IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kdifoc/93.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Quantitative Growth in North Korea's Trade: Is it Enough?

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Kyoochul

Abstract

Despite international sanctions, North Korea's trade has exhibited quantitative growth. However, the sanctions have also limited North Korea's trade partners to China. The surging demand for anthracite in China has skewed North Korea's trade structure, leaving it vulnerable to external shocks and possibly distorting the allocation of resources and diminishing the capital investment in other industries. In response, the South Korean government must make efforts to seek new measures for economic cooperation to encourage North Korea to foster other industries that have comparative advantage. In addition, assistance must be made available to enable North Korea to establish a balanced trade structure by diversifying its trade partners and trade portfolio. - North Korea's trade has grown in quantity since the 2000s. - North Korea's economic growth was unable to catch up with the growth in trade due to the qualitative decline. - North Korea's trade has been heavily dependent on China from the mid-2000s. - From 2008, North Korea's top export item has been anthracite and its export volume has expanded sharply. - The spike in North Korea's anthracite exports from the late 2000s was driven by demand factors including an increase in the demand for fossil fuels on China's economic development and also supply factors including the difficulties in earning foreign currency. - National income and economic growth are determined by qualitative aspects such as what items are being exported. - The trends in North Korea's physical and human capital investment helps to evaluate the quality of its export and to project the sustainability of its long-term economic growth. - An anthracite-dependent export structure would reduce the investment in physical and human capital, possibly leading to longterm economic stagnation. - Vietnam's exports have grown in both quantity and quality, since consistently expanding its export of hightech products, contrary to North Korea whose trade quality has weakened. - North Korea's China- and anthracite-dependent trade structure is vulnerable to external shocks as well as reducing human and physical capital investment, diminishing long-term growth. - The South Korean government needs to act as a bridge between North Korea and the world, helping North Korea discard the existing trade structure and transform itself into a normal member of the global economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Kyoochul, 2018. "The Quantitative Growth in North Korea's Trade: Is it Enough?," KDI Focus 93, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kdifoc:93
    DOI: 10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2018.93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/200894/1/kdi-focus-93.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2018.93?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. Barro, Robert J & Lee, Jong-Wha, 2001. "International Data on Educational Attainment: Updates and Implications," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 541-563, July.
    2. Ricardo Hausmann & Jason Hwang & Dani Rodrik, 2007. "What you export matters," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Lee, Jongkyu, 2015. "Decline in the DPRK's Anthracite Export to China: Causes and Implications," KDI Focus 57, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
    4. Charles Harvie & Hyun-Hoon Lee & Junggun Oh (ed.), 2004. "The Korean Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2969.
    5. Miho Shirotori & Bolormaa Tumurchudur & Olivier Cadot, 2010. "Revealed Factor Intensity Indices at the Product Level," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 44, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    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. Regolo, Julie, 2013. "Export diversification: How much does the choice of the trading partner matter?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 329-342.
    2. Miho Shirotori & Bolormaa Tumurchudur & Olivier Cadot, 2010. "Revealed Factor Intensity Indices at the Product Level," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 44, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    3. Berg, Andrew & Ostry, Jonathan D. & Zettelmeyer, Jeromin, 2012. "What makes growth sustained?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 149-166.
    4. World Bank, 2007. "Ghana - Meeting the Challenge of Accelerated and Shared Growth : Country Economic Memorandum, Volume 1. Background Papers," World Bank Publications - Reports 7661, The World Bank Group.
    5. Demir, FIrat & Dahi, Omar S., 2011. "Asymmetric effects of financial development on South-South and South-North trade: Panel data evidence from emerging markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 139-149, January.
    6. Daniel Nepelski & Giuditta De Prato, 2020. "Technological complexity and economic development," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 448-470, May.
    7. Dalila NICET- CHENAF (GREThA-GRES) & Eric ROUGIER (GREThA-GRES), 2008. "Recent exports matter: export discoveries, FDI and Growth, an empirical assessment for MENA countries," Cahiers du GRES (2002-2009) 2008-17, Groupement de Recherches Economiques et Sociales.
    8. Vilas Pathikonda & Thomas Farole, 2017. "The Capabilities Driving Participation in Global Value Chains," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-26, February.
    9. Muqun Li & Ian Coxhead, 2011. "Trade and Inequality with Limited Labor Mobility: Theory and Evidence from China," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 48-65, February.
    10. Frensch, Richard & Gaucaite Wittich, Vitalija, 2009. "Product variety and technical change," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 242-257, March.
    11. Arvis, Jean-Francois, 2013. "How many dimensions do we trade in ? product space geometry and latent comparative advantage," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6478, The World Bank.
    12. Chandra, Vandana & Osorio Rodarte, Israel, 2007. "Options for Export Diversification and Faster Export Growth in Ghana," MPRA Paper 18539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Bos, J.W.B. & Economidou, C. & Koetter, M. & Kolari, J.W., 2010. "Do all countries grow alike?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 113-127, January.
    14. Hausmann, Ricardo & Rodriguez, Francisco & Wagner, Rodrigo, 2006. "Growth Collapses," Working Paper Series rwp06-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Lectard, Pauline & Rougier, Eric, 2018. "Can Developing Countries Gain from Defying Comparative Advantage? Distance to Comparative Advantage, Export Diversification and Sophistication, and the Dynamics of Specialization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 90-110.
    16. Sudip Ranjan Basu & Monica Das, 2011. "Export Structure And Economic Performance In Developing Countries: Evidence From Nonparametric Methodology," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 48, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    17. World Bank Group, 2016. "Kenya Country Economic Memorandum," World Bank Publications - Reports 24008, The World Bank Group.
    18. Andreas Reinstaller, 2014. "Technologiegeber Österreich. Österreichs Wettbewerbsfähigkeit in Schlüsseltechnologien und Enwicklungspotentiale als Technologiegeber," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 47444, April.
    19. Chiquiar Daniel & Ramos Francia Manuel, 2009. "Competitiveness and Growth of the Mexican Economy," Working Papers 2009-11, Banco de México.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kdifoc:93. 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.