00-4853 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/145
14 November 2000
TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF KOREA
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its third
review of Korea on 26 and 28 September 2000. The text of the Chairperson's concluding remarks is
attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged during the discussion.
The review enables the TPRB to conduct a collec tive examination of the full range of trade
policies and practices of each WTO member countries at regular periodic intervals to monitorsignificant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports which are prepared respectively by the WTO Secretariat
and the government under review and which cover all aspects of the country's trade policies, including
its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and other
preferential agreements, the wider economic needs and the external environment. A record of the
discussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with these two reports will be published in duecourse at the complete trade policy review of Korea and will be available from the WTO Secretariat,
Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.PRESS/TPRB/145
Page 2
MORESince December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992 and
1999), Australia (1989, 1994 and 1998), Austria (19 92), Bahrain (2000) Bangladesh (1992 and 2000),
Benin (1997), Bolivia (1993 and 1999), Botswana  (1998), Brazil (1992, 1996 and 2000), Burkina
Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995), Canada (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998), Chile (1991 and 1997),
Colombia (1990 and 1996), Costa Rica (1995), Cô te d’Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1997), the Czech
Republic (1996), the Dominican Republic (1996), E gypt (1992 and 1999), El Salvador (1996), the
European Communities (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 2.000), Fiji (1997), Finland (1992), Ghana
(1992), Guinea (1999), Hong Kong (1990, 1994 and 1998), Hungary (1991 and 1998), Iceland (1994
and 2000), India (1993 and 1998), Indonesia (1991, 1994 and 1998), Israel (1994 and 1999), Jamaica
(1998), Japan (1990, 1992, 1995 and 1998), Kenya (1993 and 2000), Korea, Rep. of (1992, 1996 and
2000), Lesotho (1998), Macau (1994), Malaysia (1993 and 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995),
Mexico (1993 and 1997), Morocco (1989 and 1996) , New Zealand (1990 a nd 1996), Namibia (1998),
Nicaragua (1999), Nigeria (1991 and 1998), Norw ay (1991, 1996 and 2000), Pakistan (1995), Papua
New Guinea (1999), Paraguay (1997), Peru (1994 and 2000), the Philippines (1993), Poland (1993
and 2000), Romania (1992 and 1999), Senegal ( 1994), Singapore (1992, 1996 and 2000), Slovak
Republic (1995), the Solomon Islands (1998), South Africa (1993 and 1998), Sri Lanka(1995),
Swaziland (1998), Sweden (1990 and 1994), Switzerl and (1991 and 1996), Tanzania (2000), Thailand
(1991, 1995 and 1999), Togo (1999), Trinidad and T obago (1998), Tunisia (1994), Turkey (1994 and
1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994, 1996 a nd 1999), Uganda (1995), Uruguay (1992 and
1998), Venezuela (1996), Zambia (1996) and Zimbabwe (1994).PRESS/TPRB/145
Page 3
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF KOREA
CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
We have had an open and informative discussion of Korea's trade policies.  Members were
impressed by Korea's strong and swift recovery from  the 1997 crisis and recognized that this recovery
was largely the result of prudent macroeconomic policies and far-reaching structural reforms.  In
addressing the crisis, Korea had, by and large, eschewed protectionist measures and had instead taken
steps to further improve the competitive environment both through domestic reform, particularly in
the corporate, financial and labour spheres, and through trade and investment liberalization.  Membersalso recognized that the multilateral trading system  had contributed to Korea's recovery, by ensuring
that export markets remained open.  Members pointed to the role played by Korea's social protection
policies in mitigating the effects of the crisis and in facilitating reforms.  Members took note of the
extent of the involvement of the State and the chaebols  in the economy as well as their impact on
domestic competition.  Members urged Korea to reduce state involvement and facilitate foreignparticipation in several sectors.
Members expressed their appreciation for Korea's active participation in the work of  the
WTO.  Many Members underlined that their bilateral trade and investment ties with Korea had been
strengthened over the recent period.  They noted Korea's increased willingness to explore bilateraltrade agreements and its involvement in regional gr oups such as APEC and ASEAN+3.  In the light of
Korea's interest in such arrangements, Members sought and were given reassurance about Korea's
commitment to multilateralism.  Certain Members ap plauded Korea's initiative in providing for duty
free treatment of certain items originating in Least-Developed Countries.
Members commended Korea's efforts to enhance the transparency of its trade regulations,
including their publication in English.  However, concern was expressed on persistent administrative
delays in customs clearance and certification procedures.  Members noted both Korea's complex tariff
structure and its use of adjustment duties, both of which reduced the predictability of the applied rates.
Members acknowledged the decline in average tariff levels in line with improving Korea's bindingcommitments.  Members noted that indirect taxes were borne disproportionately by imports of luxury
items.  In the light of the size of the Korean government procurement and the implementation of the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, certain  Members considered that the share of foreign
suppliers could have been expected to be higher.
On sectoral policies, Members noted the wide range of measures used to protect and assist
agriculture as well as the increasing level of spending on domestic support.  Some sympathized withKorea's high and increasing level of agricultural support on the grounds of multifunctionality and food
security.  However, other Members expressed concern over the adverse impact of these policies on
domestic efficiency and consumers as well as on developing countries; they encouraged Korea to
reduce market distortions in agriculture.  Members recognized that weaknesses in the financial system
had contributed to the 1997 crisis and unanimously welcomed the remarkable opening of this andother service sectors.  Nevertheless, they believed that further action to open up the markets in
non-life insurance, telecommunications and transportation was needed.PRESS/TPRB/145
Page 4
ENDMembers also sought additional details in a number of areas, including:
- plans to restructure and privatize state-owned firms (e.g., steel, energy);
- competition policy issues (notably mergers and acquisitions, illegal intra-group transactions);
- plans to change investment incentives and liberalise foreign direct investment across sectors;
- FTA negotiations and prospects for the coverage of substantially all trade in goods, and trade
in services;
- matters concerning the different types of rates and plans for simplifying the customs tariff;
- commitments under the Agreement on Government Procurement;
- alignment of national standards with international standards;
- the phase-out of export and production assistance programmes;
- the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights;
- impediments to market access, and domestic support for items, such as beef, rice, fruit;- standards, taxes and consumer-related impediments to imported automobiles;
- support provided to the shipbuilding industry and to shipping companies;  and
- plans for, and costs and difficulties in undertaking further financial and corporate reforms.
Members expressed their appreciation of the written and oral responses provided by the
Korean delegation and its undertaking to provide additional written responses as soon as possible.
In conclusion, it is my view that this Review has provided Members with a much better
understanding of Korea's trade and related policies, particularly the far-reaching reforms undertaken
to address long-standing structural weaknesses exposed by the crisis.  Members have been impressedby the speed and strength of Korea's economic recovery from the crisis.  Notwithstanding this
recovery,  in our Review we have not seen comp lacency on the part of Korea regarding structural
reform. Members urged Korea to maintain the moment um of these reforms so as to ensure that the
recovery is sustained.  It is my sense that Members were reassured by Korea's reiteration of its strong
attachment to the multilateral trading system, but they did urge Korea to make sure that plansconcerning bilateral and regional arrangements were WTO-consistent.  This would not only be in
Korea's long term economic interests but also to the benefit of the multilateral trading system.