33

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation
in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement*＊＊

Sangkyom KIM＊＊＊
Innwon PARK
Ⅰ．Introduction

The Northeast Asian region had been characterized by the dearth of regionalism
until late 1990s. In particular, the three major Northeast Asian countries ― China,
Japan, and Korea ― had generally preferred multilateral trade liberalization
approaches under the GATT and WTO regulations.

In recent years, however, theregion s policy stance has shifted from favoring multilateralism to regionalism.

Aturning point was the outbreak of the East Asian financial crisis occurred in 1997.
The deepening interdependence among the Northeast Asian economies throughregional trade and financial linkages can be another cause of the policy change. In
addition, slow progress of multilateral negotiations under WTO and APEC has
accelerated their shifting preference to regionalism.

Recent developments inindividual economies such as China s miraculous export-driven growth performanceand entry into WTO, Japan s desire to regain its leadership role in the region, andKorea s regime change toward a more liberalized economic system can also be
counted as factors behind the strategic change in the Northeast Asian commercial
policy for regionalism.
Responding to the change of their position on commercial policy, this paper explores
the effects of a possible Northeast Asian free trade agreement（FTA）between China,
Japan and Korea.

In this regard, one of the key concerns should be whether the＊Innwon Park s research has been supported by the Institute of Northeast Asian Business and Economics
at Korea University. The usual disclaimers apply.
＊＊Research Fellow, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Seoul, Korea.
＊＊＊Former Visiting Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University.
Professor, Division of International Studies, Korea University.
Mailing address: Division of International Studies, Korea University, Anam-Dong 5-1, Sungbuk-Ku, Seoul
136-701, Korea; Telephone: +82-2-3290-2406, Email: iwpark@korea.ac.kr.

Journal of International Cooperation Studies, Vol.14, No.1（2006.7）

国

34

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

Northeast Asian FTA will raise trade and income among the three trade bloc
members. Another important concern is whether the Northeast Asian FTA can help
to achieve global free trade. We propose a strategic policy measure that will enable
the Northeast Asian FTA to create trade and further promote free trade andeconomic integration at the global level. More specifically, we attempt to answer thefollowing question: what will be the most efficient way of building an FTA in a

globalizing world economic order, especially for the three Northeast Asian countries? 1
We strongly suggest that the FTA should stress trade facilitation rather thanfollowing common guidance on tariff reduction.

As emphasized in Lee and Park

（2005）, we believe that this method is more effective for integrating regional
economies in a globalizing world economic environment because trade facilitation
measures can be used to promote trade among countries in the region as well as
between regions by drastically reducing the transaction costs incurred in the processof international trade.

Furthermore, compared to tariff reduction among members,

trade facilitation reduces the problems caused by the spaghetti bowl phenomenon 2
and makes it easier for members to open toward non-members, thereby satisfying
APEC s commitment to open regionalism.

Relatively greater ease to include

substantially all trade in the case of trade facilitation also satisfies Article XXIV ofGATT.
However, contrary to the bulk of existing studies on the relationship between tradeflows and tariffs, the trade facilitation effect has not been seriously investigated eventhough the trade facilitation has become a key agenda in multilateral trade talks in
WTO and APEC and has been replacing the role of tariff reduction in many regional
trade agreement（RTA）negotiations. In particular, the quantitative analyses of theeconomic effects at the aggregate macroeconomic level are still limited. In order toovercome the limitation, this study estimates the effect of trade liberalization efforts
through tariff reduction and improved trade facilitation among the three countries on
their macroeconomic variables and bilateral trade relations by using a computable
general equilibrium（CGE）model analysis.
Following this introductory section, Section Ⅱ briefly explains the theoretical
relationship between trade facilitation, trade costs and gains from freer trade throughtrade facilitation. Section Ⅱ also summarizes existing empirical studies on gains from

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement35

trade facilitation. In Section Ⅲ, we specify the CGE model we adopt to quantify the
impact of enhancing trade facilitation among the three Northeast Asian countries andevaluate the empirical results from the CGE analysis. Our findings are summarized in
Section Ⅳ.

Ⅱ．Trade Facilitation: Theory and Practice3
１．Trade Facilitation, Trade Costs, and Trade Flows
Tariffs and non-tariff measures are barriers to international trade. The non-tariffmeasures can be classified as direct barriers（e.g. import quotas）and indirect barriers（e.g. complex customs procedures）. These barriers, along with transportation,
insurance and other physical transaction costs, affect the price of domestically
produced goods and imports, thereby restricting the flow of international transactions.
The restrictions result in a loss of efficiency in terms of resource allocation, social
welfare and economic development.
Trade facilitation can be defined as an effort to pursue greater convenience ininternational trade through the simplification of economic activities such as the
movement of goods and services across borders.4 In a broad sense it can be defined as
the lowering or elimination of non-tariff barriers. More specifically, it is an attempt tolower the costs of administration, standardization, technology, information, transaction,
labor, communication, insurance, and financing, as well as to reduce the time costs
related to these procedures.

The administration costs arise during customs

procedures, the technology costs are involved during standards procedures, and theinformation costs arise while importing or exporting goods and services. Those costs
result in the loss of economic efficiency and reduce gains from trade.
Assuming that total costs related to international trade are equivalent to the pricedifference between world market price of imported goods and domestic consumer
price, we can define this to be trade costs. In this context, trade costs can be divided
into three categories.

The first category is for transaction costs, consisting oftransport and insurance costs. Second are policy costs, which are mainly incurred byprotection policies like tariff and non-tariff barriers. Last are trade costs due to thelack of trade facilitation. That is, trade costs incurred by the movement of goods andservices across borders can be defined as a sum of transaction costs, policy costs, and

国

36

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

facilitation costs. Therefore, the reduction in trade costs resulting from better tradefacilitation has an identical effect as a reduction of tariffs or non-tariffs, both resulting
in an increase in social welfare through the gains from freer trade.
More specifically, we apply the iceberg method, which is a traditional method of
explaining transaction costs involved in international trade and derive the following
equation.5

In this equation, theandare world market price and domestic price of theimported goods, respectively, andtransaction costs andthat

represents policy costs, where

represents facilitation costs respectively.

represents

Let us assume

represents the percentage occupied by transport costs in a single unitof exportable and only

arrives at the importing country.

Thenrepresents

direct transaction costs. If we apply this iceberg method to define the trade costs
related to trade facilitation, out of theof imports received,

percent will

additionally be discarded due to inefficient customs procedures in the importing
country.

Therefore, onlyof exportables will enter the domestic market.

With these assumptions, we can interpretas the facilitation cost.

Therefore, according to the above-mentioned equation, trade facilitation improves
the welfare of importing countries by narrowing the gap between the world market
priceand domestic priceof the imported goods, leading to an increase in thevolume of world trade. This implies that whenis closer to 0, the difference between

the two prices will narrow and therefore one can expect higher welfare gains.
The development of information and communication technology along with great
efforts to liberalize trade has brought about a considerable reduction intransaction

and policy

costs.

At the same time, due to developments in

information and communication technology, and increases in e-commerce as well as
efforts to increase efficiency in customs procedures, facilitation costs

have also

fallen. However, this reduction in facilitation costs has been highlighted recently andis only a small fraction of the reduction in transaction and policy costs. It is believedthat there is still plenty of room for additional reductions in facilitation costs, which
can lead to a remarkable improvement in the world trade environment.

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement37

２．Existing Empirical Studies on Trade Facilitation
Four different methods of analyzing the effect of trade facilitation have been
introduced.

The most widely used method is an investigative analysis based on

surveys. Aside from this, there are empirical analyses, which use gravity regression
analysis, partial equilibrium model analysis, and CGE model analysis.

The survey

analysis is very useful but it is not very reliable to derive general effect of tradefacilitation on trade flows in a global level and welfare in an aggregate level.

Thegravity regression analysis and partial equilibrium estimation use an ad-hoc andatheoretical specification of equations although the ex-post estimation technology
practically produces very useful empirical results. On the other hand, CGE models aretheoretically sound and are able to quantitatively analyze general effect on aggregatedeconomy.6
Table 1 summarizes the existing empirical studies on the effect of trade facilitation
based on the four different approaches. As shown in Table 1, we find that gains fromtrade facilitation are as beneficial as gains from tariff reduction. It is clear that tradefacilitation reduces trade costs. In fact, there have been many attempts to analyze thecost reduction effect of trade facilitation.

However, as evidenced through pastexperience, the identification and measurement of economic effects driven by tradefacilitation is very limited and, in most cases, even impossible due to its cross-cutting
and non-numeral nature. The results obtained in previous studies failed to take into
account rapid developments in information and communication technology in recent
years and the movement towards globalization after the establishment of the WTO.
APEC（2002）, OECD（2003）and Engman（2005）are some exceptions which havebeen developed to estimate a concrete macroeconomic impact of trade facilitation byusing the CGE model simulation analysis. This paper is also a case study to quantify
the concrete relationship between trade facilitation measures, trade costs, trade flows,
and macroeconomic aggregates in the three Northeast Asian countries by using a CGE
model.

38

国

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

Table 1. Existing Studies on the Economic Benefits of Trade Facilitation

A. Corroborated Analyses Based on Investigative Survey Method

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

B. Econometric Analyses Based on the Gravity Model

39

40

国

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

C. Partial Equilibrium Analyses

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

D. CGE Model Analyses

41

国

42

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

Ⅲ．CGE Model Structure and Scenario Analysis
In this section, we attempt to estimate the macroeconomic effects of the possible
Northeast Asian FTA through enhanced trade facilitation in the region with a
traditional static CGE model.

A trade-linked multi-sector and multi-country CGE

model of the Asia Pacific is developed to measure the impact of the Northeast Asian
regional economic integration effort on long-run economic growth and other important
open macroeconomic variables in each participating economy ― China, Japan and
Korea.

１．CGE Model Structure
The CGE model used in this section retains the same structure as that used in themulti-sector and multi-region CGE model used by APEC（2002）, which is a modified
version of the GTAP5inGAMS model developed by Rutherford and Paltsev（2000）.
As seen in Tables 2 and 3, the present model uses a classification consisting of 20
sectors and 22 regions.

The model has three economic agents: producer,

representative consumer（private and public）, and trading partners. As described in
Rutherford and Paltsev（2000）, the GTAP5inGAMS model is a traditional static
Arrow-Debreu type of equilibrium model in which the zero profit condition and themarket clearance define the equilibrium.

For the quantitative analysis of tariff

reduction and trade facilitation in this research, we modify the bilateral traderelationship in the GTAP5inGAMS model. The original model defines two different
trade costs, import tariffs（policy costs）and transportation costs applied on bilateral
trade between countries and regions. Unfortunately, the model excludes any trade
costs related to the quality of trade facilitation. We include the cost caused by the
inefficient trade facilitation based on the iceberg method. Therefore, the consumer
price of imports in a domestic market is determined by export price of the goods
including export taxes, transportation costs from the country of origin to importcountry, import tariffs imposed on importables, and an iceberg type of facilitation costs.
The structural specifications of the modified GTAP5inGAMS model7 are summarizedin Table 4.
The model solution is calibrated using 1997 as the base year by using Global Trade,
Assistance and Production: The GTAP 5 Database 8 is implemented with the

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

Generalized Algebraic Modeling System（GAMS）.9

Table 2. Regional Aggregation of the CGE Model

43

44

国

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

Table 3. Sectoral Aggregation of the CGE ModelA CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

Table 4. Characteristics of the CGE Model

45

国

46

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

２．Scenarios
Four simulation analyses are designed to evaluate the possible gains or losses fromthe three Northeast Asian countries effort to achieve a freer and easier tradethrough tariff reduction and trade facilitation in the region. For tariff reduction, we
assume a 50-percent reduction of import tariffs between member economies in theregion because it is not reasonable to assume a perfect elimination of import tariffs atthe beginning stage of the trade liberalization.10 We assume three different types of
the Northeast Asian efforts for trade facilitation, conditional, unconditional and global,
satisfying the APEC s Shanghai Accord11 as shown in Figure 1.

Ａ．Northeast Asian Three Free Trade Area（NEFTA）: A 50-percent reduction ofimport tariff rates by the three Northeast Asian member countries against
imports from its members.
Ｂ．Shanghai Accord through Conditional Trade Facilitation（CSA）: A 5-percent
reduction of trade facilitation costs only between the three Northeast Asian
countries.
Ｃ．Shanghai Accord through Unconditional Trade Facilitation（UCSA）: A 5-percent
reduction of trade facilitation costs in each of the three Northeast Asian countries
for its trade with all the other countries in the model.
Ｄ．Shanghai Accord through Global Trade Facilitation（GSA）: A 5-percent
reduction of trade facilitation costs between each of the three Northeast Asian
countries and all the other APEC economies in the model.

For the benchmark equilibrium values, the base solution of the model economy, we
run the CGE model without changing its initial condition and derive generalequilibrium values for each of the countries in the model. As a next step, we rerun
the model under different scenarios and recalculate the equilibrium values for eachcase. Then we compare the different equilibrium values with the initial base solution
to evaluate the experimental impacts of each scenario on each country.

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

47

Figure 1. Trade Facilitation: Conditional, Unconditional and Global

３．Simulation Results
Table 5 provides a comparative summary of the economic effects of tradeliberalization through tariff reduction and trade facilitation in the Northeast Asian
region. In order to evaluate the economic effects, we analyze the effect on real GDP,
consumer price, and intra-regional trade structures.

The intra-regional trade only

国

48

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

includes trade between the three Northeast Asian countries ― China, Japan and
Korea.
As shown in Table 5, both the establishment of a Northeast Asian three free tradearea（NEFTA）and the conditional trade facilitation within the three countries（CSA）
would result in increased real GDP for the three participating countries. Korea andChina would benefit the most, while Japan would experience relatively less gains.
This is because China and Korea, as compared to Japan, have relatively higher intraregional trade shares and higher dependency on intra-regional intermediate imports.
In addition, China and Korea have higher tariff rates than Japan.12

The effect on

consumer price indicates that income effect would surpass the price effect of tradeliberalization in the region.

Intra-regional trade dependency would be remarkably

increased, and it is estimated that this increase would bring even greater gains in thelong run.

Therefore, the dynamic gains associated with the establishment of theNortheast Asian three free trade area and enhanced trade facilitation would largely
surpass the static gains.
Since we cannot directly compare the effects of tariff reduction by 50 percent withthe effects of improved trade facilitation by 5 percent, simulation results in Table 5
indicate that the trade liberalization through trade facilitation is an alternative way toachieve the goal of forming FTA by producing significant gains from freer and easiertrade between the three countries in the region. Thus, we strongly suggest that the
FTA should stress trade facilitation rather than following common guidance on tariff
reduction.
In order to evaluate likely impact of the expansion of trade liberalization throughtrade facilitation by the three countries, we use two additional simulations: UCSA
（unconditional or unilateral trade facilitation by the three countries）and GSA（global
or bilateral trade facilitation among the APEC member economies）. The results arealso reported in Table 5. We find that global effort for better trade facilitation is thebest policy for the three countries in terms of GDP growth and stabilizing consumer
price. Obviously, the effect on intra-regional trade dependency is estimated to be lessthan that of the regional trade facilitation effort（CSA）. On the other hand, theunilateral trade facilitation may not be a good policy alternative for the three
countries, as can be seen from the results in Table 5.

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

49

Table 5. Effects of Trade Liberalization

Table 6 summarizes the effects of trade liberalization on bilateral trade between thethree countries.

Tariff reduction increases bilateral trade between developing

countries like China and developed countries like Japan and Korea but trade

50

国

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

facilitation works more effectively for bilateral trade between the two developed
countries in the region. The degree of bilateral trade linkage is much weaker thanthose of the regional trade liberalization efforts（NEFTA and CSA）as the tradefacilitation opens toward other outside countries（UCSA and GSA）.

Table 6. Effects of Trade Liberalization on Bilateral Trade*

Ⅳ．Concluding Remarks
Responding to proliferating RTAs in a globalizing world in the 21st century,
economic cooperation between China, Japan and Korea through liberalizing their

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

51

external economic relations is being increasingly felt as the region seeks ways torecover from the economic sluggishness caused by the 1997 financial crisis. In orderto revitalize the regional economy, we proposed a strategic policy measure - enhancing
trade facilitation - that will enable the Northeast Asian FTA to create trade andfurther promote free trade and economic integration at the global level. However, incontrast to the empirical analyses for trade liberalization through tariff reduction,
empirical research on the impact of trade liberalization through trade facilitation isvery limited because of difficulties in the quantification of trade facilitation related
data.
This study provided a quantitative analysis of the economic effects produced by
improvements in trade facilitation between China, Japan and Korea as an alternative
commercial policy to tariff reduction. We applied a general equilibrium analysis toestimate the general macroeconomic impact of the trade facilitation effort on each of
the participating countries to compare the effects with those from tariff reduction.
From the CGE model analysis, we found that trade facilitation is a good tradeliberalization policy alternative to free trade arrangement through tariff reduction.
Both the establishment of a Northeast Asian three free trade area and the improved
regional trade facilitation within the three countries would result in increased real
GDP for the three participating countries. Korea and China would benefit the most,while Japan would experience relatively less gains. Intra-regional trade dependency
would be remarkably increased and it is estimated that this increase would bring evengreater gains in the long run.

We also found that global effort for better tradefacilitation opening to outside economies is the best policy for the three countries interms of GDP growth and stabilizing consumer price.

Furthermore, unlike tariff

reduction, which boosts bilateral trade between developing countries and developed
countries in the region, trade facilitation works more effectively for bilateral trade
between the two developed countries in the region, that is, Korea and Japan. In sum,
we strongly suggest that the possible Northeast Asian FTA should stress tradefacilitation rather than following common guidance on tariff reduction.

52

国

際

協

力

論

集

第14巻 第１号

Notes
１ Kim, Lee and Park（2004）and Kim and Park（2005）attempt to answer the same question but apply agravity regression analysis which is not suitable to estimate macro-aggregate impacts compared to a CGE
model analysis applied in this paper.
２ See Bhagwati, Greenaway, and Panagariya（1998）.
３ This section is an updated and abstracted revision of APEC（2002）.
４ See WTO（2001）.
５ See pp. 157-163 of Frankel（1997）for the relationship between the traditional iceberg method andtransaction costs and tariffs. This section extends Frankel s idea and applies it to trade facilitation costs.
６ However, the complicated ex-ante simulation methodology sometimes mis-specifies the model economy
together with lack of parametric choice as Panagariya and Gupta（2001）emphasize.
７ For detailed information about the GTAP5inGAMS, see http://debreu.colorado.edu/gtap5.
８ See Dimaranan and McDougall（2002）. Currently, GTAP 6 data base corresponding to the global
economy in 2001 is available but the CGE model in GTAPinGAMS has not been adjusted to the updated
data. That is why we are using GTAP 5 data base in this paper.
９ GAMS 20.7 Version developed in 2002. For details on the program, see Brook et al.（1998）.
10 For the assumption of a 50-percent tariff reduction rate, it is more practical that members gradually
reduce the tariff rate within the agreed time schedule, even though a complete and immediate tariff
reduction would be the ideal solution. For example, if Korea, China and Japan agree to reduce their tariff
rate completely by 2010, this study estimates the case of a 50-percent tariff rate reduction to measure theshort- and mid-term effects because it is difficult to estimate the long-term effects without adjusting theparameter values or exogenous variables in the model.
11 The APEC leaders instructed the ministers to realize a significant reduction in the transaction costs byendeavoring to reduce them by 5 percent across the region over the next five years at the Leaders
Meeting in Shanghai in 2001.
12 The tariff rate used in this study is the effective tariff rate in GTAP Data Version 5. The tariff rates of
the three countries are 9.5 percent, 7.0 percent, and 14.0 percent in Korea, Japan, and China, respectively.

References
APEC. 1997. The Impact of Trade Liberalization in APEC. November.
APEC 1999. Assessing APEC Trade Liberalization and Facilitation - 1999 Update, September.
APEC. 2002. The Benefits of Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation in APEC. October.
APFC. 2000. Survey on Customs, Standards, and Business Mobility in the APEC Region, A Report by the
Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada（APFC）for the APEC Business Advisory Council（ABAC）, APFC,
July.
Bhagwati, Jagdish, David Greenaway and Arvind Panagariya. 1998. Trading Preferentially: Theory and
Policy, The Economic Journal, 108, pp. 1128-1148.
Brook, A., David Kendrick, Alexander Meeraus and Ramesh Raman. 1998. GAMS: A User s Guide.
December.
Cecchini, Paolo. 1998. The European Challenge 1992 The Benefits of a Single Market. Gower.
Dee, Philippa. 1998. The Comprehensiveness of APEC s Free Trade Commitment, in The Economic
Implications of Liberalizing APEC Tariff and Nontariff Barriers to Trade, Investigation No. 332-372,
USITC, April, pp. 827-86.
Dimaranan, B.V. and Robert A. McDougall, eds. 2002. Global Trade, Assistance, and Protection: The GTAP 5
Data Base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
Engman, Michael. 2005. The Economic Impact of Trade Facilitation, OECD Trade Policy Working Papers
No. 21, OECD.
Frankel, Jeffrey A. 1997. Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System. Institute for International
Economics.
Kim, Sangkyom and Innwon Park. 2005. Trade Facilitation and A Northeast Asian Free Trade
Arrangement, International Area Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring, pp.45-63.
Kim, Sangkyom, Hongshik Lee and Innwon Park. 2004. Measuring the Impact of APEC Trade Facilitation:
A Gravity Analysis, in Trade Facilitation and Trade Liberalisation: From Shanghai to Bogor edited by
APEC Economic Committee, November, pp. 52-86.

A CGE Analysis on Enhanced Trade Facilitation in a Northeast Asian Free Trade Agreement

53

Lee, Jong-Wha and Innwon Park. 2005. Free Trade Areas in East Asia: Discriminatory or
Nondiscriminatory? The World Economy, Vol. 28, Issue 1, January, pp. 21-48.
Maskus, Keith E., John S. Wilson and Tsunehiro Otsuki. 2001. Quantifying the Impact of Technical Barriers
to Trade: A Framework for Analysis. World Bank.
Messerlin and J. Zarrouk. 2000. Trade Facilitation: Technical Regulations and Customs Procedures, The
World Economy, Vol. 23, Issue 4, April, pp. 577-594.
Moenius, Johannes. 1999. Information versus Product Adaptation: The Role of Standards in Trade,
Unpublished Manuscript, November.
OECD. 2000. An Assessment of the Costs for International Trade in Meeting Regulatory Requirements,
Working Party of the Trade Committee, OECD.
OECD. 2003. Quantitative Assessment of the Benefits of Trade Facilitation.
Panagariya, Arvind and Rupa Dutta-Gupta. 2001. The Gains from Preferential Trade Liberalization in the
CGE Models: Where do they come from? , Chapter 3 in Regionalism and Globalization: Theory andPractice edited by Sajal Lahiri, Routledge.
Rutherford Thomas F. and Sergey V. Paltsev. 2000. GTAPinGAMS and GTAP-EG: Global Datasets for
Economic Research and Illustrative Models, Working Paper, September.
Schiavo-Campo, Salvatore. 1999. Simplification of Customs Procedures: Reducing Transaction Costs for
Efficiency, Integrity, and Trade Facilitation. Asian Development Bank, November.
UNCTAD. 1994. Columbus Ministerial Declaration on Trade Efficiency.
Wilson, John S., Catherine L. Mann and Tsunehiro Otsuki. 2003. Trade Facilitation and Economic
Development: Measuring the Impact, World Bank Policy Research Paper 2988, The World Bank.
Wilson, John S., Catherine L. Mann and Tsunehiro Otsuki. 2005. Assessing the Benefits of Trade Facilitation:
A Global Perspective, The World Economy, Vol. 28, Issue 6, June, pp. 841-871.
WTO. 2001. MA: Trade Facilitation. WTO Web site.
［http://www.wto.org/english/thewto̲e/whatis̲e/eol/e/wto02/wto2̲69.htm］