Does Exporting Raise Productivity? Evidence from Korean Microdata
Ahn, Sanghoon | July 2005
Abstract
Does competition enhance productivity growth of a developing economy? Is global competition conducive to economic development? Especially, does competition with more advanced producers in the global market promote productivity growth of domestic producers in a developing country? If the answer is a conditional yes, what makes global competition conducive to productivity growth and economic development? Many researchers have been working to find a better answer to these, perhaps quite controversial, questions. The aim of this paper is to review recent empirical findings related to these questions, which have strong policy implications, and to offer some new evidence from Korean micro-data. The paper explores a plausible channel through which exporting could have made both a substantial and a persistent contribution to export-oriented economic growth in Korea and by extension other East Asian NIEs: namely, the spillovers (or externalities) of learning-by-exporting. Plant-level data for Korean manufacturing show that more export-intensive industries tend to have a higher productivity level. In addition, a substantial part of the variance in plant-level productivity is explained by the variance in industry-level export intensity. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that there exist spillovers of learning-by-exporting at least in some industries. As with the existence of the more usual intra-industry R&D spillovers, which are also demonstrated here, this raises the policy questions of how to get more benefits from such spillovers, whilst minimizing any side-effects from any policy intervention. As in the case of other types of positive externalities, in theory a market solution will lead to a sub-optimal level of externality-generating output (in this case exports), indicating that government action could improve upon the market outcome. This is the implicit logic behind the active role played by the Japanese government or by the Korean government at earlier stages of their economic development. (Needless to say, however, the existence of such externalities does not justify the abuse or misuse of government intervention in the market.) It should also be emphasized that competition in one segment of the market may not be a permanent substitute for competition in other areas. In other words, dynamic efficiency gains from competition in the export market cannot be fully realized and sustained without emerging competition in other areas of the economy. An export-oriented development strategy has been highly successful for Korea, and some other countries in East Asia, in the past, but lack of competition outside the export market, partly due to insufficient institutional development in areas such as the capital market, the labor market, and the market for corporate control, restricts the productivity gains from exporting. Perhaps this is one important lesson to be learned from the long economic stagnation in Japan and from the financial crisis in Korea and other East Asian NIEs.
Citation
Ahn, Sanghoon. 2005. Does Exporting Raise Productivity? Evidence from Korean Microdata. © Asian Development Bank Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/11540/4173. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.Keywords
Industry
Development Economics
Economic Models
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Securities
Mines
Competition
Industrial competition
Unfair competition
Monopolies
Competition policy
Development cooperation
Economic discrimination
Industrial Development
Financial Services Industry
Industrial Sector
Competition
Comparative economics
Communication in economic development
Industrialization
Monopoly
Barriers to entry
Monopolistic competition
Restraint of trade
Price discrimination
Imperfect competition
Press monopoly
Diversification in industry
Unfair competition
Investment banking
Show allCollapse
Citable URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11540/4173Metadata
Show full item recordUsers also downloaded
-
Annual Report 2014: Operational Data
Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 2015-01-01)The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special funds, and a record $9.24 billion by cofinancing partners. Disbursements totaled $10.01 billion, an increase of $1.47 billion (17%) from 2013, and the first ...The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special funds, ... -
Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction Annual Report 2013
Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 2015-05-18)The Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction’s (JFPR) Annual Report 2013 is the 13th such report and covers the period 1 January–31 December 2013. It presents the JFPR’s background and rationale, implementation progress, and achievements. The JFPR was established in May 2000 and provides direct grant assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable groups in developing member countries (DMCs) of the Asian ...The Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction’s (JFPR) Annual Report 2013 is the 13th such report and covers the period 1 January–31 December 2013. It presents the JFPR’s background and rationale, implementation progress, and achievements. The JFPR was ... -
Handbook on Resettlement: A Guide to Good Practice
Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 1998-06-30)Bank-funded projects that change patterns of use of land, water, and other natural resources can cause a range of resettlement effects. Resettlement losses most often arise because of land acquisition, through expropriation and the use of eminent domain or other regulatory measures, to obtain land. Housing, community structures and systems, social networks, and social services can be disrupted. ...Bank-funded projects that change patterns of use of land, water, and other natural resources can cause a range of resettlement effects. Resettlement losses most often arise because of land acquisition, through expropriation and the use of eminent domain ...