ASEAN Economic Integration on Services: An Analysis of Economic Impacts and Implications

Abstract

아세안은 2018년 아세안서비스기본협정(AFAS: ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services)의 10차 패키지 협상을 마무리하고, 2020년 아세안서비스무역협정(ATISA: ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement)에 서명하는 등 역내 서비스자유화를 위한 노력을 지속하고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 아세안의 서비스시장 통합 현황을 파악하고, 그 경제적 효과를 분석하고자 하였다. ASEAN has been pursuing economic integration on services since 1995, reducing trade restrictions on services to ASEAN member states through the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) packages commitments. ASEAN signed the ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement (ATISA) on October 2020, which includes built-in agenda to convert members' commitments to a negative approach, replacing the AFAS 10th package. Upon this backdrop, this report aims to analyze the current status of economic integration on services among ASEAN members and the impact of such commitments on ASEAN and non-ASEAN countries. The targets of AFAS packages are summarized as follows: (i) eliminating Mode 1 and 2 restrictions, (ii) substantially eliminating market access limitations regarding Mode 3, and (iii) raising minimum ASEAN equity participation to 70%. Upon reviewing the commitments concluded in the AFAS 10th package, Myanmar, the Philippines and Viet Nam were yet to reach the thresholds, and the overall degree of openness among ASEAN member states regarding Mode 3 restrictions remained relatively low. Meanwhile, ASEAN has restricted liberalization on the movement of natural persons (Mode 4), and signed the ASEAN Agreement on Movement of Natural Persons (AAMNP) in 2012 for facilitating the movement of high-skilled labor only. According to the theoretical model used in this report, ASEAN's approach to Mode 4 liberalization could be appropriate. This is because, if the endowment gaps among countries are large enough, factor mobility could lead to agglomeration of productions in a single large country. However, if there is a complementary relationship between the modes, ASEAN's efforts to lower trade barriers in the services sector are not expected to be effective as long as they pursue such asymmetric liberalization among modes of supply. Therefore, it would be proper to adopt different liberalization strategies regarding Mode 4 barriers depending on whether each service sector has inter-modal substitution or complementarity. (the rest omitted)