[Editorial] CPTPP Membership Talks: Looking Beyond Tariffs to the Bigger Picture

The long-delayed discussions on South Korea’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) are regaining momentum. The recently released government analysis of economic impacts shows both the growth benefits and the damages to agriculture, forestry, and fisheries that would result from joining. Ten years after its entry into force, the analysis projects that South Korea's real gross domestic product (GDP) would be 0.38 percentage points higher compared to not joining, and the ripple effect of manufacturing-based production would increase by about 6 trillion won annually on average. On the other hand, production in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors is estimated to decrease by approximately 850 billion won. However, since the manufacturing benefit is measured as both direct and indirect (forward and backward) effects, while the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries loss is calculated as a direct reduction in output, the two figures are not directly comparable.

The significance of joining the CPTPP extends far beyond tariff reductions. The 12 member countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Canada, and Mexico, account for roughly 15% of global GDP. While South Korea already has free trade agreements (FTAs) or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in place with most members, accession would create new FTA effects with Mexico. Japan, too, is already covered by the RCEP, but the CPTPP guarantees a higher level of market openness. In addition, raw materials and components sourced from member countries can be jointly recognized as originating, which would expand companies’ supply chain choices. The agreement also represents a commitment to broad trade norms, including e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, labor, and the environment.

As talks on joining the CPTPP become more important, countermeasures for agriculture and fisheries must become more detailed. If losses are concentrated in specific products or regions, the actual impact could be much greater than the averages suggest. The government must publicly share the sector-specific impacts and go beyond simple compensation by presenting strategies for boosting competitiveness and preparing transition measures in tandem.

As protectionism and supply chain fragmentation intensify, being part of a major market that shares common rules becomes increasingly consequential. This is why it is difficult to judge whether to join the CPTPP based solely on tariff gains or losses, especially as the World Trade Organization (WTO) loses influence and global trade order splinters into multiple blocs. The fundamental questions are how deeply South Korea will connect with major markets and rules, and who will bear the associated costs. Only by openly disclosing both the strategic benefits and industry-specific burdens, and detailing concrete transition plans for sectors most affected, can a solid foundation for future decisions be established.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.