무역 및 투자 개방이 한국의 Fdi에 미치는 영향 (Effects of Trade and Investment Liberalization on Korea's FDI)

Korean Abstract: 한국은 2004년 한ㆍ칠레 FTA 발효를 시작으로 2013년 현재까지 미국, EU 등 거대경제권을 포함하여 총 47개국과의 자유무역협정(FTA)을 체결하였으며, 현재도 인도네시아, 중국, 베트남, 호주, 뉴질랜드 등 많은 국가들과 협상을 진행 중이다. 자유무역협정을 통한 무역자유화가 급속도로 진행되어 가는 과정에서 지속적인 자유무역협정 추진과 함께 조심스럽게 현재까지 체결된 협정에 대한 평가의 필요성과 앞으로의 비전 및 추진전략의 중요성이 조금씩 부각되고 있다. 하지만 현재까지 대부분의 자유무역협정에 대한 연구는 사전적인 경제적 영향 평가 위주였으며, 대부분 상품부문에 한정되어 있었다. 반면 한ㆍ미 FTA와 한ㆍEU FTA 등 우리나라가 체결한 대부분의 자유무역협정은 상품뿐만 아니라 투자와 서비스 분야도 포함하고 있어 경제적인 영향이 클 것으로 예상되므로, 자유무역협정의 사후적 영향에 대한 포괄적이고 심층적인 연구가 필수적이라 하겠다. 특히 해외투자부문의 변화는 상품교역과 직ㆍ간접적으로 깊은 연관관계를 가지고 있다는 점에서 자유무역협정 체결은 해외투자부문에서도 중요하다. 이와 관련하여 본 보고서에서는 자유무역협정이 해외직접투자 유입(IFDI: Inward Foreign Direct Investment)과 유출(OFDI: Outward Foreign Direct Investment)에 어떻게 영향을 미치고 있는지에 대해 분석하였다. English Abstract: After Korea-Chile FTA became effective since 2004, Korea has made multiple free trade agreements with 47 countries including United States and European Union, and is currently negotiating upcoming free trade agreements with other countries, such as Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand. Along with the global spread of trade liberalization, it is necessary to evaluate the post-effects of FTA that came into effect and the strategies for the upcoming FTAs. However, prior reports and papers analyzing the effects of FTA were mainly focused on evaluating its economic effects on goods, while most of FTAs are influential not only on product sector but also on investment and service sectors. In particular, since foreign direct investment (FDI) is directly and indirectly related to goods trade, FTA is also associated with foreign direct investment sectors. This report analyzes the effects of FTA on outward and inward foreign direct investment (IFDI and OFDI) of Korea. Our report provides detailed analysis on the contents of FDI openness in the trade agreement and construct FDI openness indices by dividing investment sectors from the previous 8 free trade agreements that became effective into 5 sectors and 25 sub-sectors and quantifying FDI openness based on those sub-sectors. By adding our constructed FDI openness indices to the regression, we find that FTA significantly increases both IFDI and OFDI in the short run. Examining the effects of investment liberalization on IFDI and OFDI, the results indicate that investment liberalization from FTA increases IFDI. In particular, its magnitude becomes larger as investor-state dispute settlement is included in the chapter of agreement. On the other hand, the results imply that FTA has heterogeneous effects on OFDI from different industry sectors on the basis of investment related articles. For instance, OFDI from manufacturing sectors is likely to increase to FTA partner as agreement involves high FDI openness articles in general, while OFDI from wholesale and retail sectors is more likely to increase as agreement involves FDI openness articles on service related sectors. Furthermore, based on the relative GDP per capita difference between Korea and its FTA partner, we find that IFDI flow increases from FTA partners that have similar GDP per capita with Korea, while GDP per capita difference and FDI openness indices have interaction effects on OFDI flow from different industry sectors. For instance, we find that FDI openness indices have significant and positive effects on OFDI from manufacturing sectors to FTA partners that have higher income-level but small GDP per capita difference with Korea. Alternatively, OFDI from wholesale and retail sectors are likely to increase to FTA partner as a country has higher income-level and large GDP per capita difference with Korea, with high FDI openness on service sectors included in the agreement. Based on the results, our report provides policy implications for expanding Korea's OFDI and IFDI. We find that Korea's OFDI and IFDI have increased at the aggregate level and they are positively affected by trade and investment liberalization. As our results indicate that FTA significantly increases OFDI and IFDI, we should carry forward upcoming FTAs more aggressively. In particular, upcoming FTA negotiations should focus on including FDI openness in service sectors, FDI regulation and protection, and investor-state dispute settlement provision. Furthermore, as trade and investment liberalization are known to have different effects on OFDI and IFDI based on the GDP per capita difference between Korea and its FTA partner, upcoming negotiations should be proceed by considering country’ GDP per capita relative to Korea and the agreement should include investment related articles that could have positive effects on OFDI and IFDI from different industry sectors.