아시아 ‧ 태평양 지역 경제통합과 아세안의 중심성
Asia-Pacific Region's economic integration and the ASEAN centrality
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The paper discusses on a related important development affecting ASEAN and Asia-Pacific Region's economic integration: the TPP agreement. The TPP was signed in 2005 by Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand and Chile; but Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia, Peru, the USA, Mexico, Canada and Japan are now negotiating accession. It too is premised on the addition of an Investment Chapter, with investor-State arbitration provisions also proving to be contentious. Two large regional economic arrangements are currently vying each other in the Asia-Pacific region: the US-led TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership) and the ASEAN-centered RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). The TPP pursues a high-standard agreement, while the negotiating objective of the RCEP is modest, focusing on tariff cuts with flexibility. Whether the two competing trade blocs will converge into a region-wide FTA, or will become mutually exclusive will determine the future of trading architecture in the Asia Pacific. Among the two possible scenarios, however, the fragmented scenario is more likely. This will cause huge inefficiency cost to the business sector, and undesirable political tension between the two superpowers. To avoid this scenario, countries participating in both the TPP and RCEP need to put greater efforts to make the frameworks of the two FTAs become similar, keeping in mind a possibile synthesis in the future. ASEAN countries should also assume an active role in keeping up with their pledge of “the ASEAN centrality,” since a fragmented scenario would run counter to the concept and is eventually detrimental to the ASEAN community. Rivalry between the U.S. and China might become the major determinant in shaping the future of regional economic architecture. The two powers should demonstrate their political leadership to pave the way for the desirable institution in the Asia-Pacific region
Abstract
The paper discusses on a related important development affecting ASEAN and Asia-Pacific Region's economic integration: the TPP agreement. The TPP was signed in 2005 by Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand and Chile; but Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia, Peru, the USA, Mexico, Canada and Japan are now negotiating accession. It too is premised on the addition of an Investment Chapter, with investor-State arbitration provisions also proving to be contentious. Two large regional economic arrangements are currently vying each other in the Asia-Pacific region: the US-led TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership) and the ASEAN-centered RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). The TPP pursues a high-standard agreement, while the negotiating objective of the RCEP is modest, focusing on tariff cuts with flexibility. Whether the two competing trade blocs will converge into a region-wide FTA, or will become mutually exclusive will determine the future of trading architecture in the Asia Pacific. Among the two possible scenarios, however, the fragmented scenario is more likely. This will cause huge inefficiency cost to the business sector, and undesirable political tension between the two superpowers. To avoid this scenario, countries participating in both the TPP and RCEP need to put greater efforts to make the frameworks of the two FTAs become similar, keeping in mind a possibile synthesis in the future. ASEAN countries should also assume an active role in keeping up with their pledge of “the ASEAN centrality,” since a fragmented scenario would run counter to the concept and is eventually detrimental to the ASEAN community. Rivalry between the U.S. and China might become the major determinant in shaping the future of regional economic architecture. The two powers should demonstrate their political leadership to pave the way for the desirable institution in the Asia-Pacific region
참고문헌 (48)
- 강유덕, "EU의 대ASEAN FTA 추진 현황과한·EU 교역에 대한 영향 전망", KIEP: 오늘의 세계경제, pp.1~12 (2013), 대외경제정책연구원
- 권율, "인도-ASEAN간 경제협력과 FTA 추진현황", 세계경제, pp.58~63 (2003), 대외경제정책연구원
- 김양희, "일본의「포괄적 EPA 기본방침」에 대한 평가와시사점:- 일본의 환태평양파트너십(TPP) 참가는 실현될 것인가?", KIEP 오늘의 세계경제, 10(29), pp.2~9 (2012)
- 원 아시아 전략보고서, "매일경제 국제부", 매일경제신문사, 26~ (2010)
- 민경식, "동아시아 경제통합의 현황과 논점에 관한 연구", 아태연구, 15(2), pp.31~51 (2008), 국제지역연구원
- 박번순, "아세안+3과 동아시아 협력", GLOBAL ISSUE, (9), pp.2~9 (2004)
- 박종귀, "FTA와 한국경제의 미래", pp.73~ (2004), 새로운사람들
- 여혁종, "아세안-호주-뉴질랜드 FTA 발효", 동향, 22(2)통권 : 478, pp.1~5 (2012)
- 유현정, "중국과 아세안 FTA: 전면 발효와 우리의 대응방안", 정세와 정책, pp.1~5 (2010)
- 임경수, "아태지역에서의 경제통합 및 시사점", KIEP 지역경제포커스, 6(32) (2010)
- 전영수, "한국경제 프리즘", pp.395~ (2008), 비즈니스맵
- 한-아세안 FTA 체결이후 수출유망품목의 수출동향, "KOTRA", kotra, ~ (2011)
- 추경덕, "태국의 FTA 정책과 시사점", pp.40~49 (2013), 대외경제정책연구원
- 동아시아 광역 FTA 형성의 관점에서 본한국의 FTA 추진 전력, "최병일", 한국경제연구원, 26~52 (2012)
- 한국무역협회 국제무역연구원, "RCEP 추진 동향 및 전망", ITT Trade Brief, (34), pp.1~12 (2013)
- "일본‧인도, EPA에 서명"[URL]
- "주요국 FTA 현황: 싱가포르"[URL]
- "인도ㆍ아세안 FTA 체결…교역품 80% 무관세"[URL]
- "아세안-인도 FTA 추가 체결…전략적동반자 관계로 승격"[URL]
- "아시아 16개국 RCEP 체결 위한 첫걸음 내디뎠다"[URL]
- "韓 등 16개국 정상, RCEP 협상 개시 선언"[URL]
- "APEC정상회의…美주도 TPP - 中의 RCEP…한국정부 선택 기로에…"[URL]
- "FTA 세계대전: 각국 경쟁적 경제협정"[URL]
- Asian Economic Integration Monitor, Mandaluyong City, "ADB", ADB, 44~ (2012)
- "미 무역대표부, TPP 고리로 통상현안 압박, “한-미FTA 우려부터 해결하라”며 금융정보·자동차 등 4대 요구 제시"[URL]
- of the Track Two Study Group on Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia(CEPEA), "CEPEA Track Two Study Group", 14~ (2008)
- Phase II Report of the Track Two Study Group on Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia(CEPEA), "CEPEA Track Two Study Group", ~ (2009)
- Claude Barfield, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Model for Twenty-First-Century Trade Agreements?", American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research International Economic Outlook, No. 2, 4~5 (2011)
- Craig Van Grasstek, "US Plans for a New WTO Round: Negotiating More Agreements with Less Authority", The World Economy, 23(5), pp.673~700 (2000)
- "Comments on US Strategy for Promoting Trans-Pacific Partnership"[URL]
- Fu Mengzi, ""TPP, the Adjustment of America’'s Asia-Pacific Strategy, and Its influence on China", China Review, pp.26~ (2012)
- Guoyou Song, "Free Trade Agreement Strategies", The Washington Quarterly ,Center for Strategic and International Studies, 35(4), pp.110~1129 (2012)
- Huangpu and Liping, "The Real Intention Behind the United States’ Proactive Promotion of TPP", Outlook, December 6, 58~ (2011)
- US Trade Policy: The Infatuation with FTAs, "Jagdish Natwarlal Bhagwati", Columbia University, ~, pp.726 (1995)
- "Towards an East Asian FTA: Modality and Roadmap" (2006)[URL]
- "Desirable and Feasible Option for an East Asia FTA: A Report,Monograph" (2009)[URL]
- "East Asian Free Trade Area: bank on it, East Asia Forum" (2011)[URL]
- John Ravenhill, "'Extending the TPP: The Political Economy of Multilateralization in Asia", paper presented in UNESCAP Asia-Pacific Trade Economists’ Conference on Trade-Led Growth in Times of Crisis (2009)
- Asian FTAs: Trends and Challenges, "Masahiro Kawai and Ganeshan Wignaraja", ADBI, ~ (2009)
- "Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations Take Place in Kuala Lumpur" (2011)[URL]
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A Quantitative Assessment, "Peter A. Petri", East-West Center, ~, pp.119 (2011)
- R. Baldwin, "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade", The World Economy, 29(11) (2006)
- Shen Minghui, "Towards a Region-wide FTA in East Asia—A Chinese perspective", Ritsumeikan International Affairs, (34), pp.16~18 (2011)
- Australia and the Future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, "Shiro Patrick Armstrong", EABER, 22~, pp.71 (2011)
- Wei Lei, "The Intensions of America’s TPP Strategy and China’s Responses", International Trade, (9), pp.54~58 (2010)
- Yang Jiemian, "The Change of America’s Power and Re-structure of International System", International Studies, (2), pp.57~ (2012)
- Zhang Yunling, "Impact of FTA on Business Activity—A Survey on Firms in PRC (the People’s Republic of China)", Contemporary Asian-Pacific Studies, (1) (2010)
- The Status of East Asian Free Trade Agreements, "Zhang Yunling", ADBI, 26~, pp.282 (2011)