IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331037.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Potential Impacts of Trade Liberalization in Korea's Motor Vehicle Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Nam, Sang-yirl
  • Yang, Junsok

Abstract

In recent years, the United States has accused Korea of having an “anti-import” bias when it comes to motor vehicles. In other words, imports of foreign motor vehicles in Korea is “artificially low” because Korean consumers will not purchase foreign vehicles due to “nationalistic” or “patriotic” reasons. In this paper, we look at what would happen if consumers, either Korean or worldwide, eliminate their preference for domestic vehicles and judge both domestic and imported vehicles on equal criteria. To examine this possibility, we see what happens when substitution elasticities concerning consumption behavior is changed in the GTAP model. When the entire world eliminates its preference for domestic motor vehicles with a 1% increase in productivity for Korea’s motor vehicle industry, motor vehicle industry imports and exports for all countries will increase. In addition, the domestic production and trade balance of the motor vehicle industry, welfare, and GDP will rise or improve for motor vehicle net-exporting countries such as “Korea,” “Japan” and “EU”, while the variables for motor vehicle net-importing countries such as “US,” “Other Asia” and “Rest of the World” will fall or worsen.

Suggested Citation

  • Nam, Sang-yirl & Yang, Junsok, 2002. "Potential Impacts of Trade Liberalization in Korea's Motor Vehicle Industry," Conference papers 331037, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331037/files/926.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liu, Xuelin, 1998. "Adjusted forest accounts for China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 283-298, December.
    2. Thampapillai, Dodo J & Uhlin, Hans-Erik, 1997. "Environmental Capital and Sustainable Income: Basic Concepts and Empirical Tests," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 21(3), pages 379-394, May.
    3. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    4. Jorgenson, Dale W. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 1993. "Reducing US carbon emissions: an econometric general equilibrium assessment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 7-25, March.
    5. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    6. Gerlagh, Reyer & Dellink, Rob & Hofkes, Marjan & Verbruggen, Harmen, 2002. "A measure of sustainable national income for the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 157-174, April.
    7. Torras, Mariano, 1999. "Inequality, Resource Depletion, and Welfare Accounting: Applications to Indonesia and Costa Rica," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 1191-1202, July.
    8. Boyd, Roy & Uri, Noel D., 1991. "An assessment of the impacts of energy taxes," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 349-379, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerlagh, Reyer & Dellink, Rob & Hofkes, Marjan & Verbruggen, Harmen, 2002. "A measure of sustainable national income for the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 157-174, April.
    2. Jingwen Lu & Lihua Dai, 2023. "Examining the Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation: The Impact of Agricultural Product Trade Openness on Agricultural Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    4. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Ruqayya Ibraheem & Ismat Nasim, 2021. "Globalization, Energy Use and Environmental Degradation in Thailand," iRASD Journal of Energy and Environment, International Research Association for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(1), pages 01-11, June.
    6. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Muhammad Shahbaz & Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad & Mantu Kumar Mahalik & Perry Sadorsky, 2018. "How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(13), pages 1479-1494, March.
    8. Yiping Sun & Xiangyi Li & Tengyuan Zhang & Jiawei Fu, 2022. "Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Exacerbate Environmental Pollution?—Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Onder, Harun, 2012. "Trade and Climate Change: An Analytical Review of Key Issues," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 86, pages 1-8, August.
    10. Monika Jain, 2021. "Was India Right in Not Joining RCEP? A Cost–Benefit Analysis," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 77(4), pages 542-559, December.
    11. Acheampong, Alex O., 2019. "Modelling for insight: Does financial development improve environmental quality?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 156-179.
    12. Ling-Yun He & Liang Wang, 2019. "Import Liberalization of Intermediates and Environment: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    13. Ajayi, Patricia & Ogunrinola, Adedeji, 2020. "Growth, Trade Openness and Environmental Degradation in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 100713, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Ahmed, Khalid & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2017. "Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-232.
    15. Canfei He & Fenghua Pan & Yan Yan, 2012. "Is Economic Transition Harmful to China’s Urban Environment? Evidence from Industrial Air Pollution in Chinese Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(8), pages 1767-1790, June.
    16. Jayanthakumaran, Kankesu & Verma, Reetu & Liu, Ying, 2012. "CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: A comparative analysis of China and India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 450-460.
    17. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    18. David I. Stern, 2017. "The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 7-28, April.
    19. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Oueslati, Walid, 2016. "Are deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements helping to reduce air pollution?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 292, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    20. Jie HE, 2005. "Economic Determinants for China’s Industrial SO2 Emission: Reduced vs. Structural form and the role of international trade," Working Papers 200505, CERDI.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.