Since WTO has been established in 1995, trade liberalization has led multilateral and interregional corporation to reduce the world’s average tariff rates by an active and robust movement. Hence recently the key issue in the field of international trade is moving from tariff barriers to no-tariff barriers as the latter is not transparent, complicated and not estimated virtually unlike the former. Especially, the importance of Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) among various non tariff barriers is gradually increasing as many developed and developing countries have started to adopt many technical regulations and relevant systems since 2004.
Analyzing the TBT notifications that have been reported to WTO, the number of the member country’s new technical regulation has constantly increased. Especially the TBT notifications have drastically increased since 2004 and hit the peak in 2009. This recent trend is mainly from the increased intervention of developing country. In addition, the recent increase in the number of specific trade concerns (STCs) implies that new technical regulations are more and more likely to be trade barriers to other trading partners.
TBTs in the U.S, EU, China, and Japan which are Korea’s major trading partners have also been increased since 2004. By industry, the increased reports are shown under mainly rubber and chemical, general machinery and electrical equipment among these countries. These sectors have the high percentage of bilateral trade between Korea and them. By objective, there are many TBT notifications for environmental protection among these countries. A technical regulation for environmental protection is more likely to be adapted by each country’s subjective criterion. It is remarkable that these countries record top rankings of the country list which is brought STCs by other trading partners.
Theoretically, the economic effects of TBT can be various and different based on its type. First, viewing TBT from producer and consumer’s perspective, it can be classified by production cost and consumer utility. The TBT which increases just production cost is more likely to be trade barriers to foreign exporters, especially when it applies to only foreigners unequally. On the other hand, The TBT which increases consumer utility renders a consumer’s intention for expenditure. In this case, exporters with high technology are more likely to gain higher profit due to the TBT so that it promotes international trade.
Second, depending on the norms of TBT level it can be divided into horizontal and vertical one. The vertical TBT can be defined as the intensity of rigor on regulation, while the horizontal one exists within the cultural and geographical difference. The technical regulation for gas emission can be an example of the former, while the standard voltage for home appliances can be of the latter. It is clear that the vertical TBT is more likely to be barriers to trade. However, domestic producers can also use the horizontal TBT as useful instrument to protect from import penetration although the horizontal TBT is naturally formed from the demand side.
Theoretical analysis on TBT with its economic effects is supported by empirical results from previous researches. Previous researches result in opposite side of TBT’s economic effects depending on national, industrial and periodical property. The opposite results are influenced by the trade-off relationship between an increase in adjustment cost and a decrease in transaction cost and/or demand-stimulating effects. Again, the trade-off relationship can be differentiated by national, industrial, periodical properties.
Based on the theoretical analysis and previous researches, this paper empirically tests the effects of TBT on bilateral trade among Korea and its major trading partners, using the WTO TBT IMS and the UN COMTRADE datasets over the period 1995-2009. The empirical results show that overall there are negative effects of TBT on trade between Korea and its major trading partners. However, these negative effects persisted just in the short run generally: in the long run, the negative effects are disappeared or even transferred to positive effects in some situation. By country, the negative effects persisted longer in Korea’s bilateral trade with EU and Japan. By industry, the negative effects of TBT on exports are less prominent in sectors with comparative advantage and/or higher international competition, but more prominent in high technical-intensive sectors. These various effects of TBT on trade can be explained by the trade-off relationship which we mentioned above.

서언 

국문요약 

제1장 서 론 

제2장 최근 WTO 회원국의 TBT 동향 
1. TBT 통보문 동향 분석 
  가. 연도별 TBT 통보 건수 
  나. 주요국의 TBT 통보 건수 
  다. 산업별 TBT 통보 건수 
  라. 목적별 TBT 통보 건수 
  마. 근거조항별 TBT 통보 건수 
  바. 의견제시기간별 기술규제 통보 건수 
2. 특정무역현안(STC) 분석 
  가. 연도별 STC 건수 
  나. 유형별 특정무역현안 건수 
  다. TBT 목적별 STC 건수 
  라. 국가별 특정무역현안 건수 
  마. 선진국과 개도국의 특정무역현안 현황 
3. 소결 

제3장 주요 교역상대국 및 한국의 TBT 동향 
1. 미국 
  가. 교역 현황 
  나. TBT 통보문 및 특정무역현안 분석 
  다. 최근 우리나라 관련 미국의 주요 기술규제 
2. 중국 
  가. 교역 현황  
  나. TBT 통보문 및 특정무역현안 분석 
  다. 최근 한국 관련 중국의 주요 TBT 
3. EU 
  가. 교역 현황 
  나. TBT 통보문 및 특정무역현안 분석 
  다. 최근 한국 관련 EU의 주요 TBT 
4. 일본 
  가. 교역 현황 
  나. TBT 통보문 및 특정무역현안 분석 
  다. 최근 한국 관련 일본의 주요 TBT 
5. 한국 
  가. 교역 현황 
  나. TBT 통보문 및 STC 분석 
6. 소결 

제4장 TBT에 대한 이론적 검토 
1. 서론 
2. 생산비용 및 소비효용에 따른 분류 
  가. 단순 비용증가 TBT 
  나. 소비자 효용증가 TBT 
3. TBT 규범의 강도 비교가능성에 따른 분류 
4. RTA와 무역편의 
  가. 기본모형 
  나. 고정비용 증가 TBT의 경우 
  다. 가변비용 TBT의 경우 
5. 소결 
  가. 소비자 모형화 측면 
  나. 생산자 모형화 측면 
  다. TBT와 관세상당치 

제5장 TBT가 우리나라 무역에 미치는 영향 
1. TBT의 무역효과에 대한 주요 선행연구 
  가. TBT 측정방법에 따른 구분 
  나. 분석 대상에 따른 구분 
2. 계량모형 및 데이터 
  가. 계량모형: Arellano-Bond 추정량 
  나. 국가 및 산업 특성에 대한 교차항 
  다. 데이터 및 요약 통계값 
3. 실증분석 결과 
  가. 기본 모형: 식 (5-1), 식 (5-2) 
  나. 국가별 분석: 식 (5-7), 식 (5-8) 
  다. 산업특성별 분석: 식 (5-10), 식 (5-11) 
4. 소결 

제6장 결론 및 정책적 시사점 
1. 요약 
2. 정책적 시사점 
  가. TBT 전담 대응부서 설립  
  나. 국내 기술규제에 대한 개선 
  다. MRA 등 상대국 TBT에 대한 대응방법 
3. 본 연구의 한계 

참고문헌 

부록: 주요국 TBT 동향에 대한 상세 자료 

Executive Summary