earticle

영어

Unlike the previous pattern of trade in which products with comparative advantage are exported, and products with comparative disadvantage are imported to the benefit of both trading partners, the structure of the global value chain is narrowing such distinction and complicating trade patterns as the trade volume of intermediate goods increases. As a result, it is becoming technically impossible to reflect the current trade pattern of each country based on gross exports (gross value terms). Therefore, this study disaggregates each country’s gross exports into various value added components and then analyzes the structure of Korea’s value added in exports. The data used in the analysis are the World Input Output Tables (WIOT) established under the auspices of the European Commission. Referring to the methodology presented by Koopman et al. (2014), this study decomposes the value added in exports into six different parts, namely domestic value added, third-country value added, domestic value added that returns home, foreign value added, transaction costs, and double-counted terms. As a result of the breakdown of Korea's value added export network by country, year, and each value-added component, this study finds that the main source of value added in exports shifted from the US, Europe, and Japan to China, indicating that the role and importance of those countries in the global value chain have shifted. In addition, by increasing the share of trade with other countries and moving away from historic trade patterns, which relied more heavily on major trading partners such as the US, Europe, and Japan, it has become possible for Korea to increase its flexibility and resilience against temporary external shocks and economic fluctuations. The trading network also seems to have expanded due to Korea’s export diversification strategy. The share of transaction costs incurred in Korea's trade is 11.2% ~ 12.8% during the period included in this analysis, which is the highest level except for certain countries such as India and Europe. Although transportation costs due to the physical distance from the trading partners provides a partial explanation, it seems that taxes on products are relatively higher than those imposed in other countries. Therefore, reducing a variety of taxes on products that can be costly for enterprise production output and export is desirable. Referencing advanced country levels such as the US (3.3%~4.6%) and Japan (3.2%~6.0%) can provide suit-able benchmarks. Although the phenomenon in which the higher the export volume, the lower the domestic value added is not confined to Korea, it is crucial to forming a trade relationship in which domestic value added and foreign value added can be increased simultaneously. In the short term, it would be possible to consider export subsidies through financial and tax support to industrial sectors where there is a plentiful supply of raw materials or intermediate goods. In the long term, policy should be designed to strengthen industrial competitiveness with high value-added industries and products. This study analyzes value added in Korean exports from 2000 to 2014, but future research into analyzing value added exports by specific industries such as automobile, steel, chemical, and ICT to ascertain which value added is obtained from which trading partners by what amount, including transaction costs and double-counted terms can prove valuable. If policy implications based on the analysis results can be suggested, such research will be quite meaningful as it might reveal how each country’s industry trade network is constructed.

한국어

기존 총액 수출 기준 방식으로는 실제 글로벌 가치사슬 현황을 반영하지 못 하는 한계를 감안하여 본 연구는 부가가치를 기준으로 수출 시 창출하는 한국의 부가가 치 네트워크 구조를 분석하였다. 선행연구와는 달리 거래비용을 고려하지 않았을 경우 과다 계상되는 문제점과 이중 계산 부분을 고려하면서 Koopman et al.(2014)이 제시한 방법론을 원용하여 수출부가가치를 최종재 및 중간재 수출에 따른 국내부가 가치, 교역상대국이 국내 수출품을 가공하여 제3국에 수출하는 경우의 국내부가가 치(제3국 부가가치), 최종재 및 중간재 수출 후 국내 재반입분에 따른 환류부가가치 (환류부가가치), 최종재 및 중간재 수출을 통한 해외부가가치(외국부가가치) 등으로 분해하였다. 분석 결과, 한국의 수출부가가치 주요 원천이 기존 미국, 유럽, 일본에서 중국으로 바뀌었고 기타 국가들과의 부가가치 비중이 가장 많은 부분을 차지함으로써 과거 일부 특정 국가들에 상대적으로 많이 의존했던 기존의 교역 패턴을 벗어나 수출 다 각화를 이뤄가고 있음과 동시에 일시적인 충격이나 세계 경기 변동에 대한 유연성 을 키우고 있는 것으로 보인다. 하지만 분석 대상 국가 중 인도, 유럽 등 일부 국가 를 제외하고는 높은 거래비용을 지불하고 있는 것으로 나타나 글로벌 가치사슬의 효 율적 활용을 위해서는 한국 기업들의 수출 시 비용으로 작용할 수 있는 생산물에 대 한 조세 등 거래비용을 점검할 필요성을 보여주고 있다.