TPP established regulations on new trade issues over free trade of goods, including regulations which have not been treated in the WTO.
Korea is required to have attitude of careful access since it has to adopt the existing agreement as a late comer. Most of all, conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors concerning market opening are likely to occur, so responses need to be prepared to minimize social conflicts and costs considering domestic and overseas requirements. In particular, we need to prepare for additional market opening of sensitive products such as rice and measures on reinforcement of SPS regulations.
Since Korea opened ASEAN and Chinese markets at a low level through FTAs, RCEP is likely to have bigger effect than that of TPP. Particularly, because there are a lot of agricultural exporters in RCEP, we need to prepare for responses to market access and regulations.
Through Mega FTA, Korea will be able to create added value in terms of backward participation which exports manufactured products using the materials from overseas. Not only expanding exports of processed food with customs benefit of materials imported through Mega FTAs, but we also need to make it as an opportunity to export agricultural materials to the member countries.
The world economy had been pursuing multilateral systems under the WTO. However, regionalism has intensified with rapid expansion of free trade agreements since 1990. On the other hand, the international trade order is recently changing from bilateral FTAs to Mega FTAs. TPP, which was concluded at the end of 2015, is an agreement, intended for economic integration of 12 countries, and by TPP, negotiation of RCEP is also accelerating.
Korea has concluded 15 FTAs with 52 countries as of July 2016 and bilateral FTAs with major countries are about to be completed. Therefore, it is time to review negotiation strategies on TPP and RCEP as well as trade policy of Mega FTA.
This study reviews issues to consider when negotiating TPP and RCEP, drawing negotiation strategy. Also, it aims to suggest trade strategy which can minimize impact on the agricultural sector and utilize Mega FTAs.
Method of Research
Literatures regarding trends of international trade order and discussion on Mega FTAs were reviewed to study background of new international trade order. Also, current trade issues which Korea is facing were analyzed through the results of TPP negotiation, discussion and issues of RCEP, previous studies and statistical data.
Regular forums and seminars were held to discuss current agricultural trade issues and the implications drawn from the forums were reflected in this study. The agricultural trade forum was formed of experts from agricultural and non-agricultural sectors and it was used as a door to collect extensive opinions.
Research Results and Implications
It is expected that the international trade negotiation will be developed, mainly by Mega-FTA and certain agendas in future. In particular, TPP established regulations on new trade issues over free trade of goods, including regulations which have not been treated in the WTO.
Korea is required to have attitude of careful access since it has to adopt the existing agreement as a late comer. Most of all, conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors concerning market opening are likely to occur, so responses need to be prepared to minimize social conflicts and costs considering domestic and overseas requirements. In particular, we need to prepare for additional market opening of sensitive products such as rice and measures on reinforcement of SPS regulations.
Since Korea opened ASEAN and Chinese markets at a low level through FTAs, RCEP is likely to have bigger effect than that of TPP. Particularly, because there are a lot of agricultural exporters in RCEP, we need to prepare for responses to market access and regulations.
Through Mega FTA, Korea will be able to create added value in terms of backward participation which exports manufactured products using the materials from overseas. Not only expanding exports of processed food with customs benefit of materials imported through Mega FTAs, but we also need to make it as an opportunity to export agricultural materials to the member countries.
목차
[표지]
[머리말]
[요약]
[ABSTRACT]
[차례]
표차례
그림차례
[제1장 서론]
1. 연구 배경
2. 연구 필요성 및 목적
3. 선행연구 검토
4. 연구 내용
5. 연구 방법
[제2장 우리나라 FTA 추진현황 및 농업부문 평가]
1. 우리나라 FTA 체결 동향
2. FTA 체결 후 수출입 변화 분석
2. 우리나라와 TPP 회원국의 농산물 교역 동향
3. 품목별 개방도 분석
4. FTA 시대 농업통상 평가
[제3장 TPP 관련 농업 분야 현안]
1. TPP 역내국 현황
3. TPP 회원국과 우리나라의 수출경합도
4. TPP 협상 주요 결과 및 농업통상 관련 이슈
[제4장 TPP 대응 방안]
1. 시장접근 분야
2. 규범 분야
3. 소결
[제5장 RCEP 관련 농업 분야 현안]
1. RCEP 역내국 현황
2. 우리나라와 RCEP 회원국의 농산물 교역 현황
3. RCEP 회원국 간 수출경합도
[제6장 RCEP 대응 방안]
1. 시장접근 분야
2. 규범 분야
3. 소결
[제7장 글로벌가치사슬(GVCs)과 Mega-FTA]
1. GVC 개요
2. 농식품 분야 GVC
3. Mega-FTA 활용 전략
[제8장 요약 및 결론]
[참고문헌]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Mega FTA가 e-비즈니스 경제에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구
e-비즈니스연구
2018 .02
-
한국의 TPP 가입 당위성에 관한 연구
무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집
2015 .05
-
한국의 TPP 가입 당위성에 관한 연구
한국무역학회 학술대회
2015 .05
-
글로벌 통상환경 변화와 일본의 통상정책
[KIEP] 연구보고서
2017 .12
-
우리나라 기체결 FTA 및 TPP의 서비스 협정문 검토
한양법학
2016 .02
-
Mega-FTA 시대에 원산지 누적기준의 활용과 대책 : 중소기업의 해외진출을 중심으로
무역학회지
2016 .11
-
Reversed Asymmetry in Japan’s and Korea’s FTAs: TPP and Beyond
Pacific Focus
2017 .01
-
기체결 FTA 이행에 따른 농산물 관세개방도 분석과 시사점 : RCEP과 TPP 협상에 대비하여
농업경영.정책연구
2017 .01
-
한·ASEAN FTA 협정이 수산부문에 미친 영향: 한국-베트남을 중심으로
국제지역연구
2015 .01
-
FTA 전자상거래 장(章)의 변천과 과제 -한·미FTA, 한·중FTA, TPP를 중심으로-
IT와 법연구
2017 .01
-
한국의 해외직접투자와 자유무역협정이 교역에 미치는 영향
한국사회과학연구
2021 .08
-
메가 FTA에 대한 중소기업의 인식조사 연구 - 경기, 부산경남, 강원지역을 중심으로 -
통상정보연구
2020 .03
-
자유무역협정(Free Trade Agreements)이 무역비용에 미친영향: 한국 FTA를 중심으로
무역연구
2018 .01
-
The Effect of FTA's Results on China Distribution Company
유통과학연구
2017 .01
-
The Spatial Spillover Effects of third-Countries’ Free Trade Agreement on Trade
한국무역학회 세미나 및 토론회
2016 .04
-
Trans-Pacific Partnership and China’s Handling Thereof
전자무역연구
2016 .01
-
FTA 특혜관세 활용에 대한 실증분석: RCEP 국가들 대상으로
국제통상연구
2017 .01
-
Japan's TPP Strategy
[KIEP] World Economy Brief
2018 .02
-
한국의 중간재 교역 증진에 따른 FTA 원산지 교차 누적 활용 확대 필요성에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2021 .02
-
글로벌 가치사슬 시대 수출중소기업의 한·중 FTA 활용방안에 관한 연구
무역보험연구
2015 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-522-002359297