Search results

In this paper, we examine the comparative advantage of Korea and China while focusing on their technology level. The three digit SITC (Standard International Trade Classification) data is classified by technology level and the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) is derived from 1992-2009 by using UN COMTRADE data. For careful interpretation of the comparative advantage and technology levels, we also examined intra-industry trade and unit values of bilateral Korea-China trade, and semi-conductor industry technology. We found that the revealed comparative advantage has moved from low technology products to high technology products in Korea. China still maintains a comparative advantage in low technology products such as textiles and clothing, but at the same time, China’s high and medium-high technology products have recently gained a comparative advantage. The perception that China only has a comparative advantage for labor intensive products with low technology should be changed based on our analysis. However, China’s advancement in technology should not be overestimated. When comparing the unit value of basic materials of Korea’s and China’s exports, we found that Korea’s export product prices are on average higher than that of China’s, although the gap is reducing. A wider technology gap between Korea and China still exists in the semi-conductor industry, which is one of the most advanced high technology industries throughout the world.

This paper examines global imbalance and rebalancing issues from the viewpoint of Korea. As IMF (2009) notes, the unwinding of global imbalance seems inevitable and, in fact, it is in progress. We illustrate that Korea, with a flexible exchange rate system and relatively balanced current accounts, has little direct linkage to global imbalance. However, we also find that Korea is not immune to the costly adjustment process of imbalance due to the triangular trade between Korea, China and the U.S. The fact that Korea is ‘indirectly’ linked to global imbalance limits Korea’s ability to cope with the situation. Boosting domestic demand, often mentioned recommendation for East Asia, is not an appropriate solution for Korea with low personal savings rate. A lot depends on China’s policy. If China reduces its dependence on U.S. market and increases domestic consumption despite unemployment risk in export manufacturing sector, it will provide Korea with an opportunity for more stable growth based on China’s final demand. Korea can also make efforts to increase economic integration and expand monetary cooperation in Asia that would help to increase consumption demands and final goods trade in the region.

China has been the most important economic partner to Korea since the resurrection of their diplomatic relationship and economic interaction. It has been suggested that China simultaneously presents challenges and opportunities to the Korean economy. This paper investigates changes in trade specialization patterns and comparative advantage of Korea and China, and analyzes the effect of market expansion of Chinese industries on market shares of Korean industries. It is found that since the early 1990s, the industries that lost market share as China’s share increased include those in which Korea has maintained a comparative advantage or improved the level of disadvantage, such as IT equipment and other transport equipments. Considering growth of trade flows and emergence of China, it is critical for Korea to actively participate in international production chains, create competitive edges and extend complementary relationship with trading partners.

This paper examined the future prospects of China’s economic development and its impact on the East Asian Economy and the economic integration of the region. The key issue to China’s economic growth is the contradiction between the socialist political system and a market-based economy. The overall assessment is that China will be able to manage the transformation of the nation into a steadily growing market economy.

We also found that China is the key country forming a triangular trading block which has implemented the international division of labor in the North-East Asian region. China’s rapid export growth and increased market share in the world economy is not a threat but a new opportunity for the East Asian countries. The rise of China will certainly be accompanied by an expansion of a consumer market, which will also broaden business opportunities for East Asian.

Despite the interdependence between East Asian countries, a regional trading bloc embracing East Asia has not been created yet. The future prospects for realizing the vision of a regional free trade agreement in East Asia in the foreseeable future is not bright, either.

The economic success of East Asia was due to an export-led growth strategy, which was heavily dependent on the global trading system underpinned by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In recent years, however; East Asian countries have shifted their trade policy focus to regional agreements and made Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) among themselves arid with other regions. Government organization has been restructured to increase FTA activities. Generally, the current literature predicts that FTA activities of East Asia would help to increase the welfare of the region. In this paper; we offer a critical assessment of East Asia FTAs. We note that East Asia FTAs provide incomplete coverage of sectors and are likely to lead to an inefficient resource allocation. FTA movements are not matched with actual trade flows. The benefits of East Asia FTAs are fairly limited and potential benefits, if any, would not likely be materialized in the near future. Our overall assessment is that the recent policy shift in East Asian countries from multilateral trade orientation or unilateral action to regionalism or a parallel multilateral and regional trade approach will not produce much gain. The governments should increase their efforts at economic reform and reduce barriers to trade and investment, rather than to allocate more resource and manpower to FTA activities.

Since 1988 Russia and Korea have been developing bilateral economic relations. After the conclusion of, the first trade agreement, Korea has become one of the largest trading and investment partners of the Russian Far East. Annually, Korea has increased trade and investment flows to the Russian Far East, a region with high growth potential. By the 2000s Korea has become the Russian Far East’s third largest trading partner. This article considers trade and investment flows from the 1990s to the present, analyses the prospects of achieving goals, and the problems of developing further bilateral cooperation between Russia and Korea.

Since the financial crisis, East Asian countries have worked on bilateral/regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Currently, East Asian countries are working on over 30 FTAs. So far, the United States (U.S.) has exerted its considerable political and economic power in East Asia, but its political and diplomatic position is increasingly shaky for many reasons-emergence of China’s economic and military strength, growing regionalism in East Asia, weakening influence of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) forum, and growing anti-American sentiment after the anti-terrorism war. The U.S. will be even more concerned about the development of FTAs in East Asia, since the country will suffer economic and non-economic losses when the East Asian regionalism is developed. This article evaluates a U.S.-Korea FTA in terms of U.S. involvement in East Asian regionalism, and tries to provide an economic assessment of the FTA. This article points out that the U.S. should take advantage of the U.S.-Korea FTA to secure its interests in East Asia and to avoid exclusion from East Asian regional economic integration.