the effects of export diversification on...

The Effects of Export Diversification on Macroeconomic Stabilization

: Evidence from Korea

Jinsoo Lee*, Bok-Keun Yu**

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Bank of Korea. When reporting or citing this paper, the authors’ name should always be explicitly stated.

* Professor, KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Tel: +82-44-550-1060, E-mail: [email protected]

** Head, International Economics Team, Economic Research Institute, The Bank of Korea, Tel: +82-2-759-5461, E-mail: [email protected]

The authors are grateful to Wook Sohn, Byoung-Ki Kim, Moon Jung Choi, and Jaemin Baik at the Bank of Korea, the participants at the 2018 IEFS-EAER Conference, and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Contents

Ⅰ. Introduction ················································································ 1

Ⅱ. Literature Review ····································································· 3

Ⅲ. Data and Methodology ························································ 6

Ⅳ. Empirical Results ···································································· 13

Ⅴ. Conclusion ················································································· 16

References ························································································· 18

The Effects of Export Diversification on Macroeconomic Stabilization

: Evidence from Korea

This paper studies whether export diversification mitigated the negative effect of the global financial crisis on exports using the Korean case. Specifically, we use annual data on the exports of 24 Korean manufacturing industries from 2000 to 2016 and examine whether the negative effect of the crisis on exports was less prevalent in industries that were more diversified in terms of country and product. We also examine whether export competitiveness, measured by the revealed comparative advantage index by industry, had a mitigating effect on trade during the crisis. In order to study these issues, we use a panel regression with a fixed-effect model for 24 Korean manufacturing industries.

From our empirical analysis, we find that country diversification weakened the negative impact of the global financial crisis on Korea’s exports, but neither product diversification nor export competitiveness did so.

Keywords: Export diversification, Global financial crisis, Macroeconomic stabilization

JEL Classification Numbers: E60, F10, F40

1 BOK Working Paper No. 2018-25

Ⅰ. Introduction

Exports account for a relatively large share of the Korean economy

compared to other countries in the world. For example, Korea’s export

share of GDP (42.4%) was the second largest among G20 countries1) in

2016 after that of Germany (46.1%), and was higher than those of Mexico

(37.1%), Canada (31.0%), China (19.5%), India (19.2%) and Japan (16.2%).

Therefore, it is worthwhile to take a close look at the factors that could

mitigate a negative impact on the export sector in the case of global real

or financial shocks.

According to the theory of diversification in the area of finance, the

return of a portfolio becomes less volatile if the portfolio is more

diversified. The empirical findings are mostly consistent with the theory.

In this paper, we analyze whether the same phenomenon can be found in

the area of trade. Specifically, we examine whether export diversification in

terms of country and product mitigated the negative effect of the global

financial crisis on exports using annual data for 24 Korean manufacturing

industries from 2000 to 2016.

Through the annual growth rates in the world’s merchandise and

Korea’s goods exports from 1991 to 2017, we can see that the global

financial crisis had a major negative effect on not only the world’s exports

but also Korea’s exports. The annual growth rate in the world’s

merchandise and Korea’s goods exports decreased by 22.3% and 15.9%,

respectively, in 2009. Hence, our analysis focuses on this period when the

degree of trade collapse was most serious.

Our methodology basically employs the approach of Neto and Romeu

(2011), which explored the effect of export diversification on exports

during the global financial crisis (the fourth quarter of 2008 ― the first

quarter of 2009) by using export data from 14 Latin American countries

in the period of 2000-2009. Since Korea has a different industrial

1) The G20 countries include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the UK and the US. This group accounted for 80% of world GDP and 77% of trade in 2016 (IMF and WTO).

The Effects of Export Diversification on Macroeconomic Stabilization: Evidence from Korea 2

structure and export competitiveness than Latin American countries, we try

to derive policy implications through an empirical analysis for Korea.

Unlike the previous paper, we use industry-level data for the manufacturing

sector in Korea. We further examine whether export competitiveness,

measured by the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index by industry,

had a mitigating effect on exports during the crisis.

From our empirical analysis, we find that country diversification

weakened the negative impact of the global financial crisis on Korea’s

exports, but neither product diversification nor export competitiveness did

so.

Annual Growth Rates in the World’s Merchandise and Korea’s Goods Exports

Note: The annual growth rates are on a US$ basis.Sources: WTO and Bank of Korea

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We provide a review of

the literature in Section Ⅱ. In Section Ⅲ, we describe the data and

introduce the methodology for our analysis. We report the empirical

results in Section Ⅳ, and finally conclude in Section Ⅴ.


Ⅱ. Literature Review According to a long-held tradition of trade theory, it is favorable for a

county to specialize in a particular industry or product. The absolute and

comparative advantage theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo tell us

that a country can benefit by producing items in which it has a

comparative advantage and trading them with other countries. This

implies that specialization in international trade can be a superior strategy

to foster economic growth as well as promote exports. However, numerous studies have emphasized the positive effects of

trade diversification on a national economy, disclaiming the above-

mentioned theory. Prebisch (1950) and Singer (1950) are the pioneers in

this regard. They stress the need for developing countries to diversify

their export products, pointing out that specializing in the exports of

primary products (raw materials) could have an adverse impact on

economic growth in the long run due to worsening the terms of trade

with respect to manufacturing goods. The “Dutch Disease2)” is another

example showing the negative effect of an expansion in a country’s

primary sectors on the other tradable sectors such as manufacturing. This

phenomenon occurs due to deterioration of the export competitiveness of

the manufacturing sector and decreases in import goods via the

appreciation of exchange rates. More recently, there have been various

studies on the relationship between export diversification and stage of

economic development. According to the well-known export diversification

and nonlinear hypothesis on income level, export diversification has a

positive effect on economic growth in developing countries, but export

specialization is more effective in advanced countries (Imbs and Wacziarg,

2003; Farole et al., 2010; Hesse, 2008; Cadot et al., 2011).

Feenstra and Kee (2004) analyze that sectoral export diversity was

important for country productivity in 34 countries from 1982 to 1997. For

2) This term was used by “The Economist” in 1977 to describe the detrimental situation of the manufacturing industry in the Netherlands after the discovery of large natural gas reserves in the North Sea in 1959 and the natural-gas exports that followed.


example, a 10% increase in export diversity in all industries resulted in a

1.3% increase in national productivity. Rath and Akram (2017) find that

export diversification had a positive effect on total factor productivity

growth in the South Asian region from 1995 to 2014. Melitz (2003) argues

that the more productive firms become exporters while the less productive

firms stay in the domestic market. Thus, causation occurs from productivity

to export variety. Hinlo and Arranguez (2017) study the effect of

geographical diversification on the output growth for five ASEAN countries

from 1980 to 2014. They stress that diversifying market destinations is

needed to improve macroeconomic performances.

Several papers have investigated the effect of export diversification on

macroeconomic stability. Jansen (2004) finds that export concentration

affects terms of trade volatility, which, in turn, increases the standard

deviation of GDP growth in small and developing economies. Bacchetta et

al. (2007) document that export product diversification in developing

countries lowered output volatility, while geographical diversification was

more significant in developed countries. Buch et al. (2009) argue that

inter-industry diversification was more important than intra-industry

diversification in reducing output volatility. Papageorgiou and Spatafora

(2012) find that export diversification in low-income countries with better

institutions decreases output volatility. Vannoorenberge et al. (2014) argue

that the effect of export diversification on the volatility of foreign market

sales varies by firm size. Stanley and Bunnag (2001) state that export

diversification can reduce export earnings instability.

A salient study on the effect of export diversification on trade was

performed by Neto and Romeu (2011). They analyze whether export

diversification mitigated the effects on exports during the global financial

crisis (the fourth quarter of 2008 ― the first quarter of 2009) by using

export data from 14 Latin American countries in the period of 2000-2009.

For the empirical analysis, three Herfindahl indices by inter-industry

product, destination and intra-industry product were employed as the

export concentration measure. They find that product diversification of


exports eased the trade-reduction effect of the global financial crisis.

However, diversifying the geographical destinations of exports did not

significantly mitigate the negative impact on trade during the period.

There are also several noteworthy studies on the various effects of

export diversification in Korea. Lee and Wang (2004) analyze the impact

of trade structure on economic growth using panel data from 66 countries

during the period of 1991-2001. They find that intra-industry trade has a

positive effect on economic growth while an increase in trade concentration

negatively affects growth. Hwang et al. (2004) use the Gini coefficient to

measure the degree of export diversification by country and to examine

the relationship between export diversification and competitiveness in the

manufacturing industry from 1990 to 1999. They find a negative correlation

between export market intensity and export competitiveness. They argue

that export bargaining power and the ability to respond to exchange rate

fluctuations could be enhanced under more diversified export market

environments.

Kim and Park (2006) use data from 69 countries from 1970 to 2000 to

analyze the effects of trade diversification and the economic conditions of

trading partners on domestic economic growth. They find that faster

economic growth is achieved in countries where import and export goods

are highly diversified by product as well as by trading partner. They also

discover that the economic growth of trade partners is significant for a

country’s own economic growth.

Kim and Oh (2008) document that the export intensity of Korea's IT

industry has an upward trend from 1996 to 2006, showing a higher level

than that of Japan, the US and China. They also find that export

concentration has a positive effect on the export growth of the IT

industry through a regression analysis. Min et al. (2011) analyze the

export diversification pattern and its impacts on exports using the data

from 1995 to 2008. They find that the diversification indices in terms of

both product and destination have U-shaped and non-linear trends, and

the extensive margin is more significant than the intensive margin in


explaining export diversification. They also argue that export diversification

could affect the performance and volatility of exports.

More recently, Kwon (2017) investigates the effects of diversification in

foreign markets (exports) and in domestic markets on firm value measured

by “Tobin’s q” using firm-level data from 2000 to 2010. They find that

product diversification in exports positively affects firm value relative to

product diversification in domestic markets.

Ⅲ. Data and Methodology

We collect annual data on Korean exports to foreign countries in US

dollars from the UN Comtrade database at the HS 6-digit code level from

2000 to 2016. For the classification of manufacturing industries for Korea,

we use the Korean Standard Industrial Classification (KSIC, revision 9)

provided by the Korea National Statistical Office.3) There are 24 divisions

(industries) for manufacturing in the KSIC (revision 9). Table1 reports the

codes and names for the 24 divisions (industries). We have matched HS

6-digit codes to KSIC codes.

We compute the export amount in US dollars between Korea and

foreign countries for the 24 Korean manufacturing industries from 2000 to

2016. We then rank foreign countries by the proportion of exports during

the period and include foreign countries from rank 1 to rank 77 in our

sample; the exports from Korea to those 77 countries cover 95.0% of the

total exports of Korean manufacturing industries for the period. Table 2

reports the ranks and proportions of exports for those 77 countries in our

sample during the period from 2000 to 2016.

3) The KSIC was first introduced in 1963 and is based on the UN’s International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC). There have been 10 revisions since its introduction. The 10th revision went into effect in July 2017. The 9th revision, which became effective in 2008, was the latest revision in our sample period. The KSIC has a hierarchical five-digit system. The KSIC (revision 9) was divided into 21 sections, and each section is broken down into divisions (denoted by 2 digits). The divisions are further broken down into groups (3 digits), into classes (4 digits) and then into subclasses (5 digits). There were 76 divisions, 228 groups, 487 classes and 1,145 subclasses for the KSIC (revision 9) (source: https://unstats.un.org /unsd/cr/ctryreg and Lee and Yu (2018)).


<Table 1> Korean Standard Industrial Classification (Revision 9) for Manufacturing

Division Code

Name of Division

10 Food products

11 Beverages

12 Tobacco products

13 Textiles, except apparel

14 Wearing apparel, clothing accessories and fur articles

15 Tanning and dressing of leather, manufacture of luggage and footwear

16 Wood and products of wood and cork, except furniture

17 Pulp, paper and paper products

18 Printing and reproduction of recorded media

19 Coke, hard-coal and lignite fuel briquettes and refined petroleum products

20 Chemicals and chemical products, except pharmaceuticals and medicinal chemicals

21 Pharmaceuticals, medical chemicals and botanical products

22 Rubber and plastic products

23 Other non-metallic mineral products

24 Basic metal products

25 Fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

26Electronic components, computer, radio, television and communication equipment and apparatuses

27 Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks

28 Electrical equipment

29 Other machinery and equipment

30 Motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers

31 Other transport equipment

32 Furniture

33 Other manufacturing Note: This table is from Lee and Yu (2018). Source: Korea National Statistical Office (Korean Standard Industrial Classification, 2008)


<Table 2> Proportion of Exports of Korean Manufacturing Industriesto Foreign Countries from 2000 to 2016

Rank Country Proportion Rank Country Proportion

1 China 23.01% 40 Malta 0.28%

2 US 12.91% 41 Nigeria 0.28%

3 Japan 6.65% 42 Bermuda 0.28%

4 Hong Kong 5.66% 43 Israel 0.26%

5 Singapore 3.37% 44 Uzbekistan 0.26%

6 Vietnam 2.84% 45 Czech Rep. 0.26%

7 Germany 2.10% 46 Bangladesh 0.26%

8 India 2.00% 47 Finland 0.25%

9 Indonesia 1.88% 48 Colombia 0.24%

10 Mexico 1.80% 49 Kuwait 0.23%

11 Australia 1.56% 50 New Zealand 0.23%

12 Russia 1.53% 51 Angola 0.21%

13 Malaysia 1.48% 52 Iraq 0.21%

14 Philippines 1.44% 53 Algeria 0.20%

15 UK 1.44% 54 Peru 0.20%

16 Brazil 1.35% 55 Jordan 0.19%

17 Thailand 1.34% 56 Sweden 0.19%

18 Saudi Arabia 1.23% 57 Slovenia 0.19%

19 United Arab Emirates 1.18% 58 Austria 0.18%

20 Netherlands 1.09% 59 Pakistan 0.18%

21 Marshall Islands 1.07% 60 Qatar 0.18%

22 Canada 1.00% 61 Cyprus 0.17%

23 Turkey 0.94% 62 Denmark 0.17%

24 Iran 0.89% 63 Ukraine 0.17%

25 Italy 0.87% 64 Libya 0.16%

26 Liberia 0.79% 65 Argentina 0.16%

27 France 0.77% 66 Switzerland 0.16%

28 Panama 0.73% 67 Oman 0.15%

29 Poland 0.68% 68 Ireland 0.14%

30 Slovakia 0.63% 69 Ecuador 0.13%

31 Spain 0.60% 70 Syria 0.13%

32 Belgium 0.52% 71 Venezuela 0.13%

33 Chile 0.46% 72 Kazakhstan 0.12%

34 Greece 0.46% 73 Myanmar 0.12%

35 Norway 0.38% 74 Romania 0.11%

36 South Africa 0.35% 75 Portugal 0.11%

37 Egypt 0.34% 76 Guatemala 0.11%

38 Hungary 0.32% 77 Cambodia 0.09%

39 Bahamas 0.29% Total 95.0%


In order to examine whether export diversification in terms of country

and product by industry had a mitigating effect on Korean manufacturing

exports during the global financial crisis, we generally follow the

methodology of Neto and Romeu (2011). We also examine the effect of

export competitiveness, measured by revealed comparative advantage, on

Korean manufacturing exports during the crisis. Specifically, we use panel

regressions (1) and (2) with a fixed-effect model for 24 Korean manufacturing

industries as follows:

ln ×

ln

(1)

ln ×

ln

×

×

× (2)

In (1), is the exports from Korea to country for

manufacturing industry in year . is the GDP for Korea in

year . the GDP for country in year . is the

distance in kilometers between the capital cities of Korea and country .

is the rate of change for the currency of country against the US

dollar in year . the rate of change for the Korean won against


the US dollar in year . Hence, differences between the two rates indicate

the degree of relative appreciation of the Korean won against the currency

of country . is the Herfindahl index4) in terms of HS-6

digit product for Korean manufacturing industry in year .

is the Herfindahl index in terms of country for Korean

manufacturing industry in year . is the revealed

comparative advantage index5) for Korean manufacturing industry in

year . The Herfindahl index and RCA index were used in

instead of in order to consider the time lag in the effect of these

variables on exports and to alleviate endogeneity problems.

In (2), we interact , and

with a dummy variable, CRISIS, which takes a value of one for the year

2009 and zero otherwise. As the merchandise exports of the world

declined by 22.3% in 2009, the negative effect of the global financial

crisis on world trade was greatest among the period of 2000-2016.

We collect GDP data for Korea and foreign countries from the World

Development Indicators provided by the World Bank. For the distance

between the capital cities of Korea and foreign countries, we use the data

provided by Prof. Gleditsch from Essex University.6) We compute the rate

of changes for the Korean won and local currencies of foreign countries

against the US dollar using data on the average official exchange rate

provided by the World Development Indicators. Herfindahl indices in

terms of product and country for Korean manufacturing industries are

computed with the UN Comtrade data. Lastly, RCA indices for Korean

manufacturing industries are also computed with the UN Comtrade data.

Figure 1 shows the annual average Herfindahl indices in terms of

4)

, where is the share of each product with respect to the industry. The Herfindahl index ranges from 0 (highly diversified) to 1 (highly concentrated).

5) The RCA index is calculated by dividing exports in an industry of Korea/exports in the manufacturing industry of Korea by exports in an industry of the world/exports in the manufacturing industry of the world. If the value of the RCA index of an industry is greater than 1, the industry has a comparative advantage. On the other hand, if the value of the RCA index of an industry is smaller than 1, the industry has a comparative disadvantage.

6) http://ksgleditsch.com/data-5.html


product and country for 24 Korean manufacturing industries for the

period from 1999 to 2015. For the Herfindahl indices in terms of

product, the tobacco products industry (code 12, Herfindahl index of

0.959) shows the highest value, followed by the industry of coke, hard-coal

and lignite fuel briquettes and refined petroleum products (code 19,

Herfindahl index of 0.848) and the industry of printing and reproduction

of recorded media (code 18, Herfindahl index of 0.598). For the

Herfindahl indices in terms of country, the beverages industry (code 11,

Herfindahl index of 0.329) exhibits the highest value, followed by the

industry of wearing apparel, clothing accessories and fur articles (code 14,

Herfindahl index of 0.208) and the industry of chemicals and chemical

products, except pharmaceuticals and medicinal chemicals (code 20,

Herfindahl index of 0.202) with the second and third highest values,

respectively.

<Figure 1> Annual Average Herfindahl Indices for Korean ManufacturingIndustries from 1999 to 2015

Note: For industry code numbers, refer to <Table 1>.

Figure 2 represents the annual average RCA indices for Korean


manufacturing industries for the same period. The industry of other

transport equipment (code 31, RCA index of 2.387), the industry of

electronic components, computer, radio, television and communication

equipment and apparatuses (code 26, RCA index of 2.076), the industry

of textiles, except apparel (code 13, RCA index of 1.611), the industry

of printing and reproduction of recorded media (code 18, RCA index of

1.376), the industry of coke, hard-coal and lignite fuel briquettes and

refined petroleum products (code 19, RCA index of 1.172), the industry

of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (code 30, RCA index of

1.134), and the industry of chemicals and chemical products, except

pharmaceuticals and medicinal chemicals (code 20, RCA index of 1.084)

have values higher than one, suggesting that Korea has comparative

advantages in these industries over competing countries.

<Figure 2> Annual Average RCA Indices for Korean ManufacturingIndustries from 1999 to 2015

Note: For industry code numbers, refer to <Table 1>.


Ⅳ. Empirical Results

Panel A of Table 3 reports the results of the regression analysis in

specification (1) from Section Ⅲ. In model 1, we include Herfindahl

indices in terms of product and country. We find that both Herfindahl

indices are negative and statistically significant at the level of one percent.

Thus, we can conclude that if exports in a manufacturing industry are

more diversified in terms of product and country, they tend to be larger

in the Korean case. In addition, we find that the variable of distance

between Korea and a foreign country is negative and statistically significant

at the level of one percent. This finding implies that Korea exports more

to a foreign country when the country is closer to Korea. Difference in

the rate of change in the foreign exchange rate does not have any effect

on exports for Korean manufacturing industries. In model 2, we add the

RCA index as an independent variable in the regression and find that the

RCA index is positive and statistically significant at the level of one

percent. This finding shows that a Korean manufacturing industry exports

more when the industry is more competitive in the world market. For all

of the other independent variables, we obtain the same results as in

model 1.

In Panel B of Table 3, we report the results of the regression analysis

in specification (2) from Section Ⅲ. In particular, we introduce a dummy

variable for the global financial crisis and interact the dummy variable

with the two Herfindahl indices and the RCA index in order to see the

effect of export diversification by country as well as by product and

competitiveness on exports during the global financial crisis. In model 3,

the variable of interaction between the Herfindahl index in terms of

product and the crisis dummy variable is not significant at any

conventional level of significance. On the other hand, the variable of

interaction between the Herfindahl index in terms of country and the

crisis dummy variable is negative and statistically significant at the level of

one percent. In model 4, we add the variable of interaction between the


<Table 3> Effect of Herfindahl Indices for Product and Country and RCA Index on Export for Korean Manufacturing

Industries from 2000 to 2016

[Panel A]

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

ln(Annual Exports from Korea to Country

/)

Model 1 Model 2

ln(Distance between Korea and Country ) -1.245*** -1.245***

(-57.42) (-57.66)

Difference in FX Rate Changes between -0.095 -0.100Country and Korea (-1.07) (-1.11)

Herfindahl Index for Product -0.735*** -1.038***

(-2.91) (-4.13)

Herfindahl Index for Country -1.700*** -1.925***

(-5.35) (-6.13)

RCA Index 0.716***

(10.18)

Industry Effect Yes Yes

Year Effect Yes Yes

N 28,151 28,151

Adjusted 0.542 0.545

Notes: 1) Numbers in parentheses are heteroscedasticity-robust t-statistics.2) ***, **and * denote statistical significance at the level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.


<Table 3> Effect of Herfindahl Indices for Product and Country and RCA Index on Export for Korean Manufacturing

Industries from 2000 to 2016 (con’t d)

[Panel B]

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

ln(Annual Exports from Korea to Country

/)

Model 3 Model 4

ln(Distance between Korea and Country ) -1.245*** -1.245***

(-57.43) (-57.66)

Difference in FX Rate Changes between -0.095 -0.100

Country and Korea (-1.06) (-1.10)

Herfindahl Index for Product -0.737*** -1.029***

(-2.90) (-4.07)

Herfindahl Index for Country -1.671*** -1.901***

(-5.26) (-6.05)

RCA Index 0.713***

(10.16)

Herfindahl Index for Product*Crisis 0.207

0.071(0.66) (0.22)

Herfindahl Index for Country*Crisis

-2.710***

-2.318**

(-2.64) (-2.39)

RCA Index*Crisis -0.019(-0.16)

Industry Effect Yes Yes

Year Effect Yes Yes

N 28,151 28,151

Adjusted 0.542 0.545

Notes: 1) Numbers in parentheses are heteroscedasticity-robust t-statistics.2) ***, ** and * denote statistical significance at the level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.


RCA index and the crisis dummy variable and find that it is not

significant. Thus, we can conclude that country diversification weakened

the negative impact of the global financial crisis on Korea’s manufacturing

exports, but neither product diversification nor export competitiveness did

so. For all of the other independent variables, we obtain the same results

as in specification (1).

As can be seen from the empirical results, the diversification of export

destinations played a role in reducing the negative impact on Korean

exports during the global financial crisis, while the diversification of

export products and competitiveness did not. This might be due to

increases in the composition of Korea’s export destinations in Asia and

Europe, such as China, ASEAN, the European Union, and Eastern

European countries, which suffered less negative impact from the crisis

than the US, the epicenter of the crisis.

Ⅴ. Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined whether export diversification mitigated

the negative effect of the global financial crisis on exports using annual

data for 24 Korean manufacturing industries from 2000 to 2016.

Specifically, we examine whether the negative effect of the crisis on

exports was less prevalent in more diversified industries in terms of

country and product. We also examine whether export competitiveness,

measured by the RCA index by industry, had a mitigating effect on

exports during the crisis.

From our analysis, we find that if exports in a manufacturing industry

are more diversified in terms of product and country, they tend to be

larger in the Korean case. In addition, a Korean manufacturing industry

exports more when the industry is more competitive in the world market.

However, during the global financial crisis, only country diversification

weakened the negative impact of the global financial crisis on Korea’s

exports. Neither product diversification nor export competitiveness did so.


The empirical results indicate a policy implication that Korea could

mitigate the negative impact of global economic shocks on its exports

through export market diversification rather than product diversification.

This can imply that it is critical to expand export markets to countries

with high growth potential while maintaining export competitiveness in

each industry. To this end, policy makers need to continue to make efforts

to reduce the cost of new-market development for Korean firms by

providing information on new markets and establishing co-marketing

strategies.


References

Bacchetta, M., M. Jansen, R. Piermartini and R. Amurgo-Pacheco (2007), “Export Diversification as an Absorber of External Shocks,” World Trade Organization, Mimeo.

Buch, C., J. Döpke, and H. Strotmann (2009), “Does Export Openness Increase Firm-Level Output Volatility?” The World Economy, Vol. 32(4), pp. 531-551.

Cadot, O., C. Carrère and V. Straus-Kahn (2011), “Export Diversification: What’s Behind the Hump?” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 93(2), pp. 590-605.

Farole, T., J. Reis and S. Wagle (2010), “Analyzing Trade Competitiveness: A Diagnostics Approach,” Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5329, The World Bank.

Feenstra, R. and H. Kee (2004), “Export Variety and Country Productivity,” NBER Working Paper, No. 10830.

Hesse, H. (2008), “Export Diversification and Economic Growth,” Working Paper, No. 21, The World Bank.

Hinlo, J. and G. Arranguez (2017), “Export Geographical Diversification and Economic Growth Among ASEAN Countries,” MPRA Paper, No. 81333.

Hwang, H., T. Kwon and K. Ju (2004), “Export Market Diversification Measured by Gini Coefficient and Export Competitiveness,” Journal of Korea Trade, Vol. 29(2), pp. 119-140.

Imbs, J. and R. Wacziarg (2003), “Stages of Diversification,” American Economic Review, Vol. 93(1), pp.63-86.

Jansen, M. (2004), “Income Volatility in Small and Developing Economies: Export Concentration Matters,” World Trade Organization, Mimeo.


Kim, B. and K. Oh (2008), “Analysis of Export Concentration Focusing on IT Industry,” Information and Communication Policy Research, Vol. 15(3), pp. 25-49.

Kim, T. and K. Park (2006), “The Impact of Trade Diversity and Trading Partners on Domestic Economic Growth,” Journal of International Economic Studies, Vol. 10(1), pp. 29-58.

Kwon, T. (2017), “Valuation Effects of Product Diversification in Export Markets,” Korean Journal of Financial Engineering, Vol. 16(1), pp. 1-28.

Lee, H. and Y. Wang (2004), “How Does Trade Structure Affect Economic Growth? The Case of the FTA among Korea, China and Japan,” International Economic Research (Kukje Kyungje Yongu), Vol. 10(3), pp. 33-61.

Lee, J. and B. Yu (2018), “What Drives the Stock Market Comovements between Korea and China, Japan and the U.S.?” KDI Journal of Economic Policy, Vol. 40(1), pp. 45-66.

Melitz, M. (2003), “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity,” Econometrica, Vol. 71, pp. 1695-1725.

Min, S., H. Shin, J. Lee and S. Lee (2011), “Analysis of Export Diversification Pattern in Korean Industry,” Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade (KIET), Research Paper, No. 2011-615.

Neto, N. and R. Romeu (2011), “Did Export Diversification Soften the Impact of the Global Financial Crisis?” IMF Working Paper, WP/11/99.

Papageorgiou C. and N. Spatafora (2012), “Economic Diversification in LICs: Stylized Facts and Macroeconomic Implications,” IMF Staff Discussion Note, SDN/12/13.

Prebisch, R. (1950), “The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems,” Economic Commission for Latin America, United Nations Department of Economic Affairs.


Rath, B. and V. Akram (2017), “Export Diversification and Total Factor Productivity Growth in Case of South Asian Region,” Journal of Social and Economic Development, Vol. 19(1), pp. 196-210.

Romeu, R, and A. Wolfe (2011), “Recession and Policy Transmission to Latin American Tourism: Does Expanded Travel to Cuba Offset Crisis Spillover?” IMF Working Paper, WP/11/32.

Singer, H. (1950), “US Foreign Investment in Underdeveloped Areas: The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries,” American Economic Review, pp. 473-485.

Vannoorenberghe, G., Z. Wang and Z. Yu (2014), “Volitility and Diversification of Exports: Firm-Level Theory and Evidence,” CESifo Working Paper, No. 4916.

<Abstract in Korean>

수출다변화의 거시경제 안정화에 대한 효과 분석

: 한국의 사례

이진수*, 유복근**

본고는 한국의 사례를 이용하여 수출다변화가 글로벌 금융위기 시 수출

에 대한 부정적인 영향을 어느 정도 완화시켰는지에 대해 살펴보았다. 구체

적으로는 2000-16년 중 24개 한국 제조업 부문의 연간 수출자료를 이용한

패널분석을 통해 동 위기 시 국가별 · 품목별 수출다변화의 정도에 따라 수

출에 대한 부정적 효과가 어떻게 되는지를 살펴보았다. 또한 현시된 비교우

위(RCA: Revealed Comparative Advantage) 지수를 통해 산업별 수출경쟁

력 정도가 수출에 미친 영향도 추가적으로 분석하였다.

실증분석 결과, 국가별 수출다변화는 글로벌 금융위기의 한국 수출에 대

한 부정적인 영향을 감소시킨 반면, 품목별 수출다변화나 수출경쟁력은 그

렇지 않은 것으로 나타났다.

핵심 주제어: 수출다변화, 글로벌 금융위기, 거시경제 안정화

JEL Classification: E60, F10, F40

* KDI 국제정책대학원 교수 (전화: 044-550-1060, E-mail: [email protected])** 한국은행 경제연구원 국제경제연구실장 (전화: 02-759-5461, E-mail: [email protected])

BOK 경제연구 발간목록한국은행 경제연구원에서는 Working Paper인 『BOK 경제연구』를 수시로 발간하고 있습니다.BOK 경제연구』는 주요 경제 현상 및 정책 효과에 대한 직관적 설명 뿐 아니라 깊이 있는 이론 또는 실증 분석을 제공함으로써 엄밀한 논증에 초점을 두는 학술논문 형태의 연구이며 한국은행 직원 및 한국은행 연구용역사업의 연구 결과물이 수록되고 있습니다.BOK 경제연구』는 한국은행 경제연구원 홈페이지(http://imer.bok.or.kr)에서 다운로드하여 보실 수 있습니다.

제2015 -1 글로벌 금융위기 이후 주요국 통화정책 운영체계의 변화

김병기⋅김인수

2 미국 장기시장금리 변동이 우리나라 금리기간구조에 미치는 영향 분석 및 정책적 시사점

강규호⋅오형석

3 직간접 무역연계성을 통한 해외충격의 우리나라 수출입 파급효과 분석

최문정⋅김근영

4 통화정책 효과의 지역적 차이 김기호

5 수입중간재의 비용효과를 고려한 환율변동과 수출가격 간의 관계

김경민

6 중앙은행의 정책금리 발표가 주식시장 유동성에 미치는 영향

이지은

7 은행 건전성지표의 변동요인과 거시건전성 규제의 영향

강종구

8 Price Discovery and Foreign Participation in The Republic of Korea's Government Bond Futures and Cash Markets

Jaehun Choi⋅Hosung Lim⋅Rogelio Jr. Mercado⋅Cyn-Young Park

9 규제가 노동생산성에 미치는 영향: 한국의 산업패널 자료를 이용한 실증분석

이동렬⋅최종일⋅이종한

10 인구 고령화와 정년연장 연구(세대 간 중첩모형(OLG)을 이용한 정량 분석)

홍재화⋅강태수

11 예측조합 및 밀도함수에 의한 소비자물가 상승률 전망

김현학

12 인플레이션 동학과 통화정책 우준명

13 Failure Risk and the Cross-Section of Hedge Fund Returns

Jung-Min Kim

14 Global Liquidity and Commodity Prices Hyunju Kang⋅Bok-Keun Yu⋅Jongmin Yu

제2015 -15 Foreign Ownership, Legal System and Stock Market Liquidity

Jieun Lee⋅Kee H. Chung

16 바젤Ⅲ 은행 경기대응완충자본 규제의 기준지표에 대한 연구

서현덕⋅이정연

17 우리나라 대출 수요와 공급의 변동요인 분석 강종구⋅임호성

18 북한 인구구조의 변화 추이와 시사점 최지영

19 Entry of Non-financial Firms and Competition in the Retail Payments Market

Jooyong Jun

20 Monetary Policy Regime Change and Regional Inflation Dynamics: Looking through the Lens of Sector-Level Data for Korea

Chi-Young Choi⋅Joo Yong Lee⋅Roisin O'Sullivan

21 Costs of Foreign Capital Flows in Emerging Market Economies: Unexpected Economic Growth and Increased Financial Market Volatility

Kyoungsoo Yoon⋅Jayoung Kim

22 글로벌 금리 정상화와 통화정책 과제: 2015년 한국은행 국제컨퍼런스 결과보고서

한국은행 경제연구원

23 The Effects of Global Liquidity on Global Imbalances

Marie-Louise DJIGBENOU-KRE⋅Hail Park

24 실물경기를 고려한 내재 유동성 측정 우준명⋅이지은

25 Deflation and Monetary Policy Barry Eichengreen

26 Macroeconomic Shocks and Dynamics of Labor Markets in Korea

Tae Bong Kim⋅Hangyu Lee

27 Reference Rates and Monetary Policy Effectiveness in Korea

Heung Soon Jung⋅Dong Jin Lee⋅Tae Hyo Gwon⋅Se Jin Yun

28 Energy Efficiency and Firm Growth Bongseok Choi⋅Wooyoung Park⋅Bok-Keun Yu

29 An Analysis of Trade Patterns in East Asia and the Effects of the Real Exchange Rate Movements

Moon Jung Choi⋅Geun-Young Kim⋅Joo Yong Lee

30 Forecasting Financial Stress Indices in Korea: A Factor Model Approach

Hyeongwoo Kim⋅Hyun Hak Kim⋅Wen Shi

제2016 -1 The Spillover Effects of U.S. Monetary Policy on Emerging Market Economies: Breaks, Asymmetries and Fundamentals

Geun-Young Kim⋅Hail Park⋅Peter Tillmann

2 Pass-Through of Imported Input Prices to Domestic Producer Prices: Evidence from Sector-Level Data

JaeBin Ahn⋅Chang-Gui Park⋅Chanho Park

3 Spillovers from U.S. Unconventional Monetary Policy and Its Normalization to Emerging Markets: A Capital Flow Perspective

Sangwon Suh⋅Byung-Soo Koo

4 Stock Returns and Mutual Fund Flows in the Korean Financial Market: A System Approach

Jaebeom Kim⋅ Jung-Min Kim

5 정책금리 변동이 성별 ‧ 세대별 고용률에 미치는 영향

정성엽

6 From Firm-level Imports to

Aggregate Productivity: Evidence

from Korean Manufacturing Firms Data

JaeBin Ahn⋅Moon Jung Choi

7 자유무역협정(FTA)이 한국 기업의 기업내 무역에 미친 효과

전봉걸⋅김은숙⋅이주용

8 The Relation Between Monetary and Macroprudential Policy

Jong Ku Kang

9 조세피난처 투자자가 투자 기업 및 주식시장에 미치는 영향

정호성⋅김순호

10 주택실거래 자료를 이용한 주택부문 거시건전성 정책 효과 분석

정호성⋅이지은

11 Does Intra-Regional Trade Matter in Regional Stock Markets?: New Evidence from Asia-Pacific Region

Sei-Wan Kim⋅Moon Jung Choi

12 Liability, Information, and Anti-fraud Investment in a Layered Retail Payment Structure

Kyoung-Soo Yoon⋅Jooyong Jun

13 Testing the Labor Market Dualism in Korea

Sungyup Chung⋅Sunyoung Jung

14 북한 이중경제 사회계정행렬 추정을 통한 비공식부문 분석

최지영

제2016 -15 Divergent EME Responses to Global and Domestic Monetary Policy Shocks

Woon Gyu Choi⋅Byongju Lee⋅ Taesu Kang⋅Geun-Young Kim

16 Loan Rate Differences across Financial Sectors: A Mechanism Design Approach

Byoung-Ki Kim⋅Jun Gyu Min

17 근로자의 고용형태가 임금 및 소득 분포에 미치는 영향

최충⋅정성엽

18 Endogeneity of Inflation Target Soyoung Kim ⋅Geunhyung Yim

19 Who Are the First Users of a Newly-Emerging International Currency? A Demand-Side Study of Chinese Renminbi Internationalization

Hyoung-kyu Chey⋅Geun-Young Kim⋅Dong Hyun Lee

20 기업 취약성 지수 개발 및 기업 부실화에 대한 영향 분석

최영준

21 US Interest Rate Policy Spillover and International Capital Flow: Evidence from Korea

Jieun Lee⋅Jung-Min Kim⋅Jong Kook Shin

제2017 -1 가계부채가 소비와 경제성장에 미치는 영향- 유량효과와 저량효과 분석 -

강종구

2 Which Monetary Shocks Matter in Small Open Economies? Evidence from SVARs

Jongrim Ha⋅Inhwan So

3 FTA의 물가 안정화 효과 분석 곽노선⋅임호성

4 The Effect of Labor Market Polarization on the College Students’ Employment

Sungyup Chung

5 국내 자영업의 폐업률 결정요인 분석 남윤미

6 차주별 패널자료를 이용한 주택담보대출의 연체요인에 대한 연구

정호성

7 국면전환 확산과정모형을 이용한 콜금리행태 분석

최승문⋅김병국

제2017 -8 Behavioral Aspects of Household Portfolio Choice: Effects of Loss Aversion on Life Insurance Uptake and Savings

In Do Hwang

9 신용공급 충격이 재화별 소비에 미치는 영향 김광환⋅최석기

10 유가가 손익분기인플레이션에 미치는 영향 김진용⋅김준철⋅임형준

11 인구구조변화가 인플레이션의 장기 추세에 미치는 영향

강환구

12 종합적 상환여건을 반영한 과다부채 가계의 리스크 요인 분석

이동진⋅한진현

13 Crowding out in a Dual Currency Regime? Digital versus Fiat Currency

KiHoon Hong⋅Kyounghoon Park⋅Jongmin Yu

14 Improving Forecast Accuracy of Financial Vulnerability: Partial Least Squares Factor Model Approach

Hyeongwoo Kim⋅Kyunghwan Ko

15 Which Type of Trust Matters?:Interpersonal vs. Institutional vs. Political Trust

In Do Hwang

16 기업특성에 따른 연령별 고용행태 분석 이상욱⋅권철우⋅남윤미

17 Equity Market Globalization and Portfolio Rebalancing

Kyungkeun Kim⋅Dongwon Lee

18 The Effect of Market Volatility on Liquidity and Stock Returns in the Korean Stock Market

Jieun Lee⋅KeeH.Chung

19 Using Cheap Talk to Polarize or Unify a Group of Decision Makers

Daeyoung Jeong

20 패스트트랙 기업회생절차가 법정관리 기업의 이자보상비율에 미친 영향

최영준

21 인구고령화가 경제성장에 미치는 영향 안병권⋅김기호⋅육승환

22 고령화에 대응한 인구대책: OECD사례를 중심으로

김진일⋅박경훈

제2017 -23 인구구조변화와 경상수지 김경근⋅김소영

24 통일과 고령화 최지영

25 인구고령화가 주택시장에 미치는 영향 오강현⋅김솔⋅윤재준⋅안상기⋅권동휘

26 고령화가 대외투자에 미치는 영향 임진수⋅김영래

27 인구고령화가 가계의 자산 및 부채에 미치는 영향

조세형⋅이용민⋅김정훈

28 인구고령화에 따른 우리나라 산업구조 변화

강종구

29 인구구조 변화와 재정 송호신⋅허준영

30 인구고령화가 노동수급에 미치는 영향 이철희⋅이지은

31 인구 고령화가 금융산업에 미치는 영향 윤경수⋅차재훈⋅박소희⋅강선영

32 금리와 은행 수익성 간의 관계 분석 한재준⋅소인환

33 Bank Globalization and Monetary Policy Transmission in Small Open Economies

Inhwan So

34 기존 경영자 관리인(DIP) 제도의 회생기업 경영성과에 대한 영향

최영준

35 Transmission of Monetary Policy in Times of High Household Debt

Youngju Kim⋅Hyunjoon Lim

제2018 -1 4차 산업혁명과 한국의 혁신역량: 특허자료를 이용한 국가‧기술별 비교 분석, 1976-2015

이지홍⋅임현경⋅정대영

2 What Drives the Stock Market Comovements between Korea and China, Japan and the US?

Jinsoo Lee⋅Bok-Keun Yu

3 Who Improves or Worsens Liquidity in the Korean Treasury Bond Market?

Jieun Lee

제2018 -4 Establishment Size and Wage Inequality: The Roles of Performance Pay and Rent Sharing

Sang-yoon Song

5 가계대출 부도요인 및 금융업권별 금융취약성: 자영업 차주를 중심으로

정호성

6 직업훈련이 청년취업률 제고에 미치는 영향

최충⋅김남주⋅최광성

7 재고투자와 경기변동에 대한 동학적 분석 서병선⋅장근호

8 Rare Disasters and Exchange Rates: An Empirical Investigation of South Korean Exchange Rates under Tension between the Two Koreas

Cheolbeom Park⋅Suyeon Park

9 통화정책과 기업 설비투자 - 자산가격경로와 대차대조표경로 분석 -

박상준⋅육승환

10 Upgrading Product Quality:The Impact of Tariffs and Standards

Jihyun Eum

11 북한이탈주민의 신용행태에 관한 연구 정승호⋅민병기⋅김주원

12 Uncertainty Shocks and Asymmetric Dynamics in Korea: A Nonlinear Approach

Kevin Larcher⋅Jaebeom Kim⋅Youngju Kim

13 북한경제의 대외개방에 따른 경제적 후생 변화 분석

정혁⋅최창용⋅최지영

14 Central Bank Reputation and Inflation-Unemployment Performance: Empirical Evidence from an Executive Survey of 62 Countries

In Do Hwang

15 Reserve Accumulation and Bank Lending: Evidence from Korea

Youngjin Yun

16 The Banks' Swansong: Banking and the Financial Markets under Asymmetric Information

Jungu Yang

제2018 -17 E-money: Legal Restrictions Theory and Monetary Policy

Ohik Kwon⋅Jaevin Park

18 글로벌 금융위기 전․후 외국인의 채권투자 결정요인 변화 분석: 한국의 사례

유복근

19 설비자본재 기술진보가 근로유형별 임금 및 고용에 미치는 영향

김남주

20 Fixed-Rate Loans and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy

Sung Ho Park

21 Leverage, Hand-to-Mouth Households, and MPC Heterogeneity

Sang-yoon Song

22 선진국 수입수요가 우리나라 수출에 미치는 영향

최문정⋅김경근

23 Cross-Border Bank Flows through Foreign Branches: Evidence from Korea

Youngjin Yun

24 Accounting for the Sources of the Recent Decline in Korea's Exports to China

Moonjung Choi⋅Kei-Mu Yi

25 The Effects of Export Diversification on Macroeconomic Stabilization: Evidence from Korea

Jinsoo Lee⋅Bok-Keun Yu

the effects of export diversification on...

Documents