Expansion of the Government Procurement Agreement: Time to Concentrate on Depth as well as Width
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) was designed to liberalize and expand trade in government procurement. Revised GPA was implemented in 1996 and the latest revision was completed (but not yet implemented) in 2012, but as a plurilateral agreement. Since the end of the UR, there has been attempts by various WTO members to liberalize trade in the government procurement market - through an expansion of Parties who are signatories to GPA, and through a negotiated agreement on transparency in government procurement. The attempt to expand the Parties who are signatories to the GPA - attempt to increase the width of the coverage of the agreement - has been somewhat successful, but I argue that the goal should be to further liberate the government procurement markets of the current Party members - to reduce thresholds and other barriers which limit market access even to other GPA members, in other words, to increase the depth of coverage. Taking cue from Korea’s FTA, I propose a two-level liberalization of the government procurement market under the GPA: A “light” level which would be the same as the current level of liberalization; and a “deep” level with lower thresholds and less exemptions. I argue that, as seen in Korea, with FTAs, many GPA Parties already have multiple levels of liberalization (i.e, spaghetti-bowl effect of FTAs), but by limiting the levels of liberalization to two, we can seek the best of deep liberalization but reduce the spaghetti-bowl effect.
Abstract
WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) was designed to liberalize and expand trade in government procurement. Revised GPA was implemented in 1996 and the latest revision was completed (but not yet implemented) in 2012, but as a plurilateral agreement. Since the end of the UR, there has been attempts by various WTO members to liberalize trade in the government procurement market - through an expansion of Parties who are signatories to GPA, and through a negotiated agreement on transparency in government procurement. The attempt to expand the Parties who are signatories to the GPA - attempt to increase the width of the coverage of the agreement - has been somewhat successful, but I argue that the goal should be to further liberate the government procurement markets of the current Party members - to reduce thresholds and other barriers which limit market access even to other GPA members, in other words, to increase the depth of coverage. Taking cue from Korea’s FTA, I propose a two-level liberalization of the government procurement market under the GPA: A “light” level which would be the same as the current level of liberalization; and a “deep” level with lower thresholds and less exemptions. I argue that, as seen in Korea, with FTAs, many GPA Parties already have multiple levels of liberalization (i.e, spaghetti-bowl effect of FTAs), but by limiting the levels of liberalization to two, we can seek the best of deep liberalization but reduce the spaghetti-bowl effect.
참고문헌 (15)
- The WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA): An Emerging Tool of Global Integration and Good Governance” downloaded from WTO website. A version of this paper has been published in Law in Transition Online Autumn(October) 2010, European Bank for Recoinstriction and Development, "Anderson, R. D", ~ (2010)
- Anderson, R. D., "Assessing the Value of Future Accessions to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA): Some New Daat Sources, Provisional Estimates and an Evaluative Framework for Individual WTO Members Considering Accession” WTO, downloaded from the WTO website", ~ (2011)
- Kang, M, "The Effect of WTO GPA on the Korean Economy" (2003), Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
- Kim, J. D, "Strategies on WTO Negotiation in GATS Rules, Policy Analysis I 00-08", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
- "Opening Remarks at WTO Symposium on the Agreement on Government Procurement: Developmental and Trade Significance, Changing Context and Future Prospects” Presented on Feb.11"[URL]
- Capacity Building of Developing Countries for Making the Rules of Trade Facilitation, Policy Analysis 04-07, "Lee, C. S", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, ~ (2004)
- Government Procurement: A Synthesis Report, "OECD", OECD, ~ (2001)
- Stiglitz, J. E, "Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Trionfetti, F., "Discriminatory Public Procurement and International Trade", World Economy, 23(1), pp.57~76 (2000)
- Yang, J, "Agreement on Transparency in Government Procurement, In Analyses and Policy Implications of the WTO New Issues Policy Analysis I 00-11", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, ~ (2000)
- Yang, J., "Effective Korean FTA Negotiation Strategy for Opening the Government Procurement Market: Korea’s Thresholds and the Spaghetti Bowl Effect", The Journal of Korea Association of Procurement and Supply Management, 8(2), pp.57~80 (2008)
- 양준석, "정부조달 시장 무역장벽 관세상당치의 추정", 국제통상연구, 13(3), pp.1~25 (2008), 한국국제통상학회
- Yang, J, "Korean Free Trade Agreement Negotiations in Government Procurement: Results and Policy Suggestions", Journal of Public Procurement, 10(3), pp.335~367 (2010)
- Yang, J, "Multilateral Discussions in Government Procurement and Implications for Korea", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, ~ (2001)
- "World Bank Data Website"[URL]