TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) and SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) have two attributes. They act as barriers to trade expansion by protecting producers, but their importance has grown in terms of consumer protection measures after the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than eliminating related regulations,  achieving harmonization within the ASEAN region can simultaneously serve two objectives: expanding trade between South Korea and ASEAN and improving consumer protection. We assess the level of regional economic integration by measuring regulatory distances among ASEAN member states. We also measure regulatory distances between South Korea and ASEAN, and between Japan and ASEAN. We estimate the impact of ASEAN’s TBT and SPS on the export performance of countries exporting goods to the ASEAN region. In addition, a survey of South Korean firms exporting goods to the ASEAN region is conducted to assess their difficulties and to evaluate South Korea’s support policies.

Chapter 2 evaluates the economic integration efforts within the ASEAN region, focusing on TBT and SPS. In 2020, ASEAN conducted a mid-term assessment of economic integration and produced the “Mid-Term Review: ASEAN Economic Blueprint 2025” in 2021. According to the results, ASEAN has achieved 54.1% of the sectoral work plans, with the remaining 34.2% currently underway and expected to be achieved without major problems. The ASEAN recognizes the need for regional integration to overcome the poly-crises facing the global economy. ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework (ACRF) views economic integration as a means of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated poly-crises. As a result, intra-ASEAN trade and investment have  increased steadily since 2021. 

A notable harmonization effort for non-tariff measures such as TBT and SPS in the ACRF is the development and application of the “Non-Tariff Measures Cost-Effectiveness Toolkit.” This toolkit encourages individual ASEAN member states to assess both the introduction process and the cost-effectiveness of their non-tariff measures, thereby promoting harmonization. Additionally, the “Framework for Circular Economy for the ASEAN Economic Community,” adopted by ASEAN in 2021, can be seen as an effort to harmonized regulations related to circular goods and services. While existing regulations in manufacturing sectors may require more time to harmonize because they are already in place, emerging sectors like circular goods and services can flexibly seek regulatory harmonization within the ASEAN region due to their ongoing establishment. By achieving standard harmonization and mutual recognition agreements for these sectors, South Korea and ASEAN can anticipate efficiency gains and regional integration, resulting in  trade facilitation effects between the two regions.

Furthermore, an analysis of TBT and SPS cases in Vietnam and Indonesia, key partners in the “Korea-ASEAN Solidarity Initiative (KASI),” aimed at assisting South Korean firms to  enter the ASEAN region. Indonesia still faces issues related to certification and testing, including ‘halal’ certification. Vietnam, despite its high level of integration into the global economy as evidenced by its high trade dependence, has not implemented high-level TBT and SPS measures due to the low technological competitiveness of its domestic and indigenous firms. However, there are concerns about the transparency and adequacy of the implementation process. Capacity building is urgently needed in Vietnam and Indonesia to ensure the transparent use of SPS and TBT for public purposes. 

Chapter 3 first measured regulatory distances among ASEAN member states (AMS) from 2015 to 2018. During this period, it was observed that TBT and SPS regulatory distances among AMS increased, indicating a lack of regulatory harmonization within the ASEAN region. This can be attributed to the rapid economic growth, leading AMS to focus more on protecting their own citizens. It should be noted, however, that the data used in the study is only available up to 2018, making it  impossible to compare with the more recent results. As discussed in Chapter 2, ASEAN has made harmonization efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and poly-crises. Therefore, it is expected that regulatory gaps will decrease as the 2025 integration target approaches.

Second, using Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), TBT and SPS regulatory distances between South Korea and ASEAN are found to be greater than those between Japan and ASEAN. When the average SPS regulatory distance index between South Korea, Japan, and ASEAN Member States (AMS) is plotted using MDS, South Korea is located further away from Japan and the AMS. This indicates that South Korea’s SPS regulations appear to be heterogeneous compared to those of Japan and AMS. Regarding TBT, except for Vietnam and Cambodia, Japan and the AMS are  close to each other, while South Korea is far from the AMS. This result can be attributed to Japan’s historical contributions to ASEAN’s institutional establishment through the activities of ERIA and ADB. South Korea needs to actively participate in projects aimed at strengthening institutional linkages between South Korea and ASEAN, in particular, in emerging sectors like environmental and digital industries, in order to harmonize the SPS and TBT regulations in these new sectors. 

Third, industries in South Korea that are vulnerable to ASEAN SPS and TBT regulations, as selected by trade experts using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), include food, general vehicles, steel, boiler machinery, toys, and others. Regarding SPS, food products are found to be more significantly affected than animal and vegetable products, while concerning TBT, transportation, iron and steel, boilers and machinery, and toys are expected to be more affected.

Fourth, in industries closely linked to global value chains, the regulatory distances of TBT are shorter, but the distances of SPS between South Korea and ASEAN are relatively longer. In the MDS analysis of TBT, the industries in which South Korea has a comparative advantage in the ASEAN region are located closer to AMS and Japan. This suggests that increasing regulatory similarity between South Korea and AMS will potentially accelerate regional integration through expanded trade. On the other hand, industries highly affected by SPS, such as meat and fish products, and fruit and vegetable  products, are found to be far from South Korea and other AMS. This divergence can be attributed to significant differences in institutional arrangements in these sectors and income disparities between South Korea and the AMS.

Fifth, the average regulatory index of TBT between South Korea and each AMS shows significant differences, particularly in high-technology industries such as chemicals and machinery. On the other hand, low-technology industries such as plastics/rubber and textiles/apparel have shorter regulatory distances of TBT on average. Therefore, it can be assumed that the likelihood of TBT-related problems affecting South Korea’s exports to the ASEAN region is low for low-tech industries like textiles/apparel and plastics/rubber. However, in high-technology-intensive industries like chemicals and machinery, South Korea’s exporters are more likely to encounter TBT-related issues. This finding is consistent with the previous AHP analysis.

Sixth, countries classified as high-income nations, such as Singapore and Brunei, have shorter regulatory distances than South Korea. However, significant regulatory disparities are observed between South Korea and Cambodia, a low-income country. This aligns with previous research findings suggesting a higher degree of regulatory similarity among countries with similar income levels. Therefore, Singapore can be seen as  a valuable focal point for South Korea to harmonize regulations with ASEAN member states.

In Chapter 4, we first examine the current status and characteristics of non-tariff measures in the ASEAN member states using TBT/SPS notifications and Specific Trade Concern (STC) cases. We find three stylized facts. First, within the ASEAN region, continental countries have more TBT measures, while maritime countries have more SPS measures. This finding is particularly evident when considering only STC cases. The relatively higher-income maritime countries in the ASEAN region may have adopted more advanced measures due to their technological development. On the other hand, lower-income continental countries seem to adopt TBT and SPS measures later than higher-income countries, possibly because their economies have grown rapidly  in recent years, allowing them to catch up with the measures introduced by advanced countries. 

It is expected that the economic impact of TBT and SPS will vary depending on the geographical, economic, cultural, and social differences between continental and maritime countries. Therefore, South Korea should formulate flexible strategies to address TBT and SPS in the ASEAN region, taking into account regional and country-specific characteristics.

Second, the number of TBT/SPS notifications and Specific Trade Concern (STC) cases for primary processed products, as well as chemicals, and electronic equipment, has been on the rise recently. These industries are identified as vulnerable sectors for South Korea in Chapter 3 on ASEAN’s TBT and SPS measures. Therefore, South Korea needs to develop policies specifically for high value-added manufacturing. Considering that most ASEAN member states seek to promote the materials and parts industries of chemical and electronic equipment, there is a high likelihood that TBT/SPS measures  for these industries will be strengthened within the ASEAN region.

Third, in formulating policies for ASEAN non-tariff measures, we must consider our current economic situation. The extent of trade-restrictive  and trade-promotion effects of TBT/SPS will vary depending on the economic conditions of the exporting countries. For example, if we look at the countries raising Specific Trade Concerns (STC) regarding TBT/SPS, we can see  that for TBT, it is mainly advanced countries that raise concerns, while for SPS, both advanced nations and developing countries participate in raising the concerns.

In chapter 4, we estimate the impact of TBT and SPS of ASEAN member states on the exports of 213 exporting countries to the ASEAN region from 1996 to 2021, using gravity models with fixed effects. The results of the estimation can be summarized into three main points.

First, non-tariff measures in the ASEAN region do not significantly affect the exports of countries to Southeast Asia as a whole. However, exports from OECD countries are significantly negatively affected by ASEAN TBT measures, while exports from non-OECD countries are significantly negatively affected by ASEAN SPS measures. This is consistent with  the fact that ASEAN TBT measures are primarily targeted at advanced countries, which is consistent with the  stylized facts presented earlier. Moreover, it is evident that ASEAN TBT measures became a significant barrier to exports from advanced countries to the ASEAN region in the 2010s. This aligns with the stylized facts earlier that shows an increase in Specific Trade Concern (STC) cases raised by advanced countries regarding ASEAN TBT measures in the 2010s. Therefore, South Korea, as an OECD country, needs to focus more on developing policies to address TBT rather than SPS. That’s why, in chapter 5, we conduct a survey on TBT measures among Korean firms exporting goods to the ASEAN region.

Second, SPS is found to be a significant barrier in the continental ASEAN  countries. This is due to the fact that countries located in the continental part of the ASEAN region, such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, have relatively less advanced industrial structures compared to the maritime part. In the 2010s, TBT served as a significant trade barrier in the ASEAN maritime region. Given the relative development in the maritime region compared to the continental region, there is a significant potential for  more active use of TBT measures based on technological advantages. Therefore, there is a need to pro-actively develop appropriate strategies  for this situation. This finding aligns with local expert interviews, which indicated that it may be challenging for domestic firms to raise TBT to a high level in countries that are still in the process of development, such as Vietnam.

Third, overall, it is revealed that ASEAN’s TBT and SPS measures do not significantly affect intra-ASEAN trade. However, they did have a statistically significant impact on  intra-ASEAN trade negatively in the 2010s. This aligns with the findings from the stylized facts presented earlier, which showed the emergence of TBT and SPS-related STCs among ASEAN Member States (AMS) in the mid to late 2010s.  Furthermore, it aligns with the results from Chapter 3, which indicated that the regulatory distances between AMS widened from 2015 to 2018. This suggests that regulatory harmonization and standardization will be crucial for the expansion of intra-ASEAN trade in the future ASEAN economic integration process. In fact, ASEAN’s efforts for regulatory harmonization and standardization have been ongoing, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, as confirmed in Chapter 2. 

Moreover, given the high similarity between AMS’s regulations and institutions and those of Japan, South Korea, which aspires to be a global pivot state, should actively engage in improving AMS’s regulations and institutions, particularly in emerging sectors such as the digital economy and environmental goods within the ASEAN region. Such efforts can enhance not only trade but also South Korea’s standing in the international community.

Chapter 5 collected opinions through surveys of South Korean manufacturing firms exporting goods to the ASEAN region. The surveys aimed to gather insights on TBT-related challenges, areas requiring improvement, the similarity of TBT by ASEAN member states/region, evaluations of support policies, and additional support policies. The survey results can be summarized into the following five points.

First, the impact of TBT varies depending on the characteristics of the firms. As noted above, TBT generates both trade-restrictive and trade-promotion effects. Among the firms that participated in the survey, 57.2% identified the excessive increase in compliance costs due to TBT as the most significant obstacle. Lack of Information  and technological deficiencies were also mentioned as challenges. On the other hand, other responding firms, not considering TBT as an obstacle, reported TBT’s positive impacts, such as enhancing their sales and export capabilities, increasing consumer trust in their products, and improving the dissemination of market information. Therefore, when policy-makers formulate support policies for the firms, it is important for them to recognize that the impact of TBT varies across the characteristics of the firms. Additionally, it is crucial for policy-makers to provide related information and best practices where TBT is helpful in promoting exports to the ASEAN region, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Second, South Korean export firms face the most significant challenges in obtaining certifications related to TBT. In the survey, firms identify “lengthy certification acquisition time” as the biggest challenge of TBT to overcome when exporting to the ASEAN region. In addition, they express difficulties related to unclear regulations, uncertain certification procedures, lack of alignment with international standards, and  significant burden of certification acquisition costs.

Third, despite ASEAN’s efforts to harmonize regulations, differences in TBT between the continental and maritime regions persist. ASEAN has launched the ASEAN Economic Community, aiming to create a “single market and single production base” by the end of 2015. As mentioned in Chapter 2, with the completion of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), six advanced ASEAN member states (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) have already achieved a 99.29% of tariff line coverage, while the four less advanced ASEAN member states (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam) have achieved 98.64% of tariff line coverage for intra-regional trade.

Efforts were made to harmonize TBT/SPS through the ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework (ACRF), which was launched in November 2020 with the aim of eliminating non-tariff measures in the region and achieving ASEAN integration. However, disparities in TBTs still existed between the continental and maritime regions and varied across  countries. More than half of the firms surveyed  indicated that TBTs among ASEAN member states still differ significantly. In particular, the survey results showed that responses indicating significant differences between TBT in the continental and maritime regions accounted for more than half of all responses. This finding is also confirmed by the results of the quantitative analysis  in Chapter 4. 

Fourth, there is a need to expand access to government support for TBT. The survey on firms’ awareness and use (including future plans) of  government support policies related to ASEAN TBT compliance shows that although firms are willing to use the support policies, they often do not use them due to a lack of awareness. This is why, despite South Korea having a systematic TBT response system centered around the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS), firms expressed that government support policies related to TBT are still insufficient. However, the good news is that the majority of firms responded that government support is helpful in solving problems. In other words, if firms receive government support when needed, they can minimize their losses. By enhancing promotional activities for TBT support policies, including seminars, consulting support, and educational materials, firms are expected to make better use of government support policies.

Finally, concerning TBT, South Korean firms emphasize the importance of monitoring changes in foreign government regulations, promoting the internationalization of technical standardization projects, and supporting the expansion of Korean testing and certification institutions abroad. Since obtaining certification is the biggest challenge for these firms, they advocate for simplifying the certification acquisition process, streamlining certification requirements, standardizing country-specific certification procedures, and expanding testing institutions. Collaboration with ASEAN member states (AMS) is seen as a key way to achieve these goals. Simplifying and standardizing ASEAN’s TBT procedures would not only facilitate trade between South Korea and AMS but also contribute to the overall economic integration of ASEAN.

Based on the research results above, this study presents four policy directions:

1. Strengthening Collaboration for Regulatory Harmonization in ASEAN: It is essential to strengthen  cooperation for regulatory harmonization with the ASEAN member states (AMD). The local scholar meetings held in Vietnam and Indonesia also stressed the need for capacity building among  officials responsible for TBT and SPS in the ASEAN region. As future trade between the two regions is expected to revolve primarily around high-tech industries, proactive efforts are needed to harmonize technical regulations. This will help reduce regulatory disparities between the two regions. As seen earlier, ASEAN’s regulations for traditional manufacturing industries were already similar to Japan’s. South Korea should focus on regulatory harmonization in emerging sectors such as the digital economy and environmental industries.

2. Consideration of a South Korea-ASEAN Joint Certification Center: The second policy direction is to  consider the establishment of a joint South Korea-ASEAN  certification center to facilitate flexible responses. This is crucial because the impact of TBT/SPS on exports may vary by product, time, and country. The study’s results highlight the regulatory differences between the maritime and continental parts of the ASEAN region, which affect South Korea’s exports to the region differently. By setting up an ASEAN-based certification center, with Singapore as a potential hub due to its closest regulatory distance to South Korea, and by strengthening the network with other ASEAN member states, more flexible responses to changes in AMS’s TBT/SPS measures can be achieved. The survey results in Chapter 5 also support the establishment of a Joint Certification Center. 

3. Proposal for the Establishment of an ASEAN Integrated Standard Accreditation System: The third policy direction proposes the establishment of an ASEAN Integrated Standard Accreditation System. This is a challenging proposal, given   the diverse geographical, economic, social, and cultural characteristics of ten ASEAN member states. However, it could be piloted initially for universal safety standard requirements for electrical and electronic products or for new products without established regulations. If successful, it could be gradually expanded. The creation of a working group for this purpose, with South Korea’s participation, could promote regulatory harmonization between South Korea and the ASEAN member states.

4. Strengthening the Interconnection among the National Trade Repositories of 10 ASEAN Member States: The fourth policy direction highlights the need to support the strengthening of linkages between the National Trade Repository (NTR) of 10 ASEAN Member States (AMS) and the ASEAN Trade Repository (ATR). A Trade Repository serves as an information repository that collects information on each country’s tariff and non-tariff measures. Due to the significant development gap among the 10 AMS, there are differences  in the capacity to operate national trade repositories. To ensure the effective consolidation of information from national repositories into the ASEAN Trade Repository, it is necessary to develop and improve the capacity to manage and operate these national repositories. With proper data aggregation, the utility of the current ASEAN Trade Repository can be enhanced and it can lead to more active research in this area.