Mark S. Joy, Noemie Lisack, Simon P. Lloyd, Dennis Reinhardt, Rana Sajedi, Simon Whitaker
There is substantial evidence that openness to trade raises economic growth and boosts living standards. But trade liberalisation has been asymmetric, focused on goods rather than services trade. The decline in goods trade barriers may have favoured countries specialising in goods, like China, Germany and Japan, allowing them to increase exports relative to imports, and contributing to their persistent current account surpluses. By contrast, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, who specialise in the services sector where trade is more restricted, have been running persistent deficits. This pattern of persistent surpluses and deficits in these key countries has proven hard to explain in the International Monetary Fund’s External Balance Assessment methodology. This paper suggests that asymmetric trade liberalisation is one overlooked explanation. We demonstrate how realistic additions to textbook economic models allow trade policy to have persistent effects on current account imbalances. We also find empirical support for significant quantitative effects. These results suggest that liberalising services trade, levelling up to the liberalisation seen in goods trade, could reduce excess global imbalances by around 40%. Moreover it could contribute to higher and more inclusive global growth.
{"title":"Mind the (Current Account) Gap","authors":"Mark S. Joy, Noemie Lisack, Simon P. Lloyd, Dennis Reinhardt, Rana Sajedi, Simon Whitaker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3120389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3120389","url":null,"abstract":"There is substantial evidence that openness to trade raises economic growth and boosts living standards. But trade liberalisation has been asymmetric, focused on goods rather than services trade. The decline in goods trade barriers may have favoured countries specialising in goods, like China, Germany and Japan, allowing them to increase exports relative to imports, and contributing to their persistent current account surpluses. By contrast, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, who specialise in the services sector where trade is more restricted, have been running persistent deficits. This pattern of persistent surpluses and deficits in these key countries has proven hard to explain in the International Monetary Fund’s External Balance Assessment methodology. This paper suggests that asymmetric trade liberalisation is one overlooked explanation. We demonstrate how realistic additions to textbook economic models allow trade policy to have persistent effects on current account imbalances. We also find empirical support for significant quantitative effects. These results suggest that liberalising services trade, levelling up to the liberalisation seen in goods trade, could reduce excess global imbalances by around 40%. Moreover it could contribute to higher and more inclusive global growth.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133425268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Korean Abstract: 본 연구는 아르헨티나와 브라질의 시장 친화적 정부 등장 이후 빠르게 변화하는 MERCOSUR의 경제환경과 한ㆍMERCOSUR 무역협정 협상 개시에 대비하고, 정체된 양자간 경제관계 발전의 새로운 돌파구를 마련하기 위해 기획되었다. 특히 본 연구는 최근 한국과 MERCOSUR 간 새로운 협력방안의 하나로 주목받고 있는 기업간 협력에 초점을 두었다. 이상의 연구 목적을 달성하기 위해 본 연구는 크게 여섯 장으로 구성되었다. 먼저 제2장에서는 MERCOSUR의 최근 경제환경 변화를 심층적으로 분석하였다. 제3장에서는 MERCOSUR 기업과 협력을 희망하는 한국기업에 대한 시사점을 도출하기 위해 기업간 협력 사례를 발굴해 분석하였다. 제4장에서는 정량적 분석 기법을 사용하여 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간 협력 유망분야를 발굴하였다. 제5장에서는 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간의 협력 실태를 바탕으로 양측 기업간 협력 활성화 방안을 제시하였다. 마지막으로 제6장에서는 연구결과를 전체적으로 정리하고, 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간 협력강화를 위한 종합방안을 다음과 같이 제언하였다. 먼저 우리 정부 및 기업은 빠르게 변모하는 MERCOSUR 경제환경 변화를 정확하게 인식하고 이에 대한 대응책을 마련해야 한다. 둘째, 정체된 한국과 MERCOSUR 경제관계 발전의 획기적인 전환점으로 한ㆍMERCOSUR 무역협정(TA)을 적극적으로 활용해야 한다. 셋째, 양측 기업간 협력을 위한 다양한 형태의 지속가능한 플랫폼 마련이 필요하다. 넷째, 지역통합체 차원의 협력전략이 필요하다. 마지막으로 우리기업은 MERCOSUR 회원국 및 기업이 지닌 비즈니스 측면의 전략적 가치를 정확하게 이해하고 활용하는 전략 수립이 필요하다. English Abstract: The economic environment of MERCOSUR has been rapidly changing after the emergence of market-friendly governments in Argentina and Brazil and the possibility of starting negotiations for a Korea-MERCOSUR trade agreement is growing. This study is designed to respond to such circumstances and to provide a new breakthrough in the development of previously stagnant bilateral economic relations. The study focuses especially on cooperation among firms, which has recently attracted attention as one of the new cooperation measures between Korea and MERCOSUR. In line with these research objectives, the study consists of six chapters. Chapter 2 depicts MERCOSUR’s recent economic environment developments in depth. Chapter 3 explores and analyzes cases of cooperation between firms through which we draw implications for Korean firms wishing to cooperate with MERCOSUR firms. Chapter 4 uses quantitative analysis techniques to identify promising areas of cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR. Chapter 5 suggests ways to invigorate cooperation among firms of Korea and MERCOSUR, compared to the current state of cooperation. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the study and suggests a comprehensive plan for strengthening cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR. First, both governments and firms must swiftly recognize the rapid changes within the economic environment of MERCOSUR and prepare countermeasures. Second, Korea should actively utilize the MERCOSUR Trade Agreement (TA) as a turning point in the development of the economic relationship between Korea and MERCOSUR. Third, the two regions should build various forms of sustainable platforms for business cooperation. Fourth, a comprehensive cooperation strategy at the regional integration level is needed. Finally, Korean firms need to establish a strategy to accurately understand and utilize the strategic value of business aspects present within MERCOSUR member countries and companies.
Korean Abstract:本研究是为了应对阿根廷和巴西的市场亲和性政府上台后快速变化的MERCOSUR经济环境和韩·MERCOSUR贸易协定的协商，寻找停滞的双边经济关系发展的新突破口而策划的。本研究特别将焦点放在了最近作为韩国与MERCOSUR间的新合作方案之一而备受瞩目的企业间合作上。为了达到以上研究目的，本研究大致由六章构成。首先，第二章深入分析了MERCOSUR最近的经济环境变化。第三章为引出希望与MERCOSUR企业合作的韩国企业的启示，发掘和分析了企业间合作事例。第4章使用定量分析技法，发掘了韩国和MERCOSUR企业间有潜力合作的领域。第5章以韩国和MERCOSUR企业间的合作实态为基础，提出了促进双方企业间合作的方案。最后，第6章对研究结果进行了整体整理，提出了加强韩国和MERCOSUR企业间合作的综合方案。首先，我国政府及企业应正确认识快速变化的MERCOSUR经济环境变化，并制定相应对策。第二，积极利用韩·MERCOSUR贸易协定(TA)作为停滞的韩国和MERCOSUR经济关系发展的划时代的转折点。第三，为双方企业间的合作，需要建立多种形式的可持续平台。第四，需要地区一体化层面的合作战略。最后，我国企业有必要树立正确理解和利用MERCOSUR会员国及企业所具有的商业方面的战略价值的战略。english abstract:The economic environment of MERCOSUR has been rapidly changing after The emergence of market-friendly governments in Argentina and Brazil and The possibility of starting negotiations for aKorea-MERCOSUR trade agreement is growing。This study is designed to respond to such circumstances and to provide a new breakthrough in the development of previously stagnant bilateral economic relations。The study focuses especially on cooperation among firms, which has recently attracted attention as one of The new cooperation measures between Korea and MERCOSUR。In line with these research objectives, the study consists of six chapters。Chapter 2 depicts MERCOSUR ' s recent economic环境developments in depth。Chapter 3 explores and analyzes cases of cooperation between firms through which we draw implications for Korean firms wishing to cooperate with MERCOSUR firms。Chapter 4 uses quantitative analysis techniques to identify promising areas of cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR。Chapter 5 suggests ways to invigorate cooperation among firms of Korea and MERCOSUR, compared to the current state of cooperation。Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the study and suggests a comprehensive plan for strengthening cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR。First, both governments and firms must swiftly recognize the rapid changes within the economic environment of MERCOSUR and prepare countermeasures。Second, Korea should actively utilize the MERCOSUR Trade Agreement (TA) as a turning point in the development of the economic relationship between Korea and MERCOSUR。the two regions should build various forms of sustainable platforms for business cooperation。Fourth, a comprehensive cooperation strategy at the regional integration level is needed。Finally, Korean firms need to establish a strategy to accurately understand and utilize the strategic value of business aspects present within MERCOSUR member countries and companies。
{"title":"남미공동시장(Mercosur)의 경제환경 변화와 한ㆍMercosur 기업간 협력 활성화 방안(Changing Economic Environments in Mercosur and Strategic Ways to Foster Business Cooperation between Korea and Mercosur)","authors":"Kisu Kwon, Jin-O Kim, Misook Park, Hyoeun Kim","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3089488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3089488","url":null,"abstract":"Korean Abstract: 본 연구는 아르헨티나와 브라질의 시장 친화적 정부 등장 이후 빠르게 변화하는 MERCOSUR의 경제환경과 한ㆍMERCOSUR 무역협정 협상 개시에 대비하고, 정체된 양자간 경제관계 발전의 새로운 돌파구를 마련하기 위해 기획되었다. 특히 본 연구는 최근 한국과 MERCOSUR 간 새로운 협력방안의 하나로 주목받고 있는 기업간 협력에 초점을 두었다. 이상의 연구 목적을 달성하기 위해 본 연구는 크게 여섯 장으로 구성되었다. 먼저 제2장에서는 MERCOSUR의 최근 경제환경 변화를 심층적으로 분석하였다. 제3장에서는 MERCOSUR 기업과 협력을 희망하는 한국기업에 대한 시사점을 도출하기 위해 기업간 협력 사례를 발굴해 분석하였다. 제4장에서는 정량적 분석 기법을 사용하여 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간 협력 유망분야를 발굴하였다. 제5장에서는 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간의 협력 실태를 바탕으로 양측 기업간 협력 활성화 방안을 제시하였다. 마지막으로 제6장에서는 연구결과를 전체적으로 정리하고, 한국과 MERCOSUR 기업 간 협력강화를 위한 종합방안을 다음과 같이 제언하였다. 먼저 우리 정부 및 기업은 빠르게 변모하는 MERCOSUR 경제환경 변화를 정확하게 인식하고 이에 대한 대응책을 마련해야 한다. 둘째, 정체된 한국과 MERCOSUR 경제관계 발전의 획기적인 전환점으로 한ㆍMERCOSUR 무역협정(TA)을 적극적으로 활용해야 한다. 셋째, 양측 기업간 협력을 위한 다양한 형태의 지속가능한 플랫폼 마련이 필요하다. 넷째, 지역통합체 차원의 협력전략이 필요하다. 마지막으로 우리기업은 MERCOSUR 회원국 및 기업이 지닌 비즈니스 측면의 전략적 가치를 정확하게 이해하고 활용하는 전략 수립이 필요하다. English Abstract: The economic environment of MERCOSUR has been rapidly changing after the emergence of market-friendly governments in Argentina and Brazil and the possibility of starting negotiations for a Korea-MERCOSUR trade agreement is growing. This study is designed to respond to such circumstances and to provide a new breakthrough in the development of previously stagnant bilateral economic relations. The study focuses especially on cooperation among firms, which has recently attracted attention as one of the new cooperation measures between Korea and MERCOSUR. In line with these research objectives, the study consists of six chapters. Chapter 2 depicts MERCOSUR’s recent economic environment developments in depth. Chapter 3 explores and analyzes cases of cooperation between firms through which we draw implications for Korean firms wishing to cooperate with MERCOSUR firms. Chapter 4 uses quantitative analysis techniques to identify promising areas of cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR. Chapter 5 suggests ways to invigorate cooperation among firms of Korea and MERCOSUR, compared to the current state of cooperation. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the study and suggests a comprehensive plan for strengthening cooperation between Korea and MERCOSUR. First, both governments and firms must swiftly recognize the rapid changes within the economic environment of MERCOSUR and prepare countermeasures. Second, Korea should actively utilize the MERCOSUR Trade Agreement (TA) as a turning point in the development of the economic relationship between Korea and MERCOSUR. Third, the two regions should build various forms of sustainable platforms for business cooperation. Fourth, a comprehensive cooperation strategy at the regional integration level is needed. Finally, Korean firms need to establish a strategy to accurately understand and utilize the strategic value of business aspects present within MERCOSUR member countries and companies.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"25 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133456453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper investigates the impacts of the Brexit referendum on equilibrium relationships and spillover effects between the UK and other European countries’ sovereign bond markets. We run vector error correction model (VECM) with dummy variables to detect the shifts in the long-run equilibriums and short-run error correction mechanisms around the Brexit referendum. We then use spillover analysis proposed by Diebold and Yilmaz (2009) to examine static and dynamic spillover effects between the UK and the (non-) Eurozone. The empirical results suggest that there exists significant shift in the integration between the UK and other EU countries’ sovereign bond markets during different periods. Moreover, the integration and spillover effects became stronger after the Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016.
{"title":"Does the Brexit Referendum Affect the Integration between the UK and other European Countries? Evidence from the Sovereign Bond Market","authors":"Hai Lin, Zhuyao Zhuo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3011051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3011051","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the impacts of the Brexit referendum on equilibrium relationships and spillover effects between the UK and other European countries’ sovereign bond markets. We run vector error correction model (VECM) with dummy variables to detect the shifts in the long-run equilibriums and short-run error correction mechanisms around the Brexit referendum. We then use spillover analysis proposed by Diebold and Yilmaz (2009) to examine static and dynamic spillover effects between the UK and the (non-) Eurozone. The empirical results suggest that there exists significant shift in the integration between the UK and other EU countries’ sovereign bond markets during different periods. Moreover, the integration and spillover effects became stronger after the Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125503728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This briefing note, prepared by Loughborough University for the ESRC UK in a Changing Europe Initiative, reviews the choices for UK trade arrangements after Brexit. It draws on public domain research by leading UK trade researchers and on the presentations and discussions at a conference, hosted by Loughborough University at our Queen Elizabeth Park, Stratford, London Campus, on Dec 9th, 2016. It reviews the economics arguments for free trade, the institutional arrangements that support free-trade and summarises some key statistics about UK external trade. It also argues that the presentation of Brexit as a binary choice between ‘soft’ (retaining current trade arrangements with the EU) and ‘hard’ (jettisoning all existing trade arrangements in order to start out afresh) is a dangerous oversimplification. This ignores the realities of negotiation with the EU and other trade partners (the choice is not all or nothing, there is opportunity in negotiation to agree anything across a wide range of potential outcomes). The key policy challenge is choosing between a slow and managed Brexit, extended over a period of five to seven years, ensuring low costs of trade between the UK and the EU and avoiding substantial economic costs, or a rapid Brexit which is likely to reduce GDP by between 5 and 8 percent.
{"title":"A Briefing on the UK's Choice of Trade Arrangements outside of the EU","authors":"Mustapha Douch, T. Edwards, A. Milne","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3002673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3002673","url":null,"abstract":"This briefing note, prepared by Loughborough University for the ESRC UK in a Changing Europe Initiative, reviews the choices for UK trade arrangements after Brexit. It draws on public domain research by leading UK trade researchers and on the presentations and discussions at a conference, hosted by Loughborough University at our Queen Elizabeth Park, Stratford, London Campus, on Dec 9th, 2016. It reviews the economics arguments for free trade, the institutional arrangements that support free-trade and summarises some key statistics about UK external trade. It also argues that the presentation of Brexit as a binary choice between ‘soft’ (retaining current trade arrangements with the EU) and ‘hard’ (jettisoning all existing trade arrangements in order to start out afresh) is a dangerous oversimplification. This ignores the realities of negotiation with the EU and other trade partners (the choice is not all or nothing, there is opportunity in negotiation to agree anything across a wide range of potential outcomes). The key policy challenge is choosing between a slow and managed Brexit, extended over a period of five to seven years, ensuring low costs of trade between the UK and the EU and avoiding substantial economic costs, or a rapid Brexit which is likely to reduce GDP by between 5 and 8 percent.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127401997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The UK is leaving the EU and needs to close its accounts. In a divorce, the two sides divide up the assets and liabilities. But the situation here is more like leaving a club, so the question is when the obligation to pay membership fees should end. One option would be simply be for the UK to cease payments at the end of March 2019 (with no bills thereafter). The UK would be on strong legal ground if it decided to do so. Article 50 is clear that, in the absence of any other agreement, EU treaty obligations will cease to apply after that date. However, a more flexible stance could help secure better terms on other aspects of the negotiations, including any transitional arrangements before a comprehensive free trade deal can be concluded. It seems fair that the UK should be asked to make some contribution towards long-term financial commitments undertaken when the UK was a member – even if the money is spent after the UK has left. A sensible cut-off date would be the end of 2020, when the EU’s current multi-year budget process is completed. If the UK continues its planned payments until then, the bill would ocme to around €25 billion, which might be topped up to €30 billion (£26 billion) with a few reasonable extras. However, the EU is demanding a lot more than this, including large contributions to spending likely to take place long after 2020, and upfront payments for contingencies that may never materialise. If the EU is unwilling to compromise, the UK can, and should walk away without paying a penny.
{"title":"Should the UK Pay an EU Divorce Bill?","authors":"J. Jessop","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853061","url":null,"abstract":"The UK is leaving the EU and needs to close its accounts. In a divorce, the two sides divide up the assets and liabilities. But the situation here is more like leaving a club, so the question is when the obligation to pay membership fees should end. One option would be simply be for the UK to cease payments at the end of March 2019 (with no bills thereafter). The UK would be on strong legal ground if it decided to do so. Article 50 is clear that, in the absence of any other agreement, EU treaty obligations will cease to apply after that date. However, a more flexible stance could help secure better terms on other aspects of the negotiations, including any transitional arrangements before a comprehensive free trade deal can be concluded. It seems fair that the UK should be asked to make some contribution towards long-term financial commitments undertaken when the UK was a member – even if the money is spent after the UK has left. A sensible cut-off date would be the end of 2020, when the EU’s current multi-year budget process is completed. If the UK continues its planned payments until then, the bill would ocme to around €25 billion, which might be topped up to €30 billion (£26 billion) with a few reasonable extras. However, the EU is demanding a lot more than this, including large contributions to spending likely to take place long after 2020, and upfront payments for contingencies that may never materialise. If the EU is unwilling to compromise, the UK can, and should walk away without paying a penny.<br><br>","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123739658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since its establishment in 1989, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) has served an important role in the nation’s trade negotiations by responding to the national demand for research to advance trade policies and by providing analyses and rational strategies pertaining to the trade issues of the day. In 2016, the Korean economy was exposed to an unprecedented level of uncertainty. The decision for Brexit was approved in Europe, while the U.S. elected Mr. Donald Trump, a candidate who had campaigned for “America First” policies and the strengthening of protectionism, as their next president. These developments and others came as a warning of grave challenges for the nation’s trade and foreign relations. Over the past year, KIEP has focused its capabilities on a number of future oriented research projects, examining issues such as the slowdown in world trade prompted by the spread of protectionism and isolationism, the need to monitor the European economy in the midst of growing uncertainty caused by developments such as Brexit, structural change in the Chinese economy, and slower growth in emerging economies. We continue to expand our international networking capabilities through the KIEP Beijing Office and the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI) in Washington, as we grow our presence as a global think tank through joint research projects with distinguished scholars and experts around the world. This annual report is a compilation of the achievements realized by our institute through specialized and in-depth research conducted over the year. The report outlines the outstanding research projects of 2016, research achievements toward key national objectives, and major research-related projects carried out by KIEP throughout the year, covering our major achievements and activities in each area. We will continue our determined efforts to develop even further as a national research institute that represents Korea. And, as always, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for the gracious support and keen interest shown toward KIEP’s growth and development.
{"title":"2016 KIEP Annual Report","authors":"Kiep Submitter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3015176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3015176","url":null,"abstract":"Since its establishment in 1989, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) has served an important role in the nation’s trade negotiations by responding to the national demand for research to advance trade policies and by providing analyses and rational strategies pertaining to the trade issues of the day. In 2016, the Korean economy was exposed to an unprecedented level of uncertainty. The decision for Brexit was approved in Europe, while the U.S. elected Mr. Donald Trump, a candidate who had campaigned for “America First” policies and the strengthening of protectionism, as their next president. These developments and others came as a warning of grave challenges for the nation’s trade and foreign relations. Over the past year, KIEP has focused its capabilities on a number of future oriented research projects, examining issues such as the slowdown in world trade prompted by the spread of protectionism and isolationism, the need to monitor the European economy in the midst of growing uncertainty caused by developments such as Brexit, structural change in the Chinese economy, and slower growth in emerging economies. We continue to expand our international networking capabilities through the KIEP Beijing Office and the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI) in Washington, as we grow our presence as a global think tank through joint research projects with distinguished scholars and experts around the world. This annual report is a compilation of the achievements realized by our institute through specialized and in-depth research conducted over the year. The report outlines the outstanding research projects of 2016, research achievements toward key national objectives, and major research-related projects carried out by KIEP throughout the year, covering our major achievements and activities in each area. We will continue our determined efforts to develop even further as a national research institute that represents Korea. And, as always, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for the gracious support and keen interest shown toward KIEP’s growth and development.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130504418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
German Abstract: Die vorliegende Studie konzentriert sich auf die Frage, ob ein solches Muster der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den baltischen Staaten und Russland mit historischen oder wirtschaftlichen Gründen zugeordnet werden könnte. Darüber hinaus diskutiert man, ob die gegenseitigen Handels beziehungen in der Zukunft wiedermal normalisieren könnten. Dabei ließ sich die vorliegende Analyse der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den baltischen Staaten und Russland von drei theoretischen Behandlungen – die Pfadabhängigkeit-Theorie, die Wachstums theorien und die Theorien der Konjunkturzyklen, und die ökonomische Kleinstaatenforschung – inspirieren. Das erste Konzeption bietet den geeigneten Rahmen für die Bewertung der Handelsbeziehungen aus historischer Perspektive und die beiden anderen Theorien betrachten die Wirtschaftskontakte unter wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkt. English Abstract: In recent 25 years, trade relation between Russia and the Baltic countries have been often challenged by constant setbacks. However, despite it the Baltic countries have been interested in developing trade relations with Russia. The article focuses on the question, whether this pattern could be related to the path dependence approach or to specific economic factors, derived from the economic growth and business cycle theories and the small open economy models. On this basis, it also discusses the outlook for the normalisation of trade relations, assuming that sanctions will be eliminated at a certain moment in time. The authors argue that in theory, the normalisation of trade relations is possible if: a) the cooperation between the EU and Russia will reach the stage that brings significant benefits to the Baltic countries, or b) risks related to Russia’s erratic behaviour on the international stage will decrease significantly. Both developments seem to be rather unlikely in short run.
{"title":"Der Handel Zwischen Russland Und Den Baltischen Staaten: Pfadabhängigkeit Oder Wirtschaftliche Rationalität? (Trade Relations between Russia and Baltic States: Economic Rationality or Path Dependence?)","authors":"Raul Markus, Viljar Veebel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3047212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3047212","url":null,"abstract":"<b>German Abstract:</b> Die vorliegende Studie konzentriert sich auf die Frage, ob ein solches Muster der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den baltischen Staaten und Russland mit historischen oder wirtschaftlichen Gründen zugeordnet werden könnte. Darüber hinaus diskutiert man, ob die gegenseitigen Handels beziehungen in der Zukunft wiedermal normalisieren könnten. Dabei ließ sich die vorliegende Analyse der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den baltischen Staaten und Russland von drei theoretischen Behandlungen – die Pfadabhängigkeit-Theorie, die Wachstums theorien und die Theorien der Konjunkturzyklen, und die ökonomische Kleinstaatenforschung – inspirieren. Das erste Konzeption bietet den geeigneten Rahmen für die Bewertung der Handelsbeziehungen aus historischer Perspektive und die beiden anderen Theorien betrachten die Wirtschaftskontakte unter wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkt. <b>English Abstract:</b> In recent 25 years, trade relation between Russia and the Baltic countries have been often challenged by constant setbacks. However, despite it the Baltic countries have been interested in developing trade relations with Russia. The article focuses on the question, whether this pattern could be related to the path dependence approach or to specific economic factors, derived from the economic growth and business cycle theories and the small open economy models. On this basis, it also discusses the outlook for the normalisation of trade relations, assuming that sanctions will be eliminated at a certain moment in time. The authors argue that in theory, the normalisation of trade relations is possible if: a) the cooperation between the EU and Russia will reach the stage that brings significant benefits to the Baltic countries, or b) risks related to Russia’s erratic behaviour on the international stage will decrease significantly. Both developments seem to be rather unlikely in short run.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124367892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is to examine the increasing development of the bilateral trade relations between the Republic of Indonesia and the Russian Federation. Also it aims at studying the Indonesia-Russia trade relations on Indonesia’s national security. Thus, in pursuit of its national interest, Indonesia is working very hard to further strengthen its bilateral trade relations with Russia. Marking the 50 year old relationship in the beginning of the 21st century, the two countries have booked an increasing trade in their relations. This research employed qualitative research methods featuring descriptive analysis of the data on the bilateral relations within “The Framework of Friendly and Partnership in the 21st century”. Therefore, the author exposed the works of two main consultation mechanisms, namely the Indonesian-Russian Joint Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation and the Joint Commission on Military Technical Cooperation under the President Megawati Sukarnoputri administration (2003 - 2004), succeeded by the 1st team of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004 -2009) and the 2nd team of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2009-2014), and President Joko Widodo (2014 - present). An increase is recorded in the overall trade relations of the two countries. Nevertheless, Indonesia still suffered from trade deficit. In addition, the Indonesian defense capability has increased.
{"title":"The Impacts of Indonesia and Russia Trade Relations on Indonesia's Maritime Security","authors":"Hendra Manurung","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2923429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2923429","url":null,"abstract":"This article is to examine the increasing development of the bilateral trade relations between the Republic of Indonesia and the Russian Federation. Also it aims at studying the Indonesia-Russia trade relations on Indonesia’s national security. Thus, in pursuit of its national interest, Indonesia is working very hard to further strengthen its bilateral trade relations with Russia. Marking the 50 year old relationship in the beginning of the 21st century, the two countries have booked an increasing trade in their relations. This research employed qualitative research methods featuring descriptive analysis of the data on the bilateral relations within “The Framework of Friendly and Partnership in the 21st century”. Therefore, the author exposed the works of two main consultation mechanisms, namely the Indonesian-Russian Joint Commission on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation and the Joint Commission on Military Technical Cooperation under the President Megawati Sukarnoputri administration (2003 - 2004), succeeded by the 1st team of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004 -2009) and the 2nd team of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2009-2014), and President Joko Widodo (2014 - present). An increase is recorded in the overall trade relations of the two countries. Nevertheless, Indonesia still suffered from trade deficit. In addition, the Indonesian defense capability has increased. ","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123236645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we approach the determinants of value added location across European countries, from the recent developments to the 2035 horizon. In the first part of the paper, using detailed trade data, we show how competitiveness, demand and export composition have shaped the market shares of European countries, hence the location of production in Europe. Variance and covariance analysis point to the specificity of two countries: the overall market share development seems to be significantly affected by aggregate demand conditions in Germany and Italy. We then turn to trade in value added and observe that bigger countries tend to report a higher share of domestic value added because they can count on more efficient national value chains or a higher diversity of goods upstream. Interestingly, such evidence does not apply to Germany, or Poland, which exhibit a more dynamic insertion in international value chains. In the second part of the paper, we present the main prospects for the allocation of labour (i.e. migration), value added and the macro-economic effects of energy prices across European countries up to year 2035. The projections presented in the paper aim to summarize the main results obtained by other researchers within the "Value Added in Motion (VAM)" project.
{"title":"Value Added in Motion: Determinants of Value Added Location within the EU","authors":"L. Fontagné, G. Santoni","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3044518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3044518","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we approach the determinants of value added location across European countries, from the recent developments to the 2035 horizon. In the first part of the paper, using detailed trade data, we show how competitiveness, demand and export composition have shaped the market shares of European countries, hence the location of production in Europe. Variance and covariance analysis point to the specificity of two countries: the overall market share development seems to be significantly affected by aggregate demand conditions in Germany and Italy. We then turn to trade in value added and observe that bigger countries tend to report a higher share of domestic value added because they can count on more efficient national value chains or a higher diversity of goods upstream. Interestingly, such evidence does not apply to Germany, or Poland, which exhibit a more dynamic insertion in international value chains. In the second part of the paper, we present the main prospects for the allocation of labour (i.e. migration), value added and the macro-economic effects of energy prices across European countries up to year 2035. The projections presented in the paper aim to summarize the main results obtained by other researchers within the \"Value Added in Motion (VAM)\" project.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131538210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Vandenbussche, William Connell Garcia, Wouter Simons, Elena Zaurino
This report is the first to estimate employment effects of looming American protectionism under US president Trump. We study the economic impact of a tightening of US trade policy on Belgium and on every EU member state, which we refer to as “America First” or “Trumpit” (like “Brexit”). Our estimates of EU job losses are based on the interconnectedness of an EU country with the US economy. We do this by taking into account the inter‐sectoral linkages between sectors within a country and between EU countries using sectoral input‐output data (World Input Output Database, WIOD). Thus, we consider EU jobs involved in direct EU exports to the US, as well as EU jobs corresponding to indirect exports from Europe to the US. Our study covers both exports of goods and services and accounts for services used as an input in goods. Our estimates are based on domestic value added rather than gross export values, since EU jobs are a function of domestic value added only. For Belgium, job losses of Trumpit range between 1200 and 5000 job losses, depending on the US tariff increase. Similarly, for the EU, job losses range between 50,000 and 240,000 jobs that will be lost depending on the US tariff scenario. For the EU, we find that the export value that will be lost ranges between 5% to 24 %, depending on the extent of the US import tariff increase. This corresponds to European GDP losses that range between 0.1 % to 0.4% of total EU GDP.
{"title":"'America First!' What are the Job Losses for Belgium and Europe?","authors":"H. Vandenbussche, William Connell Garcia, Wouter Simons, Elena Zaurino","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2904924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2904924","url":null,"abstract":"This report is the first to estimate employment effects of looming American protectionism under US president Trump. We study the economic impact of a tightening of US trade policy on Belgium and on every EU member state, which we refer to as “America First” or “Trumpit” (like “Brexit”). Our estimates of EU job losses are based on the interconnectedness of an EU country with the US economy. We do this by taking into account the inter‐sectoral linkages between sectors within a country and between EU countries using sectoral input‐output data (World Input Output Database, WIOD). Thus, we consider EU jobs involved in direct EU exports to the US, as well as EU jobs corresponding to indirect exports from Europe to the US. Our study covers both exports of goods and services and accounts for services used as an input in goods. Our estimates are based on domestic value added rather than gross export values, since EU jobs are a function of domestic value added only. For Belgium, job losses of Trumpit range between 1200 and 5000 job losses, depending on the US tariff increase. Similarly, for the EU, job losses range between 50,000 and 240,000 jobs that will be lost depending on the US tariff scenario. For the EU, we find that the export value that will be lost ranges between 5% to 24 %, depending on the extent of the US import tariff increase. This corresponds to European GDP losses that range between 0.1 % to 0.4% of total EU GDP.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129169562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：