The Korean government is pursuing a New Southern Policy to diversify its trading partners and reduce US-China risk. This study aims to provide policy implications for promoting cooperation in services sector between Korea and ASEAN in line with such New Southern Policy which is at the stage of establishing implementation strategies.
   Since Korean firms have continued to advance into the ASEAN market, the firms in the services sector such as finance, logistics, construction, distribution, and rental, etc., are also entering the market with the demand of incumbent manufacturing firms. However, due to the lack of relevant data, research on the service sector of ASEAN is insufficient. In addition, an analysis of service trade regulations of ASEAN is difficult because there are cases where the regulations of ASEAN member countries are different or even there is no transparent regulation. Therefore, this report try to analyzes the current status of trade in services and restrictiveness of service trade regulations of ASEAN using various methodologies such as statistical and empirical analysis, related law and literature survey, and field studies considering of the limited data sources and the specificity of ASEAN. Throughout the paper, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Brunei are excluded from the analysis, and only six ASEAN countries are analyzed.
   In Chapter 2, We overview the current status and trends of services trade in ASEAN, and then conduct GVC analysis to investigate the indirectly traded content of services being embodied in exported goods. Lastly, we focuses on the services trade on the basis of mode of supply (Mode 1~4) to capture trade volumes which are not accurately identified in the traditional statistics. According to the analysis, service trade in ASEAN-6 economy is increasing rapidly and it seems to increase faster than world trade trends.  This increase comes from the growth of travel, other business activities and transport sector. By country, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines led the increase in services export, while Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines led the increase in services imports. According to the results of Section 2, which analyzes the production networks in which ASEAN-6 are involved, ASEAN and Korea rarely depend on each other’s services sector in their production process. In Section 3, we find that Mode 1 (cross-border trade) and Mode 3 (commercial presence) are the major mode of supply of services from Korea to ASEAN.
   The relatively low services trade between Korea and ASEAN seems to come from the following factors: barriers to trade in ASEAN, restrictive service regulation of the Korea, comparative disadvantage of services sector in Korea. To identify the barriers to service trade between Korea and ASEAN rigorously, we first explore the services trade regulation of ASEAN in Chapter 3 using World Bank’s Service Trade Restrictions Index (STRI). According to World Bank’s STRI, the average STRI of ASEAN-5 in 2012 is 46, which is higher than that of high-income OECD countries (average 20) and still high considering the low income level of ASEAN. Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam were recorded high STRI, and professionals were the highest sector among others. In transport, air transport were relatively open to foreign supplier, but roads and rail freight transport had relatively restrictive policy. However, even if STRI is lower, it is often found that the authorities restrict foreign entry through limited issuance of licenses. For example, even if full foreign ownership is allowed to foreign investors, new license are not being issued. There are no relevant regulation or policy, but in practice entry of foreign firm is not allowed.
   According to the results of Section 2 of Chapter 3, the services trade regulations permitted by the GATS and DDA is more restrictive than the actual trade regime in ASEAN. The preferential trade agreements signed by ASEAN were considered to have gained additional liberalization than GATS, but it is difficult to say that it gained additional opening of the service market in practice considering the “water.” Above this, ASEAN make an effort to achieve higher service trade liberalization through trade agreement among ASEAN member states, AFAS (ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services). According to the 9th package of AFAS (ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services), which is a service trade liberalization agreement among ASEAN member states, the higher level of liberalization has been achieved in educational, environmental, construction and related engineering services, whereas the lower level of opening have occurred in transport, health related and social services, recreational, cultural, and sporting services. Since the 7-8th package of AFAS is considered to provide the highest committment among ASEAN-signed FTAs, the 9th package of AFAS could be used as a target for negotiating or upgrading FTA with ASEAN. 
   In Chapter 4, we examine the effects of services trade regulations on services trade between Korea and ASEAN using empirical models and case studies. In Section 1, we conduct an empirical analysis on the cross-border service trade (Mode 1) and consumption abroad (Mode 2). Empirical results show that the restrictive regulations of importing and exporting countries discourage the trade in services, and the extent of the negative effects of service regulations on trade varies by sectors. Also, cross-border supply (Mode 1) and commercial presence (Mode 3) appears to be substitute in some sectors, but complement in others. Notable thing is that the coefficients on the STRI of Mode 3 has significantly larger magnitude than those on the STRI of Mode 1. In Section 2~3 , we conduct case analysis to identify the actual service trade barriers of Mode 3~4 (commercial presence, movement of natural persons) in wholesale and retail sector of Vietnam and financial sector of Indonesia. According to the results, the level of commitments provided by ASEAN-Korea FTA and Korea-Vietnam FTA is not higher than the currently applied regulations, and it seems that there are various difficulties besides the notified regulations, such as the ambiguity concerning interpretation of regulations, the practice of demanding bribes, and the obligation to transfer expertise, etc. 
   Based on the analyses of trade in services between Korea and ASEAN, and service trade regulations of ASEAN, Chapter 5 explores ways to improve the international competitiveness of Korean services sector, and strengthen cooperation between Korea-ASEAN in services sector. As presented in the report, we suggests the following recommendations for the growth of trade in services: (ⅰ) making an effort to lower domestic and foreign service trade barriers (ⅱ) seeking to harmonization of regulations with major trading partners of Korea (ⅲ) fostering high value-added services industry (ⅳ) strengthening the linkage between services and manufacturing sectors for efficient functioning of GVC that Korea is involved (ⅴ) building services trade statistics for policy making. Also, we provide the following policy suggestions to strengthen the cooperation of Korea-ASEAN in services sector: (ⅰ) supporting the reform and opening of the ASEAN services industry through Aid-for-Trade (ⅱ) promoting negotiations on upgrading the ASEAN-Korea FTA (ⅲ) collecting the information on difficulties from the business continuously and making effort to reflect the opinions from the consultative groups of business. 

서언

국문요약

제1장 서론
1. 연구배경 및 목적
2. 연구의 범위와 구성
3. 선행연구와의 차별성

제2장 ASEAN과 주요국 간 서비스 무역 현황
1. ASEAN의 서비스 무역
    가. ASEAN 서비스업 개관
    나. ASEAN의 서비스 교역
2. 부가가치 기준 서비스 무역
3. 공급유형별 서비스 무역

제3장 ASEAN의 서비스 제도 및 규제 현황
1. ASEAN 서비스무역제한지수
    가. ASEAN-6의 World Bank STRI 종합지수 비교
    나. ASEAN-6의 서비스 업종별·공급유형별 STRI 비교
    다. ASEAN-6의 서비스 업종별 Mode 3 관련 주요 규제
2. GATS 및 ASEAN+1 FTA를 통한 서비스 시장 개방 현황
    가. GATS를 통한 서비스 자유화 현황
    나. ASEAN+1 FTA를 통한 서비스 시장 추가개방
3. ASEAN 역내 서비스 규제협력 논의 현황
    가. 아세안의 역내 서비스 자유화 주요 내용
    나. 아세안의 역내 서비스 자유화 이행 특징과 전망

제4장 한-ASEAN 간 서비스 무역 저해요인 분석
1. 서비스 교역 결정요인 실증분석
    가. 실증분석 모형과 자료
    나. 분석결과
2. 사례분석: 베트남의 도소매업
    가. 베트남 도소매업 개관
    나. 베트남 도소매업 규제
    다. 베트남의 도소매업: 서비스무역장벽 평가
3. 사례분석: 인도네시아의 금융업
    가. 인도네시아 금융업 개관
    나. 인도네시아 금융업 규제
    다. 인도네시아의 금융업: 서비스 무역장벽 평가

제5장 서비스 부문 정책방향 
1. 서비스 정책방향 제언
2. 한-아세안 서비스 교역 확대를 위한 정책방안
3. 요약 및 결론

참고문헌

부록

Executive Summary