• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.195-214
• /
• 2018

In order to analyze the current status of trade with Korea and FTA partner countries, the Trade Intensity Index and the Market Comparative Advantage index were calculated and analyzed using panel gravity model. In the case of trade, trade intensity index has been strengthened according to each FTA enforecement, and in some cases, trade inensity has been weakened. In the case of the comparative advantage index, there was a case in which the comparative advantage was strengthened or the comparative advantage was not significantly changed according to each Chapter of HS code. This means that the Korea's FTA enforcement effect has not directly affected the increase of the trade intensity and the increase of the market comparative advantage index. The panel gravity model using the trade intensity and the comparative advantage index as the dependent variable and the trade volume between the two countries as the dependent variable was analyzed.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2009

This paper analyzes how Korea's trade intensity with major ASEAN countries changed from 2000 to 2005. For this purpose, we measured the trade intensity index, the trade complementarity index, and the special country bias index between Korea and ASEAN countries by the trade intensity index model developed by Yamazawa (1970). The OECD trade matrix was used as data. We found that Korea's trade intensity with Indonesia increased from 8.91 in 2000 to 10.88 in 2005 due to a considerable increase in Korea's special country bias with Indonesia from 9.58 in 2000 to 10.75 in 2005. Therefore Korea's special country bias with Indonesia should be enhanced further by increasing capital movements and reducing discriminatory tariffs and other import restrictions between Korea and Indonesia. It was also found that trade intensity between Korea and other ASEAN countries (i.e., Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) shows a similar pattern of the above trade intensity between Korea and Indonesia except the trade complementarity.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.13 no.6
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2015

Purpose - To accelerate economic cooperation, this study investigates trade structures of Korea and the United States and identifies trade discrepancies. Such discoveries can lead to increases in trade volume by improving policies, eventually uncovering ways for trade expansion. Research design, data, and methodology - The Index of trade intensity, from trade intensity theory, is used to analyze the trade decision factors. Even though specific factors should materialize in the analysis, realistically, concrete explanations are difficult as there are so many unsolved factors and diversifications. Results - First, the Index of A value/ B value positions Korean against the United States in terms of market share and Korea against world market share, which thereby reveals comparative market intensity. Second, Korea is taking comparative advantage of export specialization. Third, real comparative advantage indices are considerably improved since early 2000. Conclusions - This study uses quantitative measurements and trade intensity theory and trade specialization to come up with a comparative advantage index to see how inter-trade relations between Korea and the United States have changed over the past 10 years.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.11 no.11
• /
• pp.33-40
• /
• 2013

Purpose - This study, in seeking to understand the trade structure of both Korea and China, aims to strengthen Korea-China economic cooperation; it examines trade impediments by analyzing the problems affecting trade and addressing these problems, thereby discovering ways to expand trade between these countries. Research Design, Data, and Methodology - The index of trade intensity developed by the trade intensity theory (Kruger, 1997) is used to analyze the trade decision factors of both countries. Although specific factors should have materialized from the analysis of trade decision factors, determining concrete explanations is difficult in reality, as there are many unsolved and diverse factors. Results - First, the index of A value/B value is the index of Korean versus Chinese market share/Korean versus world market share, which is a measure of comparative market intensity. Second, Korea has a comparative advantage in export specialization and, conversely, China has a comparative advantage in import specialization. Third, compared to 2000, the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) indexes are considerably improved. Conclusions - This study used quantitative measurement for analysis, applying trade intensity theory, trade specialization, and RCA indexes to gauge how inter-trade relations have changed between Korea and China during the past 10 years (2000, 2005, and 2012).

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.21 no.9
• /
• pp.67-79
• /
• 2023

Purpose: To investigate the intensity of bilateral international trade of the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) countries with Kazakhstan, its relationship with logistics (LPI), to assess their contribution to economic growth and distribution of commodity flows. Research design, data, and methodology: The method of analyzing the bilateral trade flow was applied by using the trade intensity index (TII) and a multidimensional regression model describing the relationship between LPI and its components, TII, the volume of exports and imports, GDP. Results: The nature and directions of the relationship between TII and the key components of logistics, the positive impact of LPI on the intensity of trade are established. It is revealed that the intensity of trade between the countries in the direction of the EAEU-Kazakhstan has a greater impact on the growth of LPI than in the opposite direction. At the same time, the higher the level of trade integration and the volume of GDP, the stronger their impact on the efficiency of logistics and distribution of commodity flows. Conclusions: Effective distribution of commodity flows will require the development of logistics components based on the direction of bilateral trade and the size of countries, the intensification of state reforms in the field of international trade and distribution logistics.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.11 no.8
• /
• pp.31-37
• /
• 2013

Purpose - This study aims to strengthen the economic cooperation between Korea and Japan by studying the pattern of trade between them and identifying drawbacks. Thus, it aims to enable trade expansion by analyzing the factors that affect trade and identifying ways to improve them. If economic cooperation is improved, transport and communication costs, as well as the transaction cost of economic exchanges, can be minimized. Research design, data, methodology - The trade intensity index developed by the Japanese economist Yamazawa under his trade intensity theory was used to analyze the trade decision factor of Korea and Japan. Trade structure and decision factors were analyzed for the target period of 2000 to 2012, and the period ranging from 2000 to 2005 was compared with the period ranging from 2005 to 2012. This paper is an analysis of the resultant time series. The data were collected from Korea Traders Association, Korea Customs Office, and UN Comtrade (2000, 2005, 2012) and whole table indexes were calculated by the author. Trade related index was used to analyze the comparative advantage based on time-series analysis statistics data (2000. 2005, 2012) through an analysis of the trade intensity index (TII), revealed comparative advantage index (RCA), and trade specialization index (TSI). Results - The trade intensity index of the industries of Japan and Korea is 1.814 in 2000. The export ratio of Japan against China was slightly higher at 2.128. TII is indicated to be 1.600 in both 2005 and 2012, which means export ratio of Japan against China is considerably maintained in 2005; however, export ratio of Japan against China is diminishing gradually as its index is 1.600 in 2012. Second, as per the trade specialization index of the ship industry in Japan and China, TSI is indicated to be -0.818 in 2000, -0.308 in 2005, and -0.847 in 2012. Generally, it is still closer to -1 and especially, we can see it is more closer to -1 in 2012. Third, as per the revealed comparative advantage index of the ship industry in Japan and China, the RCA index in 2012 is 0.007, which is quite far from 1 as compared to the value in 2000 and 2005. Hence, the Japanese ship industry has a significant comparative disadvantage against the Chinese ship industry. Conclusions - Both countries invest most of their capital in the shipping industry. It is the shipping industry that receives the most capital investment in the two countries is invested and governmental policy funds are needed. As both countries have large shipping industries, this research project is very valuable. Japan and China are compared because they are Korea's neighbors. Also, Korea is strategically located in Northeast Asia and has a history of foreign intrusion from several countries. Therefore, the purpose of this research study is to understand the trade structures of both countries and intensify the economic cooperation between Japan and China.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.7
• /
• pp.37-44
• /
• 2014

Purpose - This study reviews changes in the automobile export-import structure between Japan and USA through a trade related index, and focuses on analyzing comparative advantage based on time-series analysis of statistical data (2000, 2005, and 2012) by using the trade intensity index (TII), revealed comparative advantage index (RCA), and trade specialization index (TSI). Research design, data, and methodology - Japan and USA have mutually complementary economic phase characteristics. Therefore, this study aimed to understand each country's trade structure, to strengthen Japan-USA economic cooperation and aimed to examine trade drawbacks to analyze causes affecting trade and ways to improve it to facilitate its expansion. Results - These two economies have immense complementary potential and, further, significantly greater profits are assured from trade between them, as compared to any other integrated regional economic community. Conclusion - Economic cooperation between these two powers can provide opportunities for industry technology cooperation through partnerships against the backdrop of accelerating competition among industries, by identifying opportunities to secure stable resource suppliers and enlarge the export market.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.25-32
• /
• 2014

Purpose - This study reviews changes in the steel export-import structure between Korea and Japan using a trade related index; it focuses on analyzing comparative advantage based on time-series analysis statistics data using the trade intensity index (TII), revealed comparative advantage index (RCA), and trade specialization index (TSI). Research design, data, and methodology - In terms of their economic phase, Korea and Japan have a mutually complementary character. Therefore, this study aims to understand each country's trade structure to strengthen Korea-Japan economic cooperation, examine trade drawbacks, analyze factors that affect trade, and identify ways to improve and expand trade. Results - The results indicate immense potential for mutual cooperation and complementariness, which will yield guaranteed adequate profits comparable to those of any regional economic integrated community. Conclusion - From our viewpoint, Northeast economic cooperation can facilitate industry technological cooperation with Japanese partners in the prevailing environment that is characterized by increasing competition among industries and the need to secure stable resource supplies as well as the expansion of the export market and diversification, which can have significant positive implications.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.105-112
• /
• 2014

Purpose - This research undertakes to understand the trade structures of both China and Japan to strengthen Sino-Japan economic cooperation and examines impediments to trade between the 2 countries to analyze causes which affect trade and to examine improvements in these areas to find out ways of trade expansion. Through this survey of a defined period of time, we can identify the structural factors of trade dependence in the relationship between China and Japan. Research design, data, methodology - The data were collected from Korea Traders Association, Korea Customs Office and UN Comtrade, from which whole table indexes are calculated by author. This research methodology uses trade related indexes to focus on analyzing comparative advantages based on time-series analysis statistics data (2000~2012), by using the analysis index of Trade Intensity Index (TII), Revealed Comparative Advantage Index (RCA) and Trade Specialization Index (TSI). Results - The export ratio for China against Japan was a little higher in 2000 at 2.867 and the export ratio for China against Japan was sustained in 2005. However, it diminished gradually and reached 1.263 in 2012. During the whole period of 2000~2012, the indexes were maintained without any significant change. However, they are still moving closer to -1. Especially, in 2012 it is the closest it has been to -1. Therefore, Japan has a comparative advantage toward export specialization. On the other hand, China has a comparative advantage toward import specialization. For the whole research period, all indexes were much smaller than 1, which means that China has comprehensively had a comparative disadvantage against Japan for the past 10 years when compared to other industries, even though it had improved in 2000. Conclusions - The summary of conclusions based on empirical analysis research are as follows: First, per the Trade Intensity Index of industries between the 2 countries, we can conclude that export ratio index is 2.867, based on the formula, in 2000, which means the export ratio of China against Japan is a little bit higher. Furthermore, the ratios of 2.259 and 1.263 are indicated in 2005 and 2012 respectively which mean the export ratio of China against Japan was maintained in 2005 but was diminishing gradually as the index is 1.263 in 2012. Second, per the Trade Specialization Index of the shipping industry between China and Japan, -0.379 is indicated in 2000, -0.368 in 2005 and -0.568 in 2012. Looking at the whole period of 2000~2012, the indexes were maintained without any significant change. However, they are still moving closer to -1. Especially, in 2012 it is the closest it has been to -1. Third, per the Revealed Comparative Advantage Index of the automobile industry between China and Japan, the RCA indexes in 2005 and 2012 are 0.246 and 0.306 respectively which are still far from 1 even though the index is improved compared to 2000's value of 0.0001. Therefore, the Chinese automobile industry is very much at a comparative disadvantage to that of the Japanese automobile industry.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.21-29
• /
• 2014

Purpose - This research undertakes to understand the competitiveness of the steel distribution industry of both Korea and China to strengthen Korea-Sino economic cooperation, examines impediments to trade between the two countries to analyze causes which affect trade, and examines improvements in these areas to identify means of trade expansion. Through this survey of a defined period, we can identify the structural factors of trade dependence in the relationship between Korea and China. Research design, data, and methodology - The data were collected from the Korea Traders Association, the Korea Customs Office, and UN Comtrade, from which whole table indexes are calculated. The research methodology uses trade-related indexes to focus on analyzing comparative advantages based on time-series analysis statistics data (2000-2012) by using the analysis index of trade intensity index (TII), the revealed comparative advantage index (RCA), and the trade specialization index (TSI). Results - The export ratio for Korea to China was slightly higher in 2000 at 2.867, and the export ratio for Korea to China was sustained in 2005. However, it diminished gradually, reaching 1.263 in 2012. During the period 2000-2012, the indexes were maintained without any significant change. However, they still remain close to -1. In particular, in 2012 it is the closest it has ever been to -1. Therefore, China has a comparative advantage in export specialization. On the other hand, Korea has a comparative advantage in import specialization. For the research period, all indexes were much lower than 1, which means that Korea has consistently had a comparative disadvantage against China for the past 10 years when compared to other industries, even though it experienced improvement in 2000. Conclusions - The summary of conclusions based on empirical analysis research are as follows: First, per the trade intensity index of industries between the two countries, we conclude that the export ratio index in 2000 is 2.867, which means the export ratio of Korea to China is slightly higher. Furthermore, the ratios of 2.259 and 1.263 held in 2005 and 2012, respectively, meaning that the export ratio of Korea to China was maintained in 2005, but was diminishing gradually as the index in 2012 was 1.263. Second, per the trade specialization index of the steel distribution industry between Korea and China, the value was -0.379 in 2000, -0.368 in 2005 and -0.568 in 2012. Looking at the whole period of 2000-2012, the indexes remained without any significant change. However, they are still moving closer to -1. In particular, in 2012 it is the closest it has ever been to -1. Third, regarding the revealed comparative advantage index of the steel distribution industry between Korea and China, the RCA indexes in 2005 and 2012 are 0.246 and 0.306, respectively, which are still far from 1, even though the index has improved compared to the 2000's value of 0.0001. Therefore, the Korean steel distribution industry is at a significant comparative disadvantage to that of the Chinese steel distribution industry.