Abstract
Purpose - This study quantifies sources of trade balance dynamics over the business cycle in Korea. Specifically, we quantify the relative importance of domestic and foreign factors on trade balance dynamics using a small open economy real business cycle (SOE-RBC) model and provide policy implications for stabilization policies. Aggregate productivity and interest rate spreads are considered domestic factors affecting the trade balance. A world interest rate (the U.S. interest rate) is considered a foreign factor. Design/methodology - Following Neumeyer and Perri (2005), we build the SOE-RBC model with three types of shocks: aggregate productivity, interest rate spread, and world interest shocks. The model is estimated by the generalized method of moments (GMM) using relevant business cycle statistics. The estimated model is used for quantifying the relative importance of domestic and foreign factors on trade balance dynamics in Korea. Findings - Our main findings can be summarized as follows: 85.64% of the trade balance fluctuations in Korea are explained by domestic factors, the remaining 14.35% by foreign factors. Particularly, trade balance dynamics are mostly accounted for by the change in aggregate productivity shocks (85.58%). World interest rate shocks considerably explain trade balance (14.35%), whereas the role of interest rate spread shocks that represent domestic risks is limited (0.08%). Although aggregate productivity is key in explaining trade balance dynamics in Korea, interest rates still have an essential role. This is because aggregate productivity changes induce interest rate spread variations and, thus, the trade balance significantly. The results suggest that government policies mitigating fluctuations in aggregate productivity would be effective for stabilization policies in Korea by reducing the trade balance volatility. Originality/value - Existing studies on the emerging market business cycle examine mostly Latin American countries, and the main object of the studies is the volatility of consumption rather than trade balance dynamics. Conversely, our study examines Korea rather than Latin American countries. Additionally, we examine sources of trade balance dynamics, which are relatively more important in Korea, rather than those of the volatility of consumption. Hence, we estimate the model to explicitly match moments related to trade balance in the data.