Growth of the Korean economy has been sluggish, and this situation is more pronounced in the service sector. We argue that capital misallocation, especially in the service sector, could contribute to this slowdown. Utilizing firm and sectoral level data, first we assess the rising dispersion of the marginal revenue product of capital (MRPK) driven by the service sector. This could represent a widening misallocation of capital. Furthermore, a panel regression shows that within-sector misallocations at the sectoral level are closely correlated with the lower growth rate of sectoral real value added. Again, this is mainly observed in the service sector, but not in the manufacturing sector. Misallocations of other resources, labor and the intermediate inputs do not stand out.

The present article investigates empirically whether non-reciprocal trade preferences (NRTPs) offered by QUAD countries (Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States) to developing countries have helped to promote economic growth in the beneficiary countries. Two main blocks of NRTPs are considered here: Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programs and other trade preferences programs. The analysis used a set of 90 beneficiary countries of NRTPs that are concurrently recipients of development aid over the period of 2002-2018. Using the two-step system generalized method of moments, the analysis indicated that while a higher degree of utilization of each of these two blocks of NRTPs has been associated with a high economic growth rate, development aid enhances this positive effect. This highlights the need for donors to support a development strategy based on the provision of both development aid and NRTPs if they are to help beneficiary countries to promote economic growth. Finally, when the positive economic growth effect of the utilization of NRTPs is higher, the result is a greater country's share of exports (under preferential tariffs) to QUAD countries out of their total merchandise exports.

Regulatory sentiment refers to the market's subjective evaluation of regulatory reform and is one of the most widely adopted indicators to those charged with implementing and diagnosing regulatory policies. The use of regulatory sentiment in advanced analysis has become universal, albeit it is often limited due to difficulties in articulating consistent and objective quantitative indicators that can meticulously reflect market sentiment overall. Thus, despite ample effort by scholars to read the economic impact of regulatory sentiment in the real economy, causal links are difficult to spot. To fill this gap in the literature, this study analyzes a regulatory sentiment index and economic performance indicators through a text analysis approach and by inspecting diverse tones in media articles. Using different stages of tests, the paper identifies a causal relationship between regulatory sentiment and actual economic activities as measured by private consumption, facility investment, construction investment, gross domestic investment, and employment. Additionally, as a result of analyzing one-unit impulse of regulatory perception, the initial impact on economic growth and private investment was found to be negligible; this was followed by a positive (+) response, after which it converged to zero. Construction investment showed a positive (+) response initially, which then rapidly changed to a negative (-) response and then converged to zero. Gross domestic investment as the initial effect was negligible after showing a positive (+) reaction. Unfortunately, the facility investment outcome was found to be insignificant in the impulse response test. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that it is necessary and important to increase the sensitivity to regulations to promote the economic effectiveness of regulatory reforms. Thus, instead of dealing with policies with the vague goal of merely improving regulatory sentiment, using regulatory sentiment as an indicator of major policies could be an effective approach.