Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measuring Korea's Industry-level Productivity Change Due to Tariff Cuts using a CGE Model

  • Roh, Jaewhak (Department of International Trade, Hansung University) ;
  • Roh, Jaeyoun (School of International Economics & Business, Yeungnam University)
  • Received : 2020.09.11
  • Accepted : 2021.04.02
  • Published : 2021.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This study examined the effect of tariff cuts on productivity in Korea's manufacturing industries and the effect of initial productivity level before tariff cuts on productivity improvement after tariff cuts. We also attempted to identify whether import-driven or export-driven factors are more important for productivity improvement, especially in low productivity industries. Design/methodology - Since tariff reduction is a policy decision that can affect cross-industry, its impact is spread across all industries beyond the scope of a single firm through the input and output network of industry structure. Accordingly, we proposed a new method to measure the change in productivity to reflect the impact of tariff cuts across industries. Through an Armington CGE analysis, changes in endogenous variables can be directly measured after the exogenous shock of tariff reduction, and the amount of movements in productivity triggered by tariff cuts can also be calculated. We can thus assess the effectiveness of exogenous policy, such as tariff cuts, through the difference between the benchmark and counterfactual values of endogenous variables. Findings - This study confirmed that tariff reduction positively affected productivity improvement in Korea's manufacturing industries. It also confirmed that productivity gains occur in Korea's leading export industries. Finally, greater productivity gains were recorded in the group with additional high-export-share or high-import-share conditions for low productivity industries. These results are, in a limited sense, consistent with the existing studies that emphasize the importance of exports and imports on productivity improvement, especially for low productivity industries. Originality/value - The results of our experiments are different from those of non-CGE studies, which measure the industry-level change in productivity with dummy coefficients, in terms of directly calculating the amount of change in productivity. In addition, we propose that the Armington CGE model is more appropriate than the Melitz CGE model to directly measure the productivity after tariff cuts. This is because the Melitz CGE model assumes the given specific productivity density, which does not change after an overall drop of tariffs. To the best of our knowledge, this approach to directly calculating productivity by reflecting the impact of tariff reduction across industries through CGE analysis, is unprecedented in this literature.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was separately supported by a Hansung University Research Grant for Jaewhak Roh and a Yeungnam University Research Grant for Jaeyoun Roh.

References

  1. Ahn, Jae-Bin, E. Dabla-Norris, R. Duval, B. Hu and L. Njie (2019), "Reassessing the productivity gains from trade liberalization", Review of international Economics, 27(1), 130-154 https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12364
  2. Amiti, M. and J. Konings (2007), "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate inputs and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia", American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611-1638 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1611
  3. Armington, P. S. (1969), "A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production", Staff Papers-International Monetary Fund, 16(1), 159-178 https://doi.org/10.2307/3866403
  4. Bae, Chan-Kwon, Jeong-Gon Kim, Hye-Uoon Keum and Young-Yoon Jang (2012), "The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Economic Performance in Korea", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, 12-03
  5. Balistreri, E. J. and R.H Hillberry (2007), "Structural Estimation and the Border Puzzle", Journal of International Economics, 72(2), 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2007.01.001
  6. Balistreri, E. J., R. H. Hillberry and T. F. Rutherford (2011), "Structural Estimation and Solution of International Trade Models with Heterogeneous Firms", Journal of International Economics, 83(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.01.001
  7. Balistreri, E. J. and T. F. Rutherford (2012), "Subglobal carbon policy and the competitive selection of heterogeneous Firms", Energy Economics, 34(2), 190-197.
  8. Balistreri, E. J. and T. F. Rutherford (2013), "Computing General Equilibrium Theories of Monopolistic Competition and Heterogeneous Firms". In P. B. Dixon and D. W. Jorgenson (Eds.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling. North-Holland
  9. Bohringer, C., A. Lange and T.F. Rutherford (2014), "Optimal emission pricing in the presence of international spillovers: decomposing leakage and terms of trade motives", Journal of Public Economics, 110, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.011
  10. Bohringer, C., K. E. Rosendahl and H. B. Storrosten (2017), "Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage", Journal of Public Economics, 149, 35-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.03.006
  11. Bernard, A. B., J. Eaton, J. B. Jensen and S. Kortum (2003), "Plants and Productivity in International Trade", American Economic Review, 93(4), pp 1268-1290 https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803769206296
  12. Blalock G. and F. M. Veloso (2007), "Imports, Productivity Growth, and Supply Chain Learning", World Development, 35(7), 1134-1151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.009
  13. Braun, S. (2008), "Economic Integration, Process and Product Innovation, and Relative Skill Demand", Review of International Economics, 16(5), 864-873 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2008.00754.x
  14. Bustos, P. (2011), "Trade Liberalization, Exports, and Technology Upgrading: Evidence on the Impact of Mercosur on Argentinean Firms", American Economic Review, 101, 304-340 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.304
  15. Cheong In-Kyo (2016), FTA and International Trade, Yulgokbook.
  16. Coe, D. and E. Helpman (1995), "International R&D Spillover", European Economic Review, 39(5), 859-887 https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)00100-E
  17. Debaere, P. and S. Mostashari (2010), "Do Tariffs Matter for the Extensive Margin of International Trade? An Empirical Analysis", Journal of International Economics, 81(2), 163-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2010.03.005
  18. Debreu, G. (1959), Theory of Value, Ch. 2, Whiley
  19. De Hoyos, R. E. and L. Iacovone (2013), "Economic Performance under NAFTA: A Firm-Level Analysis of the Trade-productivity Linkages", World Development, 44, 180-193 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.008
  20. Dixon, P. B., M. Jerie and M.T. Rimmer (2016) "Modern Trade Theory for CGE Modeling: The Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models", Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 1(1), 1-110
  21. Fernandes, A. M. and A. E. Isgut (2005), "Learning by Doing, Learning by Exporting, and Productivity Evidence from Colombia", Policy Research Working Paper, 3544, the World Bank
  22. Fernades, A. M. (2007), "Trade Policy, Trade Volumes and Plant-level Productivity in Colombian Manufacturing Industries", Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 52-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.03.003
  23. Giesecke J. (2002) "Explaining regional economic performance: an historical application of a dynamic multi-regional CGE model", Papers in Regional Science, 81, 247-278 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.2002.tb01232.x
  24. Goldberg, P. K, A. K. Khandelwal, N. Pavcnik, and P. Topalova (2010), "Imported Intermediate Inputs and Domestic Product Growth: Evidence from India", Economic Journal, 117(517), 134-161
  25. Halpern, L, M. Koren, and A. Szeidl (2015), "Imported Inputs and Productivity", American Economic Review, 105(12), 3660-3703 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150443
  26. Hanson, K. and A. Rose (1997) "Factor productivity and income inequality: a general equilibrium analysis", Applied Economics, 29, 1061-1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368497326453
  27. Herzer, D. and M. Schrooten (2008), "Outward FDI and Domestic Investment in Two Industrialized Countries", Economics Letters, 99(1), 139-143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.06.014
  28. Hosoe, N. (2004), "Computable General Equilibrium Modeling with GAMS", National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
  29. Jang, Yong-Joon, Mee-Jin Cho and Han-Sung Kim (2015) "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity - Evidence from Korea", Journal of Korea Trade, 19(4), 21-41
  30. Kasahara, H. and J. Rodrigue (2008) "Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence", Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 106-118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.12.008
  31. Kasahara, H. and B. Lapham (2013), "Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence", Journal of International Economics, 89(2), 297-316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.08.005
  32. Keller, W. (2004), "International Technology Diffusion", Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (3), 752-782 https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051042177685
  33. Krugman, P. (1980) "Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade", The American Economic Review, 70(5), 950-959
  34. Lee, Hong-Shik, Kwan-Ho Shin, Jong-Wha Lee and Hyung-Ju Kim (2006), "Regional Trade Agreements and Productivity Improvement", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
  35. Lileeva, A. and D. Trefler (2010), "Improved Access to Foreign Markets Raises Plant-level Productivity... For Some Plants", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1051-1099 https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1051
  36. Melitz, M. J. (2003) "The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity", Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00467
  37. Olley, G. S. and A. Pakes (1996), "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry", Econometrica, 64(6), 1263-1297 https://doi.org/10.2307/2171831
  38. Pavcnik, N. (2002), "Trade Liberalization, Exit and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants", Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 245-276 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00205
  39. Roh, J. W. and H. J. Kim (2018) "The Effects of Paris Agreements on Korean Economy and Trade Analyzed by the Computational General Equilibrium Method Considering Firm's Heterogeneity", Journal of Korea Trade, 22(3), 280-305 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKT-03-2018-0017
  40. Roh, J. W. and K. S. Oh (2016) "A Study of the economic impacts of the TPP on Korea: Armington and Melitz Model", Journal of Korea Trade, 20(1), 35-46 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKT-03-2016-003
  41. Topalova, P. and A. Khandelwal (2011), "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India", the Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 995-1009 https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00095
  42. Trefler, D. (2004), "The Long and Short of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement", American Economic Review, 94(4), 870-895 https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002633
  43. Zhai, F. (2008) "Armington Meets Melitz: introducing Firm Heterogeneity in a Global CGE Model of Trade", Journal of Economic Integration, 23(3), 575-604 https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2008.23.3.575
  44. Bank of Korea, Input-output Table in 2015. Available from http://ecos.bok.or.kr/ (accessed January, 2020)