Journal of Korea Trade

한국무역학회 (Korea Trade Research Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing the Competitiveness and Complementarity of the Agricultural Products Trade between Korea and CPTPP Countries

  • Meng-wen Chen (Major in International Trade Management, Woosuk University) ;
  • Suk-jae Park (Department of International Trade, Woosuk University) ;
  • Quan-zheng Zhu (Major in Cultural Management, Woosuk University)
  • 투고 : 2023.04.25
  • 심사 : 2023.06.09
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose - This paper aims to investigate the competitiveness and complementarity of the agricultural products trade between Korea and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) countries. The study evaluates the opportunities and challenges that Korea's agricultural sector faces after joining the CPTPP, and suggests strategies to deepen cooperation and expand Korea's agricultural products trade. Design/methodology - To achieve these objectives, we analyze the trade competition and cooperation relationship between Korea and CPTPP countries in the agricultural products trade. This study uses data from Chapters HS1-24 in UN Comtrade from 2012 to 2022, and applies the indices of revealed comparative advantage, export similarity, and trade complementarity to examine the trade dynamics. Furthermore, we use an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to predict the agricultural products trade complementarity index between Korea and CPTPP countries from 2022 to 2031. Findings - The findings of our analysis reveal that Korea's agricultural products trade competitiveness is weak compared to that of CPTPP countries, and Korea's agricultural products are at a competitive disadvantage. On the whole, the similarity index of agricultural products trade exports between Korea and CPTPP countries is low, the structure of agricultural products export is quite different, and trade competition is relatively moderate. The trade complementarity index between Korea and CPTPP countries is generally high, with strong complementarity and a large space for cooperation and development. The ARIMA model shows that in the next ten years, although the agricultural products trade complementarity index fluctuates, but is generally high, there will still be a complementarity advantage in the future. Originality/value - This study is the first attempt to investigate the competitiveness and complementarity of the agricultural products trade between Korea and CPTPP countries. We also introduce an ARIMA model to forecast and analyze the future agricultural products trade complementarity index. Our study provides new perspectives and solutions for the future development of Korea's agricultural products trade after joining the CPTPP.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bai, Jie and Qing-yi Su (2019),"The rules, influence and China's Countermeasures of CPTPP: An Analysis based on comparison with TPP", International economic review, 2019(1), 58-76.
  2. Balassa, B. (1965), "Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage", The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
  3. Feng Cheng-cheng(2021), "Analysis on Competitiveness and Complementary of Agricultural Products Trade between China and ASEAN", Agricultural Outlook, 17(12), 165-169.
  4. GE, Ming, Shi-li Yan and Su-ping Zhao(2022), "Research on the Competitiveness and Complementarity of Agricultural Products Trade between China and CPTPP Countries", Agricultural economic problems, 235-244. http://10.13246/j.cnki.iae.20220719.001.
  5. Glick, R. and Rose A. K. (1999), "Contagion and Trade: Why Are Currency Crises Regional", Journal of International Money and Finance, 18(4), 603-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(99)00023-6
  6. Gong Jing(2022), "Analysis and Countermeasures on the International Competitiveness of Telecommunication Service Trade between China, Japan, and South Korea", Journal of Korea Trade, 26(7), 50-51. https://doi.org/10.35611/jkt.2022.26.7.43
  7. Heo, In-ae(2022), "A Study on the Regulatory Similarity between Korea and the CPTPP Member States: Focusing on TBT", Journal of International Trade & Commerce, 18(1), 373-390.
  8. Kang, Bo-kyung (2019), "A Study on a Trade Effect Analysis of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement of Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and South Korea", International Commerce and Information Review, 21(2), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.15798/kaici.2019.21.2.185
  9. Lin, Qing-quan, Yi Zheng and Jian-hui Yu(2021), "Competitiveness and Complementarity of agricultural products trade Between China and RCEP Members", Asia-pacific economy, 1, 75-80.
  10. Moon, Han-pil, Sung-ju Cho, Su-hwan Lee, Jung-won Youm and Kyeong-ho Kim(2018), cptpp fermentation and Inspiration in the field of agricultural products trade(No.174), Korea Rural Economic Institute, 10-16.
  11. Schott, J. J. (2021), RCEP is not enough: South Korea also needs to join the CPTPP (No. PB21-17), Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1-3, 9-12.
  12. Song, Back-hoon(2019), "Korea's Trade Depression from CPTPP: In the view of Trade Business", Trade and Business Studies, 84, 233-251.
  13. Wang, Shao-yuan and Zhi-qing Feng(2021), "Study on the Competitiveness and Complementarity of Trade Relationship among China, Japan and South Korea in Manufacturing Industry", Statistics and Information Forum, 36(7), 31-38.
  14. Yu, Jae-har and Chun-su Lee (2021), "Is Accession to the CPTPP a Necessary Option for Korea", International Commerce and Information Review, 23(3), 273-290. https://doi.org/10.15798/kaici.2021.23.3.273
  15. Zhao, Jun and Ying, Hu (2022), "China and Eurasian Economic Union agricultural products Analysis of trade competitiveness and complementarity", Commercial economy, 547(3), 7-8.