본 연구는 한국과 주요 교역국(미국, 중국 그리고 일본)의 제조업 부문에서의 무역구조의 변화 및 결정요인을 분석하고 있다. 분석기간인 2002-2007년 동안 수출의 집중도는 중국이 가장 높았...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101990814
2011
English
KCI등재
학술저널
1-25(25쪽)
1
0
상세조회0
다운로드본 연구는 한국과 주요 교역국(미국, 중국 그리고 일본)의 제조업 부문에서의 무역구조의 변화 및 결정요인을 분석하고 있다. 분석기간인 2002-2007년 동안 수출의 집중도는 중국이 가장 높았...
본 연구는 한국과 주요 교역국(미국, 중국 그리고 일본)의 제조업 부문에서의 무역구조의 변화 및 결정요인을 분석하고 있다. 분석기간인 2002-2007년 동안 수출의 집중도는 중국이 가장 높았고 일본, 한국 그리고 미국의 순으로 나타났다. 한국의 수출구조 변화는 미국, 중국 그리고 일본에 비해 빠르게 변화한 반 면, 일본의 수출구조는 가장 안정적이었다. 한국은 중국과 요소부존비율의 차이로 인해 상호간의 수출구조가 서로 다르게 나타났다. 따라서 상호간의 수출확대를 위해서는 비유사성을 활용할 필요가 있다. 한국과 미일 두 나라, 특히 일본 과는 요소부존비율의 유사성 때문에 무역구조가 매우 비슷한 것으로 나타났다. 이로 인해 세계시장에서 일본제품과의 경쟁이 심화되고 있다. 분석기간 동안 한 국의 수출제품은 단손노동집약적인 그리고 R&D 집약적인 제품에 비교우위가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 미국과 일본의 경우는 R&D 집약적인 제품, 그리고 중국 의 경우는 단순노동집약적인 제품에 비교우위가 있었으며 R&D 집약적인 제품 에는 비교열위가 있는 것으로 분석되었다.
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
It was found that export products of China are the most concentrated for the period of 2002-2007. This concentration of Chinese export products is followed by Japan, Korea, and the USA in that order. Since this kind of high concentration of export pro...
It was found that export products of China are the most concentrated for the period of 2002-2007. This concentration of Chinese export products is followed by Japan, Korea, and the USA in that order. Since this kind of high concentration of export products are not desirable, it should be diversified to avoid any potential economic loss associated with unfavorable trade-environmental changes against these concentrated export products. Export patterns of Korea changed faster than those of the USA, China, and Japan for the period of 2002-2007. On the other hand, export patterns of Japan remained the most stable in the same period. Therefore both Korea and UJC (i.e., the USA, Japan, and China in short hereafter) should fully adjust their economies to ever-changing patterns of their exports. It was found that Korea`s export patterns do not resemble those of China due to the differences in factor endowment ratios of China and Korea. Therefore Korea can increase her exports to China by exploiting non-similarity of Korean and Chinese export patterns. Both UJ (i.e., the USA and Japan in short hereafter) and Korea had similar export patterns due to the resemblances in factor endowment ratios of UJ and Korea. Especially, Korean export patterns became increasingly similar to Japanese export patterns and Korean products` competition with Japanese products in the world export market became increasingly severe. Therefore both UJ and Korea should cooperate in exporting their products in the world market. It was found that Korea exported products which are less skilled human capital intensive and more R&D intensive for the entire period of 2002-2007. Therefore Korea should try to export more of these products to the world market from now on. The USA is found to have exported products which are more R&D intensive for the entire period of 2002-2007. Therefore the USA should try to export more of these products to the world market from now on. It was found that Japan exported products which are more R&D intensive for the entire period of 2002-2007. Therefore Japan should try to export more of these products to the world market from now on. China is found to have exported products which are less skilled human capital intensive and less R&D intensive for the entire period of 2002-2007. Therefore China should try to export more of these products to the world market from now on.
참고문헌 (Reference)
1 Pagoulatos, Emilio, "Two-Way International Trade: An Econometric Analysis" 111 : 454-465, 1975
2 Kim, Seung Jin, "Trade Patterns Among APEC Countries: Their Change and Korea’s Response: (in Korean)" International Trade and Business Institute 1995
3 Balassa, B, "Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantages" 33 : 91-123, 1965
4 Hufbauer, G. C, "The Impact of National Characteristics and Technology on the Commodity Composition of Trade in Manufactured Goods. In The Technology Factor in International Trade" 145-232, 1970
5 Kim, Seung Jin, "The Composition of Trade Flows for a Less Developed Economy: The Case of Korea" 2 (2): 139-164, 1988
6 Kierzkowski, H, "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade" Oxford University Press 1984
7 Yamazawa, I, "Intensity Analysis of World Trade Flow" 10 : 61-90, 1970
8 Krugman, P. R, "Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade" 9 : 469-479, 1979
9 OECD, "Foreign Trade by Commodities: Vol. 5. various issues"
1 Pagoulatos, Emilio, "Two-Way International Trade: An Econometric Analysis" 111 : 454-465, 1975
2 Kim, Seung Jin, "Trade Patterns Among APEC Countries: Their Change and Korea’s Response: (in Korean)" International Trade and Business Institute 1995
3 Balassa, B, "Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantages" 33 : 91-123, 1965
4 Hufbauer, G. C, "The Impact of National Characteristics and Technology on the Commodity Composition of Trade in Manufactured Goods. In The Technology Factor in International Trade" 145-232, 1970
5 Kim, Seung Jin, "The Composition of Trade Flows for a Less Developed Economy: The Case of Korea" 2 (2): 139-164, 1988
6 Kierzkowski, H, "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade" Oxford University Press 1984
7 Yamazawa, I, "Intensity Analysis of World Trade Flow" 10 : 61-90, 1970
8 Krugman, P. R, "Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade" 9 : 469-479, 1979
9 OECD, "Foreign Trade by Commodities: Vol. 5. various issues"
The Determinants of Upfront Fees
National Identity and Security Norms
학술지 이력
| 연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 평가 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
| 2019-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) | ![]() |
| 2016-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | ![]() |
| 2015-12-01 | 등재 | 등재후보로 하락 (기타) | ![]() |
| 2011-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2008-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) | ![]() |
| 2007-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2005-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | ![]() |
학술지 인용정보
| 기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.64 |
| KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
| 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.984 | 0.1 |