A Comparative Study on the Single Window Between Korea and Singapore

Transcription

1 Received : October 23, 2007 Accepted : November 26, 2007 A Comparative Study on the Single Window Between Korea and Singapore 1) Byung-Soo Ahn* Min-Chung Han** Abstract Generally, a Single Window is defined as a system that allows users to submit information with a single body to fulfill all related regulatory requirements of the government. The effect of the single window, which can save time and money, has contributed to its adoption by the international trade field and has gained great attention as to the way of its implementation and the functions. In May 2007, Korean Government (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy) and the Korea International Trade Association officially opened "utradehub" as a single window enabling traders to carry out all trade procedures from marketing to settlement via the internet. Also, the Singapore Government (Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Trade and Industry) has worked to establish the "TradeXchange" by 2007 as a single window covering customs clearance. This paper addresses issues which has close relations with the success factors of single windows in the international trade field and calls attention to the leadership and promotion comparing single window systems between Korea and Singapore, the leading countries in the electronic trade field. Keywords : Singlewindow, utradehub, TradeXchange, E-Trade * Main Author, Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Seoul Digital University, Republic of Korea, abs@sdu.ac.kr ** Corresponding Author, Ph.D. Candidate in the Foreign Trade Program at the SungKyunKwan University, Republic of Korea, amanda@lycos.co.kr - 1 -

2 Ⅰ. Introduction In December 2003, the Korean Joint National Electronic Trade Commission announced the establishment of a 3 Year Plan to Promote e-trade and the utradehub was set up as a total electronic trading service based on the internet. In addition, the utradehub integrated portal site was opened in May utradehub had been set up to play a role as a 'Single Window' which enables seamless trade service. The platform that enables web service of e-trade on the basis of systematic linkage was established for the trading procedures of companies operating in trading, banking, insurance, and the shipping industry. It offers services ranging from market research, marketing, contracts, carriage, customs clearance, to logistics through the internet. Especially since September 2007, the 3rd project of e-trade service has been started. In this project, VAN/EDI-based trade automation networks will be reformed to an internet based e-trade Platform and all the services related to trade are connecting to the utradehub to work as a single window. While the utradehub was established in Korea, Singapore is also building its 'TradeXchange' which provides a total online service under the single window concept. The projected project was to be launched in October 2007, but they still havent launched it. TradeXchange pilot trials are ongoing, comprising of Value Added Service providers for small and medium trading companies. Both Korea and Singapore ranked high among the early adopters and aspire to be the e-trade hub in Asia. However, both countries have not engaged in major in-depth discussions and/or reached an effects of the concept's implementation. 2) agreement on the definition, role and While it may seem slightly late to discuss the concept since both single windows have been established or are on track to completion. However a comparative study might yield further insights and serve to identify the advantages and the needs as well as the goals of both countries and tailor them to address specific needs or requirements of the Korean single window model. According to the background, this comparative study of establishing the Korean utradehub and the Singaporean TradeXchange intends to promote Korean 2) We can find some papers concerning the trade single window but not all. Seok-Beom Choi, Seung-Kwan Shin, Chong-Suk Park and Jae-Woo Jung(2003), Choong-Bae Lee,,Seok-Beom Choi and Yong-Kun Lee(2004), Sang-Jin Lee and Jae-Sung Chung (2005), Seon-Uk Song (2005) - 2 -

3 e-trade service and also considers the success factor of the single window. It is true that Information Technology(IT) issues are a very important part of this study by comparing the single windows of the two countries. Without information technology, the single windows of the two countries would be only an idea and could never be established. Therefore, in a comparative study of single windows, information technologies can not be excluded. In depth discussion of information technologies will, however, be minimized and the scope of research will be limited to business operations. Due to the continuous and rapid information technology progress, unsolved problems will be solved in the near future so it is not easy to study as a subject. Moreover, since both countries' single windows are founded on different technologies, it is hard to study without fully understanding about technologies. This study will be focused on the business aspect for which this concept is being implemented. Therefore, this paper will be composed of the first introduction chapter and the other four chapters. The second chapter explores the definitions of both countries' single windows and the differences between both of them. The third chapter reveals the similarities and differences and how each country manages and implements the 'Single Window' from concept to reality. Review and comparison will be made between the two portals, utradehub and TradeXchange, as well as the two sides, the Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy(MOCIE) and the Singapore Customs, supporting the efforts. utradehub was launched in May 2007 and TradeXchange was projected to go live in October, but that has not yet happened. In the fourth chapter, it will concentrate on the advantages and disadvantages of the Korean Single Window model, with information from the comparative study. In the fifth chapter, a brief of this study and the conclusion will be presented. This paper opts for a philological approach to deal with the different trade customs, legislation issues, common law and laws related to the Single Window concept. The papers, books and internet sites covering the 'Single Window' concept are discussed in this paper

4 Ⅱ. The Definitions and the Necessity of the Single Window in Korea and Singapore The definition of 'Single Window' in this case means a single body in English, but is not universally agreed upon. The general consensus, however, often brings into view the concept that it would be a platform where different regulatory requirements or needs of the government are greatly simplified and facilitated. It means that a general single window would allow a business to submit all the data required by Government once to fulfill regulatory requirements or to use government services. Each international organization has a different concept of the single window, respectively. Some however, simplified its definition to mean a single internet gateway where data is submitted electronically. Since the Single Window concept has just been recently introduced, only a few countries have rolled it out or are in the various stages of implementation. And since each country and international organization holds a different perspective in its definition of the 'Single Window' concept, this study attempts a review of the differences, with a particular emphasis on the models adopted by Korea and Singapore. It also will address the several concepts as envisioned by each different country or organization and the necessities of trade procedures. 1. The Definition of the Single Window of Korea and Singapore In its drive to establish the regional Asian Single Window, the UN/CEFACT refers to it as a facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all import, export and transit-related regulatory requirements. 3) UN/ECE describe the single window as 'a system that allows traders to lodge information with a single body to fulfill all import or export related regulatory requirements.' 4) In practical terms a 'single window' environment provides 'one 3) UN/CEFACT, Regional Single Window Initiative: Asia, 3 Oct. 2006, p.3. 4) UN/ECE, Recommendation and Guidelines on establishing a Single Window, 2005, p

5 entrance', which is either physical or electronic. This entrance is managed by one agency. The single window also can reduce non-tariff trade barriers and deliver immediate benefits to all members of international trade. The World Custom Organization (WCO) agreed on this definition that a single window is a facility enabling the provision of standardized information with a single body to fulfill all import, export and transit related regulatory requirements. If the information is electronic then individual data elements should only be submitted once. 5) SITPRO, UK's trade facilitation agency, defines it as 'Single window is an electronic system that will dramatically simplify international trade procedures for both trade and government. It is a tool that will allow a business to submit once all the data required by the government to clear import and export goods.' 6) The Single Window definition of SITPRO is the same as submitting all required data once to the only entrance, but as SITPRO defines a single window as an electronic system which means that submitting all papers to one related office can't be a single window. The US International Trade Data Systems(ITDS) has the following mention of a single window in their web site. ITDS would provide a single window through which the trade community would submit its commercial data, promising to create a government that works better and costs less. 7) According to the Japan Nippon Automated Cargo Clearance System (NACCS), the single window system is a means for enabling users to complete all the necessary import/export procedures or port-related procedures in a single input and single transmission by linking NACCS and relevant systems of the government. 8) Korea considers the e-trade Platform and single window as the same concept. The definition of the e-trade Platform is mentioned several times in papers. In the 3-Year Plan to Promote e-trade that was established in 2004, the e-trade Platform is defined as a single window to process all trading procedures via the internet and not only as a physical single system, but also a technical system or 5) WCO, Proposal on the introduction of single window/one-time submission( ), 10 May ) < (15 Oct. 2007) 7) < (15 Oct. 2007) 8) < (15 Oct. 2007) - 5 -

6 platform linkage for each agency. 9) In 2007, the 3rd project of the e-trade service plan, e-trade Platform, was introduced as a similar concept to the single window. e-trade Platform is a future model of Korean e-trade and gives single window service to traders by linking all trade processes including marketing, foreign exchange, logistics, and customs clearance. Also, the e-trade Platform secures distribution systems of trade-related e-documents to realize seamless e-trade services and to shorten trading procedures. 10) The e-trade Platform can give single window service so therefore, it is actually a single window. Also the e-trade Platform is defined as a new, conceptual, national e-trade hub which fulfills seamless trade procedures from marketing to settlement, linking existing trade procedure related agencies. 11) The Korean single window is considered to pursue single window service through technologies based on the e-trade Platform. In the Single Window Working Group Meeting presentation of APEC, Singapore said that a single window is a system which enables a single submission and processing of data and information. Also a single window enables a single decision making for custom release and clearance of cargo. 12) TradeNet is introduced as a single window which is a nationwide electronic trade documentation system, allowing the trading community to submit permit applications electronically to the relevant government bodies for processing and approval. 13) In this presentation, a major part of the presentation covers TradeNet rather than the newly established e-trade portal TradeXchange. TradeXchange aims to provide seamless interconnectivity among commercial and regulatory systems for the Singapore trade and logistics community and offers a single electronic window for integrated work flow, submissions and inquiries to the sea port, airports, maritime authorities, customs and controlling 9) Korea National e-trade Committee, e-trade Promotion 3 Year Plan( ), 2 Dec. 2003, p ) MOCIE & KCS, The Plan of e-government Project 2007, 2 Feb. 2007, p ) Ibid. 12) APEC, Republic of Singapore Singapore Customs (2006/SCCP/SWWG/006), Single Window Working Group Meeting, 6-8 Nov. 2006, p.3. < nload.v1.html?url=/etc/medialib/apec_media_library/downloads/committees/cti/sccp/mtg/2006/pdf.par File.v1.1> (15 Oct downloaded) 13) Ibid. p

7 agencies. 14) While TradeNet is a single window of customs clearance, TradeXchange is a single window of all seamless trading procedure services. TradeXchange insists that it is a single interface to multiple systems 15), so it's possible to assume that TradeXchange is a higher concept than TradeNet. Intelligent Nation 2015 (in2015), Singapore's e-government blue print, mentioned that once TradeXchange is fully developed, business can use this system as a 'one stop platform' to enter and access trade-related information rather than go through multiple systems. 16) 2. The Necessity of Single Window in Trade Procedures Despite the availability of technology and the continuous automating work for trade related procedures, it remains one of the most tedious, time-consuming and repetitive jobs. Inefficiency results from continuous submission of the same sets of documents to various organizations and relevant institutions. With marketing, foreign exchange, customs clearance, logistics and settlements, both Korea and Singapore aim to integrate trade related procedures through a single gateway. Also, both countries aim to deal with all the procedures online to save time and cost. In this chapter we will examine the effects of a successful implementation of the Single window in two countries, Korea and Singapore, respectively. 1) Cost Savings When Single Window is launched, traders expect a heightened level of efficiency and an increase of transactions and believe that it will improve efficiency qualitatively and save costs quantitatively. According to Samsung's report 17), the expected economic benefit is 1, ) TradeXchange, TradeXchange, May 2006, p.2. < f> (15 Oct downloaded) 15) Ibid. p.3 16) IDA, Orchestraing Global Supply Chains, Enabling High Value Manufacturing, p.23. < Logistics.pdf> (15 Oct downloaded) 17) SDS (Samsung Data System), Summary Report of Trade BPR/ISP, 24 June 2004, p

8 billion Korean won in 2008, the first year of structuring the e-trade Platform. By using the e-document storage, billion Korean won in savings can be realized. This is achievable by the simple process of minimizing the repeated submission of documents. Savings from IT investments totaled billion Korean Won whilst simultaneously raising and strengthening productivity. The e-trade Platform also translates into an overall reduction in the cost of doing trade, and subsequently improves exports to the tune of billion Korean won. We agree to the effects based on the report because of some evidence. Currently, e-trade services have provided an annual economic benefit of around 2.5 billion Won 18). When the utradehub project enters its 3rd year of implementation in 2008, a fully functional utradehub is expected to provide an annual total of 4.3 billion Won. In Singapore, the advantage gained from the adoption and application of the Single Window is the reduction 19) and lowering of business cost. 20) The New TradeNet system, which is a core application within TradeXchange, expects a reduction in cost by about one-third from a typical application cost of S$3.3. Overall, businesses can expect to save about S$75 million over a period of 10 years. 21) 2) Time Savings The establishment of a single window will contribute to saving the time of trade procedures thanks to the efficiency of seamless trade. Singapore's TradeXchange can bring about a tremendous savings in the time taken to process trade related procedures, such as a simplified trade information exchange and faster trade documentation processing. 22) To present a clearer picture of TradeXchange and its economic impact, we look at TradeNet, that was originally envisioned to drastically reduce the time required to clear customs. TradeNet, whose main object was to reduce the time needed for customs clearance, started life as version 1, which brought processing and approval time 18) MOCIE, Press Release "New Electronic Trade Service Trial Open", 28 Jan ) UNECE, Single Window Development and Implementation, Experience of Singapore, Oct ) TradeXchange, p.2. 21) Singapore Customs, TradeXchange, Connecting Business to the Global Trade Network, ) TradeXchange, p

9 down to a few days. The speed at which technology progresses has improved the required time. Version 1.8 takes about half-an-hour to clear customs and finally in version 2.0, it took an average of 2-5 minutes for businesses to submit, process and exact an approval from customs. 23) In 2004, the volume of TradeNet hovers around 30,000 per day with the average turnaround time of 5 minutes. 24) Korea utradehub enables a seamless trade process backed by efficient mutual linkages networking with each trade-related agency. These services were previously available only by linking to the relevant networks one by one. It is possible to reduce connecting time to each separate agency. By submitting documents once to one gateway online greatly reduces the unnecessary and repetitive tasks. Each trading company doesn't need to spend time for repeated submissions and single window service makes for a shortened trading procedure, improves productivity, and short둔 processing time. 25) Currently, documents like Letters of Credit, Local Credits, Certificates of Import Declaration, Approvals of Purchase, and Certificates of Origin, to name the few important forms, are currently submitted offline in their physical state. By converting the forms to an electronic format shaved an hour off the procedural time taken and allows for submission electronically online. 26) 3) Risk Avoiding The need for non-physical contact in the conduct of trade related matters is getting higher due to the US 9/11 attack and SARS of South East Asia. 27) One of the most important components in the establishment of the Single Window is the minimization of risks. The trade procedure of a single window allows for a reduction in physical contact which translates into a minimization of terror and financial related risks, like fraud. Since all trade procedures in the single window are done without paper and cash, it prevents any potential financial troubles in advance. 23) UNECE, p.4. 24) Ibid., p ) SDS, p ) MOCIE & KCS, p.6. 27) Korea National e-trade Committee, p

10 The Singaporean customs single window 'Tradenet' implementation translates to cashless transactions. 28) As customs duties, goods and service taxes are paid by electronic means, cashless transactions are possible. Minimizing data submitting, one time data inputting can transact all the procedures and reduce accidents to prevent several data submittals. 29) One of core members of utradehub, Korea International Trade Association (KITA) explained that the single window concept prevents loss of trade related documents as well as helps detect forged documents to strengthen transparency and reduce procedural delays. The benefits of utradehub on the government side correct revenue yields, improve trader compliance, and ease control and enforcement. In contrast on the private side, it cuts costs, allows for faster clearance, higher predictability, and is a more effective and efficient deployment of resources. 30) Ⅲ. Difference and Similarity between utradehub and TradeXchange 1. Similarity of utradehub and TradeXchnage The two single windows share certain similar traits. Both are established at a similar time and strong government efforts and initiatives have provided the impetus to both private and the public in ensuring overall support. Each country aims to be e-trade hub of Asia through building up a single window. These two countries are potential competitors of each other. Whilst Korea s utradehub supports efforts from marketing to the final settlement of trade procedures online, Singapore's TradeXchange focuses on customs clearance, foreign exchange, and authentication without the marketing component. Owing to each country's unique economy and the slight difference in 28) UNECE, p ) TradeXchange, p.2. 30) Yoonsay Jeong, Emerging Trends in Cross Border Trade, Electronic Title User Group Forum, May 15, 2007, pp < (15 Oct downloaded)

11 its service provisions for their respective projects, the underlying utradehub investments naturally differ. The two nations, however, share the same objective of serving and providing a seamless e-trade service for companies of all sizes and to realize the goal of an effective e-government. 1) Timing of the Single Window Launch Korea utradehub and Singapore TradeXchange are scheduled to be ready and online in After the launch of Korea's utradehub in May 2007, around seven companies have signed up for their pilot scheme and are undergoing trials. By early 2008, new services and improvements to existing services will be fine tuned and rolled out, a result of the third phase of 3 year project that matured in utradehub is an e-trade platform which adapted one of the e-government supporting program e-trade services and started as 3 year plan in The last year of plan 2007, integrated the portal gateway and utradehub, which improved the function. Singapore, which will launch its TradeXchange sometime in October 2007, but not yet, too supports small and medium companies. Many SMEs have expressed interest by cooperating and participating in a pilot program and a number of companies are currently undergoing trials for free. 2) The Main Driving Force of Single Window Participation The most significant similarity of utradehub and TradeXchange is that the establishment of the single windows is goverment driven. This is not only a similarity of the two countries, as usually the establishment of a single window is government driven as a state policy. Single windows are basically built at the national level and also aimed to expedite and simplify information flows between trade and the government. 31) utradehub and TradeXchange, are projects that were part of a strong government drive in both nations. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE), KITA, KOTRA and e-trade infrastructure provider KTNET drove the utradehub project whilst 31) UN/CEFACT, p

12 MOCIE, Ministry of Information and Communication (MOIC), Korea Customs Service, KITA and KOTRA are jointly involved in managing the e-trade service plan. Singapore's TradeXchange is driven by the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore Customs, Economic Development Board, Infocomm Development Authority, etc. It is also the first joint public-private partnerships project to be sealed in Singapore, with the government appointing Crimsonlogic, an 18 year veteran in the IT service sector, for developing, maintaining as well as driving the adoption of this project. Crimsonlogic has the same role as Korean KTNET. The Singapore government supports co-funding agencies in the following areas: manpower (salaries, training), hardware, software, professional services, materials, and intellectual properties. 32) 3) Several Functions of a Single Window Unlike the old day's single window, which was focused on the single entrance and information providing role, today's single window in the two countries serves a lot of functions, including electronic payment at a time to intend being a one stop service single window system. In the past trading procedures, the negotiation of the L/C wasn't electronic and it took a long time to go through because it was necessary to go to the bank to submit documents. To solve these problems, utradehub aims to build up an e-trade document repository to bill and pay the amount. By establishing an automated and electronic e-nego system, documents are distributed to utradehub so trading companies don't need to go to the bank carrying nego-related documents. Also, the banking system will connect to utradehub to utilize the e-nego system. Since utradehub needed a payment system and billing system, an e-billing system is being built up in the private sector. 33) Singapore TradeXchange encourages Value Added Service (VAS) Provider to participate in the project and will allow VAS providers to develop and market 32) Singapore Customs and ida and EDB, TradeXchange Value Added Services Call For Collaboration(CFC) Public Briefing, 11 May 2006, p.8. 33) MOCIE & KCS, p

13 innovative solutions efficiently to end-users. VAS are those services provided by any commercial service providers that connect to the TradeXchange to deposit or extract or transmit information. 34) TradeXchange enables end-users and VAS providers to send and receive messages for flight schedules. Also TradeXchange connects major industry players to their customers for the exchange of commercial documents, such as purchase orders, packing lists and invoices. It allows end-user VAS providers to send advance manifest data electronically to the United States and Canada. Advance connections to other countries such as Hongkong, Mexico, and Korea will be available shortly. Connections for vessel schedules, container bookings and declaration, container and pre-gate information will be made soon. 35) <Table 1> Similarities between utradehub and TradeXchange Similarities utradehub TradeXchange Establishment time May 2007 Site Open October 2007 open(scheduled) Participation body Government Government (MOCIE etc.etc) lead (MOF, MOTI etc.) lead Several function Negotiation, Payment, Logistics, Value Added Service, Logistics, Insurance etc. Declaration 2. The Difference of utradehub and TradeXchange As covered earlier in this study, we find that despite sharing certain similar characteristics in basic operations and objectives, the two countries have some notable differences. Based on these differences in each of the countries' 'Single Window', we look into the roles and effects. 1) Marketing Aspect The most significant role of the utradehub in comparison with the TradeXchange is that it focuses on the marketing aspect. TradeXchange hardly mentions the online marketing aspect while the Korean utradehub is becoming known for building a total marketing information searching system. 34) Singapore Customs, TradeXchange, Connecting Business to the Global Trade Network, ) TradeXchange, p

14 Korea utradehub plans to launch a total searching service of specialized marketing information in its single window. Even though this searching system is an independent portal, end-users can use this system in utradehub through the Single Sign On (SSO) to increase convenience. 36) utradehub as a e-trade marketing portal, will serve the world economy, trade statistics, world news, investment news, offer, general trading news and so on. 37) Korea, which is well grounded and advanced in information technology and industry infrastructure, wants to lead the e-trade and convert the whole trade procedure from the initial marketing stage to the completion of the process into electronic form. With these strengths, Korea is well poised to play an active role in marketing its e-trade Platform as compared to Singapore. 2) Investment Amount Aspect Korea and Singapore, despite the huge disparity in size, geography and population diversity, share almost the same history. Both possess scarce natural resources and both rank among the poorest nations after the tardy independence of nations in Asia. The difference in size, however, means the expectations, needs and amount of investment required by each country is different though both aim to be the leading Asian hub in e-trade. Since July 2004, utradehub has and will invest US$80 million in the project by December ) phase of the e-trade service plan in ) Korea will inject an additional US$17 million in its third The annual savings expected from the establishment of the e-document repository and the efficiency derived from cutting out repeated multiple submissions is projected to be in the region of US$101 million. 40) The total cost savings of US$1.9 billion is realizable in the first year of operation and conforms to the figures as mentioned earlier in this study. Singapore's TradeXchange expects a savings of S$75 million once established. To complete and roll out TradeXchange, the Singapore Government and Crimson Logic will invest S$45 million (23 billion Korean Won) over the next 10 years. 41) 36) MOCIE & KCS, p.5. 37) Ibid., pp ) Yoonsay Jeong, p.7. 39) MOCIE & KCS, p ) Ibid., p.6. 41) Singapore Customs, TradeXchange, Connecting Business to the Global Trade Network,

15 While Korea invests 10 billion Korean won in a year and expects 1,800 billion Korean won in cost savings, Singapore will invest 23 billion Korean won for 10 years and expects 40 billion Korean won in cost saving for 10 years. It depends on the economic size of the two countries that makes it so hard to simply compare. It's significant that each country get an economic saving based on the single window. 3) Profit Expectation in Substance The most direct beneficiary of the Single window would be the SMEs of both nations since such a project would be well beyond their reach monetarily and functionally since so many private and government entities are involved. To complete its project, "e-trade Korea" aims to establish its infrastructure based on the Single Window. 42) Savings are not expressed explicitly by utradehub, but beliefs that the savings gained by the simple act of negating the repeated submissions alone are phenomenal. Manpower costs, minimized time to complete procedures, simplified process and an overall reduction in trade related costs would translate into 93 billion Korean Won annually. Despite the monetary aspects that follow the implementation of the single window, the primary objective of utradehub is to improve overall efficiency and productivity. The marketing side of Singapore's TradeXchange, however, promotes the reduction of time and monetary related costs of doing trade in Singapore. 43) <Table 2> Differences between utradehub and TradeXchange Differences utradehub TradeXchange Object Seamless services Facilitation of custom clearance from marketing to payment Investment 80 million US dollars (2004~2007) 30 million US dollars (1996~2007) Expected effect Time & cost save, efficiency raise for user First, cut down charges Ⅳ. The Strong and Weak Points of utradehub 42) MOCIE & KCS, p ) Singapore Customs, TradeXchange, Connecting Business to the Global Trade Network,

16 The almost similar aims and intentions of both governments in establishing the gateways were noted earlier. In this chapter, we will cover the disadvantages and advantages that utradehub faces to roll out a full and functional service. utradehub was launched in May 2007, whereas TradeXchange is scheduled to go online in October 2007 but hasn't gone live as of yet. The two portals, however, are currently conducting pilot trials to ascertain their functionality. Both utradehub and TradeXchange are currently providing free trials to SMEs and final touches, like back end processing, are being applied. 1. The Strong Points of utradehub In the above project, critical success factors affecting the single windows are legal readiness, strong government leadership, sound public/private partnerships and cooperation, budget availability, well planned IT infrastructure, readiness of the home country's related industries, system integration ability and experience as well as a willingness to adopt and comply with international norms and trends. 44) Korea, in legal readiness, is ahead of most countries. Its Trade Automation Act has been revised to become the e-trade Facilitation Act. The Foreign Trade Act, Electronic Transactions Act, Customs Law, Trade Transaction Facilitation Act, Digital Signature Act, etc are being enacted, reform or reviewed. Since the single window has the specific character of strong leadership by government, making a budget is not hard. The government realized the importance of the single window and led the launch of it, made a budget for building it and encouraged the participation of private companies. In the launching of utradehub, the Korean government has invested US$43 million for three and a half years starting in July 2004 to December 2007 and expects USD $1.9 billion cost savings annually. To arrive at a perfect single window's development, proper applications of IT technologies are critical. As Korea is pretty advanced in this field, it should not be difficult to integrate both the hardware and software. The experience and expertise gained from concept to completion would be valuable, especially given its focus on the legal aspects of e-trade. The skills and information gained from 44) Yoonsay Jeong, p

17 exposure after launch, with constant fine-tuning post launch, will allow utradehub to even export its model abroad. 2. The Weak Points of utradehub The concept of the single window starts from facilitating government service for the public to serve as the only entrance, one office, one internet site. It started with government driving, and many government services including MOCIE, Korea Customs and trade related agencies such as KITA and KTNET all serve in the single window at the same time. KITA was established for the promotion of Korean trade as a private agency, but KITA has a similar role as government service. KTNET launched as a subsidiary company of KITA and worked in conjunction with many government agencies, so KITA and KTNET are both considered as having a quasi government roles. In the opening of utradehub, which is still early stage, government and quasi-government agencies participate in the single window more actively than private companies. In the long run, both the government and private sector should actively participate and do their roles to be a real single window. Even though it's hard to expect active participation of private companies in early stage of the single window, several pilot programs and encouraging participation can lead private companies to do their role in the project. Private companies tend to participate in specific programs when they can expect obvious profit or cost savings, otherwise they would refuse to participate in it. To prevent this situation, it is needed to prepare several encouragement policies and also many profitable businesses in the single window. As the Singapore TradeXchange aims to reduce the fee of customs clearance, utradehub should consider this strategy. In order to rally support from the private sector, the government should devise benefits and incentives to draw more private participation as the initial stage of development most always incurs a very high investment cost. Without government backed incentives and deals, most businesses tend to shy away from such projects. Thus, it is imperative that the government devises or implement incentives and garners strengths of both the public/private sector to realize a successful operation

18 Ⅴ. Conclusion Single Window, as a concept that is practiced or has existed in various other forms, is a concept well worth refining. As technology progresses at such a rapid pace, and since harnessing the power of technology to integrate both hard and software platforms and linking agencies across the board becomes cheaper and faster, it too is important that both private and public sectors work towards a common vision for Asia or the region. The UN/CEFACT holds an annual symposium, and with it, the idea of the Asian Single Window was broached. Korea and Singapore are heads of Asian countries with the single window and have opened utradehub or will open TradeXchange this year. In this study, the single windows of Korea and Singapore are compared to find the vision. We can find that the Korean Single Window, utradehub, gives the single window to trading companies by linking them to agencies related to trade, such as emp, banks, shipping companies, insurance companies and so on. Also it secures the circulation of e-trade documents to link discontinuing process, reduce unnecessary procedure and make it faster. Singapore's TradeXchange serves seamless connections to the trading and shipping companies. It is a single electronic window which performs the total work flow and submits documents to airport, port, and customs. From the world's 11th largest trading country and also an IT advanced country, the Korean utradehub has many similarities to Singapore's TradeXchange, but also has many differences. While Korea especially focuses on the first step of the trading procedure, marketing, Singapore's TradeXchange focuses on the offline customs clearance and settlement in online. If the Korean utradehub includes the critical factor of success, it can be expected to be successful, but it still needs government's strong will and driving forces by related agencies in the end. It also needs the major interested parties relating to trade or private companies that can participate in the project besides the government. Active participation of interested parties can lead utradehub from a simple government project to a real single window for trading companies. When small and medium companies use the

19 single window it has to be cheap to use without heavy burden and gain economic cost savings. By the way, as a new internet site normally does, utradehub needs publicity activities and marketing. Without public relations, the activation of a new internet site is not easy. The Korean government and related agencies have to focus on the public relations and marketing of utradehub, besides the launch of the site. The single window is suitable to Korean trading circumstances which depend on trade and also advances in the IT industry. Since Korea exports e-trade knowhow to many foreign countries, it is expected that Korean e-trade will develop based on the single window. References APEC, Republic of Singapore Singapore Customs (2006/SCCP/SWWG/006), Single Window Working Group Meeting, 6-8 Nov Choi, Seok-Beom, Shin, Seung-Kwan, Park, Chong-Suk and Jung, Jae-Woo, "The Trend of International Projects for e-trade and the Northeast Asian e-hub Policy," The Journal of Internet Electronic Commerce Research, V ol.3, No.2, Korea Internet Electronic Commerce Association, Feb IDA, Orchestraing Global Supply Chains, Enabling High Value Manufacturing Jeong, Yoonsay, Emerging Trends in Cross Border Trade, Electronic Title User Group Forum, May 15, 2007 Korea National e-trade Committee, e-trade Promotion 3 Year Plan( ), 2 Dec Lee, Choong-Bae, Choi, Seok-Beom and Lee Yong-Kun, "Intra-Regional Trade Relations and e-hub Strategy of Korea in Northeast Asia", The Annual Bulletin, The Japan Academy for International Trade and Business, March 2004 Lee, Sang-Jin and Chung, Jae-Sung, "A Study on the Implementation Model of Global e-trade", Global Commerce and Cyber Trade Review, V ol.7, No.4, Korea Association for Global Commerce and Cyber Trade, December 2005 MOCIE & KCS, The Plan of e-government Project 2007, 2 Feb MOCIE, Press Release "New Electronic Trade Service Trial Open", 28 Jan SDS (Samsung Data System), Summary Report of Trade BPR/ISP, 24 June 2004 Singapore Customs, ida, EDB, TradeXchange Value Added Services Call For

20 Collaboration(CFC) Public Briefing, 11 May 2006 Singapore Customs, TradeXchange, Connecting Business to the Global Trade Network, Song, Sun-Uk, "A Study on the Establishing of Single Window System for Simplification of Trade Procedures", Global Commerce and Cyber Trade Review, Vol.7, No.4, Korea A ssociation for Global Commerce and Cyber Trade, December 2005 TradeX change, TradeXchange, May 2006 UN/CEFA CT, Regional Single Window Initiative: Asia, 3 Oct UN/ECE, Recommendation and Guidelines on establishing a Single Window, , Single W indow Development and Implementation, Experience of Singapore, Oct W CO, Proposal on the introduction of single window/one-time submission( ), 10 May 2006 < libdownload.v1.html?url=/etc/medialib/apec_media_library/downloads/committees/cti/s ccp/mtg/2006/pdf.par.0097.file.v1.1> < < g_and_logistics.pdf> < < < < essed.pdf>

21 대조표 먼저 미흡한 원고를 꼼꼼히 읽고 보완할 점을 찾아주신 심사위원 선생님께 충심으로 감사말씀 올립니다. 선생님의 수정 및 보완 지시내용에 전적으로 공감하고 이를 수정하여 보완코져 노력하였으나, 촉박한 시간과 천학비재로 말미암아 미진한 점이 있는 점을 혜량하여 주실 것을 간청드립니다. 수정 및 보완 지시내용 결과 전체적으로 문장표현과 구조에 대한 수정 1. 전체적으로 문장의 표현과 가독성이 떨 을 가하였습니다. 특히 서론부분을 집중적 어짐. 으로 수정하였습니다. 2. 새로운 단어의 사용을 지양 (e.g., without paper and cash로 수정하였습니다. paperlessly, cashlessly 등) The most significant role of the 3. p13, The most significant utradehub in comparison w ith the difference of the role of betw een TradeXchange is that focuses on utradehub and (문장수정요) marketing aspect.로 수정하였습니다. 4. to reduct (->reduce) 수정하였습니다. 5. p8, 다음 문장, According to Samsung's report 45), the expected economical benefit is 1,818.9 billion p17, Korean won in 2008, the first year of structuring e-trade Platform. By using the e-document storage, billion Korean won in savings can be realized., cost saving 에 대한 항목을 삼성SDS의 보고서를 참조하여 구체적 으로 제시하고 논의하기 바람. 그리고 이에 대한 타당성을 저자의 관점 (e.g., 동의, 낙관적, 비관적 )을 피력하기 바 람. 6. 논문을 읽다보면, 저자들이 왜 싱가폴의 경우를 비교분석하였는지에 대한 의문 이 제기됨. 구체적인 연구목적 및 그 당 위성에 대하여 논의하기 바람. - 총 1조 8천억원의 정량적 기대효과의 구 성요소중 주요한 세 가지인 전자무역문서 보관소 이용에 따른 비용개선효과 7,107억 원, 서비스 프레임워크 구축으로 인한 IT투 자비용 절감 효과 2,828억원, 전자무역플랫 폼을 통한 수출증대효과 8,254억원을 기술 하였으며 - 이러한 보고서의 내용에 대하여 동의하 는 의견을 피력하였으며 근거로는 최근의 산자부 발표자료를 제시하였습니다. Introduction의 4번째 문단 및 5번째 문단 에서 전자무역분야의 선도국이라 할 수 있 는 우리나라와 싱가포르가 동일한 시점에 서 각각 utradehub와 TradeXchange를 구 축하고 있으며 이는 전자무역분야에서 국 가단위의 싱글윈도우를 구축하는 보기 드 문 사례이기에 상호비교하고자 함을 밝혔

22 7. 저자가 결론부분에서 언급하였듯이 싱 가폴과 한국의 경우 공통점과 차이점이 존재하는 바, 이를 본문에서 열거식으로 논의하기 보다는 표를 이용하여 연구결 과를 간략하게 설명하기 바람. 8. single window에 대한 개념이 학술적 기반이 존재하는 것인지, 실무상에서 논 의가 된 것인지 그 출처와 근거를 서론 이나 본론에서 제시하기 바람. 대부분의 경우 portal에 관한 논문들에서 single sign-on 의 개념이 확장되었다고 여겨지 는 바, 이에 대한 학술적 근거가 있으면 제시하기 바람. 9. 전체적으로 매우 중요한 주제를 다루고 있으나 연구자의 주장이나 그 공헌도가 재구성되어야 한다고 생각됨. 저자는 이 를 고려하여 수정하여 재심사할 것을 권고함. 습니다. p. 13의 table 1에서는 유사점(공통점)을, p. 15의 table 2에서는 차이점을 정리하여 넣고 있습니다. 제 장 제1절에서 Single Window의 개념 에 대한 UN/ECE, WCO, SITPRO, ITDS 등이 밝히고 Ⅱ있는 정의를 제시하고 있습니 다. 이는 또한 single sign-on의 개념이 확 장된 것과는 다소 차이가 있다고 판단됩니 다. 미흡하나마 지시하신 내용에 대하여 수정 보완코져 노력하였으며 이에 재심사를 요 청드립니다. 45) SDS (Samsung Data System), Summary Report of Trade BPR/ISP, 24 June 2004, p