Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Macro Aspects Caused by Protectionism in Korea

  • Kim, Yuri (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy) ;
  • Kim, Kyunghun (School of Economics, Hongik University)
  • Received : 2020.08.04
  • Accepted : 2021.02.08
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - The global trend of protectionism has expanded since the onset of US President Donald Trump's administration in 2017. This global phenomenon has led to a significant reduction in world trade volume and a negative impact on economic development in some countries where the external sector accounts for a large proportion of GDP. Although Korea is a country vulnerable to this deteriorating trade environment, few studies have examined the relationship between protectionism and its business cycles based on Korean data. Thus, this paper investigates the impact of protectionism on Korea's business cycle. Design/methodology - To identify future implications, we conduct a structural vector autoregression (VAR) analysis using monthly Korean data from 1994 to 2015. Macroeconomic variables in the model include the industrial production index, inflation rates, exports (or net exports), interest rates, and exchange rates. For the identification of the shock reflecting the expansion of protectionism, we use an antidumping investigation (ADI) data. Since ADIs are followed generally by the imposition of antidumping tariffs, they have no contemporaneous impact on tariffs and are also contemporaneously exogenous to other endogenous variables in the VAR model. We examine two kinds of ADI shocks i) shocks on Korean exports imposed by Korea's trading partners (ADI-imposed shocks) and ii) shocks on imports imposed by the Korean government (ADI-imposing shocks). Findings - We find that Korea's exports decline sharply due to ADI-imposed shocks; the lowest point at the third month after the initial shock; and do not recover until 24 months later. Simultaneously, the inflation rate decreases. Therefore, the ADI-imposed shock can be regarded as a negative shock on the demand curve where both production and price decrease. In contrast, the ADI-imposing shock generates a different response. The net exports decline, but the inflation rate increases. These can be seen as standard responses with respect to the negative shock on the supply curve. Originality/value - We shed light on the relationship between protectionism and Korea's economic fluctuations, which is rarely addressed in previous studies. We also consider the effects of both protective policy measures on imports to Korea imposed by the Korean government and on policy measures imposed by Korea's trading partner countries on its exports.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

References

  1. Barattieri, A., M. Cacciatore and F. Ghironi (2018), Protectionism and the Business Cycle (Working Paper No. 24353), National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w24353
  2. Blonigen, B. and S. E. Haynes (2002), "Antidumping Investigations and the Pass-through of Antidumping Duties and Exchange Rates", American Economic Review, 92(4), 1044-1061. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344597
  3. Bown, C. P. (2012), Temporary Trade Barriers Database (World Bank Database). Available from http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/
  4. Bown, C. P. (2016), Global Antidumping Database (World Bank Database). Available from http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/
  5. Bown, C. P. and B. A. Blonigen (2003), "Antidumping and Retaliation Threats", Journal of International Economics, 60, 249-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(02)00055-7
  6. Bown, C. P. and M. A. Crowley (2014), "Emerging Economies, Trade Policy, and Macroeconomic Shocks", Journal of Development Economies, 111, 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.05.001
  7. Brown, A. C. (2005), How to Respond to Antidumping Duties? Korea, United States, and the Rest of the World (Doctoral dissertation), Ohio: Ohio State University, May 26.
  8. Firme, V., C. Vasconcelos (2015), "Evolution in the Use of Antidumping Mechanism after Uruguay Round", EconomiA, 16(3), 321-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2015.09.004
  9. Goldberg, P. and N. Pavcnik (2016), The Effects of Trade Policy (Working Paper No. 21957), National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21957
  10. Knetter, Michael M. and Thomas J. Prusa (2013). "Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries", Journal of International Economics, 61(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(02)00080-6
  11. Konings, J. and H. Vandenbussche (2013), "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), 149(2), 295-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-013-0151-8
  12. Lu, Y., Z. Tao and Y. Zhang (2013), "How Do Exporters Respond to Antidumping Investigations?", Journal of International Economics, 91, 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.08.005
  13. Li, C., J. Whalley (2015), "Chinese Firm and Industry Reactions to Antidumping Initiations and Measure", Applied Economics, 47(26).
  14. Prusa, T. J. (1996), The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions (Working Paper No. 5440), National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w5440
  15. Piyush Chandra, Cheryl Long (2013) "Anti-dumping Duties and Their Impact on Exporters: Firm Level Evidence from China", World Development, 51, 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.018
  16. Stock, J., C. Sims and M. Watson (1990). "Inference in Linear Time Series Models with Some Unit Roots", Econometrica, 58(1), 113-144. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938337

Cited by

  1. An empirical analysis on the performance of the third-party logistics in the Korean exporter vol.20, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1108/jkt-03-2016-006
  2. Managerial decisions on the nature and scale of corporate activity diversification in the construction sector vol.12, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2020-0015