Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:24:12.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opening Markets while Maintaining Protection: Tariff Rate Quotas in Korea and Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jung-Sup Choi  and
Daniel A. Sumner
Jung-Sup Choi
Affiliation:
Korea Rural Economic Institute and a visiting scholar with the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Davis
Daniel A. Sumner
Affiliation:
Korea Rural Economic Institute and a visiting scholar with the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the result of Uruguay Round negotiations, Korea and Japan established tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for agricultural imports. Both countries allocate the TRQs with various methods that show different fill rates and welfare implications. The state trading enterprises play important roles in TRQ administration in both countries. The TRQs contributed to increased imports. However, the transparency and commercial consideration in administering the TRQs remain a concern and the access for some commodities seems to be less open than would be the case if quota amounts were made available on a purely commercial basis.

Type
Issues in the Administration of Tariff-Rate Import Quotas in the Agreement on Agriculture in the WTO
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , April 2000 , pp. 91 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Choi, J., Sumner, D. and Song, J. 1994. “Importing STEs in Korea and Japan: Evolution, Operation, and Implications.” A Paper Presented at the Workshop Role of State and Agricultural Trade, Co-organized by the North American Forum, Stanford University and Agricultural Issues Center, University of California. 20-22 November.Google Scholar
de Gorter, H. and Boughner, D. 2000 (forthcoming). “U.S. Dairy Policy and the Agreement on Agriculture in the WTO.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyck, J., et al. 1999. “Rice Tariffication in Japan: What Does It Mean for Trade?” Agricultural Outlook. USDA-ERS (April).Google Scholar
International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. 1997. Implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and Issues for the Next Round of Agricultural Negotiations. Commissioned Paper No. 12. (October).Google Scholar
Japan. 1994. Country Schedule. (April).Google Scholar
Josling, T., Tangermann, S. and Warley, T. 1996. Agriculture in the GATT. St. Martin's Press Inc., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 1998. Annual Report on the Situation of Agriculture, 1997. (October).Google Scholar
Republic of Korea. 1994. Country Schedule. (March).Google Scholar
Sumner, D. and Choi, J. 2000 (forthcoming). “Liberalization with Protection: Import Management in Korea (With Emphasis on Rice),” In Agricultural Globalization, Trade, and the Environment. edited by Schmitz, A. Google Scholar
Supply Administration of the Republic of Korea. 1998. “Invitation for Bids.” Invitation No. KFX-980437-F2-S. (September).Google Scholar
WTO. 1995. “Notification Concerning the Administration of Tariff Quotas of Korea.” G/AG/N/KOR/1. (May).Google Scholar
WTO. 1996. “Review of Korea.” Trade Policy Review Body PRESS/TPRB/42. (October).Google Scholar