Backhoon Song

Location Proximity and Productivity Spillovers: The Case of Korean Manufacturing Plants*

Knowledge spillovers have been recognized as an important source of innovation and economic growth in both industry and firm-level data. A firm may reap benefits by locating near other firms in the same geographical region. In this paper, we examine how physical proximity influences a firms future productivity and its survival possibility. Our results indicate that a firm located in a region with a higher median total factor productivity (TFP) gains higher productivity from other firms in the same region. One possible explanation is that such a firm has more opportunity to access superior external knowledge and to produce more new ideas. Our results also indicate these productivity-enhancing characteristics do not seem to be industry-specific. Finally, we find that high productivity firms are the only significant sources of knowledge spillovers, suggesting that firms benefit most from combining their internal knowledge with the external knowledge of neighboring firms with high TFP on average.

Vertical specialization in the Korean manufacturing sector

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer for questions regarding vertical specialization in the Korea’s key exporting industries, such as the changing pattern toward VS or VS1 and the changing trend in the location of slicing up the value chain in these industries. Design/methodology/approach – The framework of Koopman et al. (2014) is adopted to calculate the industry-level vertical specialization indices, VS and VS1. Findings – VS1 is a dominant type of vertical specialization in the key exporting industries of Korea. The increasing net vertical trades (VS1−VS) verifies the upward trends in the locations of slicing up the value chain in the industries empirically. Research limitations/implications – The net vertical trade (VS1−VS) of each industry is an important indicator of the location of slicing up the value chain in the environment of the international production network. Originality/value – The industry-level calculations of VS and VS1 are necessary in order to remedy the aggregation bias ...

Expansion of EU's Free Trade Agreements into Asian Countries and Its Impact on the Chinese Economy

Abstract This study investigates the macroeconomic impact of EUs free trade agreements with Asian countries and the US on the Chinese economy. In addition we examine the impacts on the Chinese industry output based on the framework of production network and production fragmentation. The expansion of the EUs economic reach toward ASEAN and Japan through free trade agreement will generate a positive macroeconomic effect on negotiation participants while it generates a negative effect on the Chinese economy: Some portions of existing trade and foreign direct investment will be shifted to partner countries from non-partner countries. However, according to a sectorial analysis, EUs free trade agreements with three countries result in a positive impact on Chinas electronics and machinery industry, because Chinas industry is linked to the production fragmentation and foreign affiliates play a crucial role.

The Stalemate of the Doha Development Agenda Negotiation and Some Policy Implications for Its Completion

1. Background. 2. Factors for the Stalemate of the DDA Negotiation. 3. Some Policy Implication for the Completion of the DDA Negotiation.

: WTO Euuu Ftaa (Economic Effects of Russia's Trade Liberalization: Russia's WTO Accession and FTAs with EU and Korea)

Korean Abstract: GTAP CGE 모형(�?�학모형 �? �?본축�?모형)�?� 사용하여 러시아�?� WTO 가입, 러시아�?EU FTA �? 한�?러시아 FTA�?� 경제�? 파급효과를 분�?하고 시사�?�?� �?�출하였다. 서비스무역장벽으로 호주학�?들�?� 빈�?�지수를 사용하여 GTAP �?��?�터베�?�스를 수정하고, �?�를 토대로 �?품부문 개방 시나리오�?� 결과와 �?품 �? 서비스 �?�시 개방 시나리오�?� 결과를 비�?하였다. 본 논문�?� 주요 연구결과는 다�?�과 같다. (1) 제�?�개선�?� 수반�?�지 않는 한 WTO 가입�? 따른 무역�?유화�?� 효과는 제한�?�?�다. (2) 서비스부문 무역�?유화를 �?�함하�?��?��?� WTO 가입�? 따른 개방�?��?��?� �?품 무역�?유화만�?� 효과와 비�?해 볼 때 별로 �?가하지 않는다. (3) CEEC 국가�?� EU 가입 효과와 비�?할 때, 러시아가 EU 가입으로 향유할 수 있는 개방�?��?��?� �?가는 �?�지 않다. (4) 한�?러시아 FTA로 양국�?� 향유할 수 있는 무역�?유화�?� 경제�? 파급효과 �?한 �?당히 제한�?�?�다. (5) 한�?러 FTA 체결과 러시아�?� WTO 가입�?� 순서가 FTA�?� 경제�? 효과�?� �?�기�? 차별�?�?� �?향�?� 발�?시키지 못한다. (6) 러시아�?� WTO 가입 �?는 EU �? 한국과�?� FTA 체결�?� 타 권역�? 미치는 �?향�?� 아주 작다. English Abstract: This paper estimates the economic impacts of the various liberalization scenarios of Russia (accession to the WTO, Russia-EU FTA, and Korea-Russia FTA) using GTAP recursive dynamic and capital accumulation models. To compare liberalization gains from goods liberalization with those from goods-and-services liberalization, the original GTAP database is adjusted by inputting Australian sectoral indices as barriers in the service trade. The major findings and implications of this paper are as follows. First, without simultaneous improvement of market institutions, Russia’s liberalization gains from its accession to the WTO are not so great. Second, the inclusion of the services sector in addition to the goods sector in the WTO liberalization scenarios does not greatly expand Russia’s economic benefits from trade. This is quite different from the case of China’s accession to the WTO. Third, Russia’s liberalization gains from the Russia-EU FTA are not so great, either. This result is in contrast to that of CEEC’s accession to the EU, where the CEEC enjoys large gains due to increases in FDI. Fourth, the economic effects of the Korea- Russia FTA on concerned countries are ignorable. Fifth, the sequencing issue regarding the Korea-Russia FTA, the FTA after Russia’s WTO accession or the FTA before the accession, has no meaning. Sixth, the negative economic impacts, such as trade diversion effects, of Russias liberalization policies on external regions are also ignorable.