IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/kdijep/233558.html

Trade Liberalization and Manufacturing Productivity Changes in Korea during the Past Three Decades

Author

Listed:
  • Song, Yeongkwan

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to determine whether there have been TFP increases in the Korean manufacturing sector due to trade liberalization since the 1990s. Based on the methodology proposed by Pavcnik (2002), which focuses on the channel through which trade liberalization measures enhance overall industrial productivity by triggering the exit of low-productivity firms, this study tests the following two hypotheses: first, the TFP increase in the Korean tradable industry is not higher than that in the non-tradable industry, and second, plants with lower TFP levels did not exit from the tradable industry. Through the rejection of these two hypotheses, it is possible to infer indirectly the effect of trade liberalization on firm productivity rates in Korea since the 1990s. First, this analysis reveals that since the 1990s, the TFP of the tradable sector compared to the non-tradable sector presented a statistically meaningful increase only in the 2000s, when China joined the WTO and trade increased sharply between Korea and China. Secondly, TFP growth in the tradable sector was positively affected by exits, as it was plants with lower TFP levels that ceased to exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Song, Yeongkwan, 2021. "Trade Liberalization and Manufacturing Productivity Changes in Korea during the Past Three Decades," KDI Journal of Economic Policy, Korea Development Institute (KDI), vol. 43(1), pages 53-80.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kdijep:233558
    DOI: 10.23895/kdijep.2021.43.1.53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/233558/1/jep-43-1-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.23895/kdijep.2021.43.1.53?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pian Shu & Claudia Steinwender, 2019. "The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Firm Productivity and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 39-68.
    2. Marc J. Melitz & Sašo Polanec, 2015. "Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and exit," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 362-375, June.
    3. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    4. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    5. Tybout, James & de Melo, Jamie & Corbo, Vittorio, 1991. "The effects of trade reforms on scale and technical efficiency : New evidence from Chile," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3-4), pages 231-250, November.
    6. Tybout, James R. & Westbrook, M. Daniel, 1995. "Trade liberalization and the dimensions of efficiency change in Mexican manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 53-78, August.
    7. Hay, Donald A, 2001. "The Post-1990 Brazilian Trade Liberalisation and the Performance of Large Manufacturing Firms: Productivity, Market Share and Profits," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 620-641, July.
    8. Harrison, Ann E., 1994. "Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform : Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 53-73, February.
    9. Petia Topalova & Amit Khandelwal, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 995-1009, August.
    10. Amil Petrin & Brian P. Poi & James Levinsohn, 2004. "Production function estimation in Stata using inputs to control for unobservables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 4(2), pages 113-123, June.
    11. Kee, Hiau Looi, 2015. "Local intermediate inputs and the shared supplier spillovers of foreign direct investment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 56-71.
    12. Douglas A. Irwin, 2019. "Does Trade Reform Promote Economic Growth? A Review of Recent Evidence," Working Paper Series WP19-9, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    13. Wan-Soon Kim & You-il Lee, 2007. "The Korean Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4261, August.
    14. Dani Rodrik, 1992. "The Limits of Trade Policy Reform in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 87-105, Winter.
    15. Krishna, Pravin & Mitra, Devashish, 1998. "Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: new evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 447-462, August.
    16. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
    17. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nataraj, Shanthi, 2011. "The impact of trade liberalization on productivity: Evidence from India's formal and informal manufacturing sectors," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 292-301.
    2. Ahmed, Gulzar & Arshad Khan, Muhammad & Afzal, Muhammad, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Industrial Productivity: Evidence from Pakistan," MPRA Paper 70744, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Mar 2016.
    3. Marion Dovis & Juliette Milgram‐Baleix, 2009. "Trade, Tariffs and Total Factor Productivity: The Case of Spanish Firms," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 575-605, April.
    4. Ghani,Syed Ejaz & Grover,Arti & Kerr,Sari & Kerr,William Robert, 2016. "Will market competition trump gender discrimination in India ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7814, The World Bank.
    5. Hansen, Thorsten, 2010. "Tariff Rates, Offshoring and Productivity: Evidence from German and Austrian Firm-Level Data," Discussion Papers in Economics 11465, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    6. Baybars Karacaovali, 2011. "Productivity Matters For Trade Policy: Theory And Evidence," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(1), pages 33-62, February.
    7. Geng, Nan, 2011. "The dynamics of market structure and firm-level adjustment to India's pro-market economic liberalizing reforms, 1988-2006: A Time Varying Panel Smooth Transition Regression (TV-PSTR) approach," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 506-519, October.
    8. Kapri, Kul, 2016. "Productivity, firm size and trade liberalization in a partner country: Evidence from Korean firm-level data," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 572-583.
    9. Aldaba, Rafaelita M., 2010. "Does Trade Protection Improve Firm Productivity? Evidence from Philippine Micro Data," Discussion Papers DP 2010-32, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    10. Ricardo A. López, 2005. "Trade and Growth: Reconciling the Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 623-648, September.
    11. Ousmanou Njikam & John Cockburn, 2011. "Trade liberalization and productivity growth:firm-level evidence from Cameroon," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 44(2), pages 279-302, January-M.
    12. Roberto Álvarez & Ricardo López, 2012. "Trade Liberalization and Industry Dynamics," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 579-595, September.
    13. Paolo Epifani, 2003. "Trade liberalization, Firm Performances and Labor Market Outcomes in the Developing World, what Can We Learn From Micro-Level Data?," Rivista italiana degli economisti, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 455-486.
    14. Petia Topalova & Amit Khandelwal, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 995-1009, August.
    15. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2004. "Trade, Inequality, and Poverty: What Do We Know? Evidence from Recent Trade Liberalization Episodes in Developing Countries," NBER Working Papers 10593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Chang-Tai Hsieh & Nicholas Li & Ralph Ossa & Mu-Jeung Yang, 2016. "Gains from Trade with Flexible Extensive Margin Adjustment," NBER Working Papers 22069, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    18. Brugués, Felipe & Kikkawa, Ayumu Ken & Mei, Yuan & Robles, Pablo, 2025. "The impact of NAFTA on prices and competition: Evidence from Mexican manufacturing plants," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Marcela Eslava & John Haltiwanger & Adriana Kugler & Maurice Kugler, 2013. "Trade and Market Selection: Evidence from Manufacturing Plants in Colombia," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, January.
    20. Sule Ozler & Kamil Yilmaz, 2009. "Productivity response to reduction in trade barriers: evidence from Turkish manufacturing plants," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(2), pages 339-360, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:kdijep:233558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kdiiikr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.